Robert Bennett

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I point out the CBO makes the same point at these 10 years. Again, quoting the CBO letter, talking about the 10 years following, when you have the full 10 years of expenditures instead of just 5 or 6 years of expenditure, it says: Under the legislation federal outlays for health care would increase during the 2010-2019 period, as would the federal budgetary commitment to health care. So those who are saying this is going to be a saving to the government and you are going to turn the cost of health care--turn the cost curve with respect to health care down, the CBO has said: No, that is not the case. The Federal commitment would go up in those years. Again, by delaying the implementation of the expenditure while implementing immediately the implementation of the revenue, they are creating the kind of financial chicanery that, as Senator McCain has said, put Bernie Madoff in jail.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, if I could share with Senators this statistic. We hear a lot of talk about everybody has to be covered. We talk about the United Kingdom, where they have a plan where everybody is covered. The cancer survivor rate for women with breast cancer in the United Kingdom, after diagnosis, is 57 percent. The cancer survivor rate in the United States, where we have people who are not covered, is 67 percent. I do not think we want to move in the direction of bringing that rate down.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I would like to share another statistic in this whole circumstance that I think we need to focus on because, back to the Broder column Senator McCain talked about, we are talking about the amount of expenditures and the creation of a new entitlement. Let's go back to the debate on the budget. We got the numbers that said the projected revenue for fiscal year 2009 was $2.2 trillion. The entitlement spending for 2009 was $2.2 trillion. That means everything we have done in government--our embassies overseas, our military, the national parks, education, whatever it is--absolutely everything in 2009, other than entitlement spending, had to be borrowed money. What are we doing with this bill? We are going to increase entitlement spending. We are going to increase the role of government that this Congress or future Congresses have no direct control over through the appropriations process. I have been chairman of an appropriations subcommittee. The amount we have control over in the Ag Subcommittee is about $17 billion. The total bill was $80 billion. The rest of that $80 billion was off-limits to the Appropriations Subcommittee because it was on autopilot as entitlement spending. The entitlement spending for farm subsidies is small potatoes, to use a farm subsidy word, compared to the entitlement spending for health care. So facing the kinds of deficits we are facing, facing the runaway entitlement spending we have, the largest portion of which is entitlement spending for health care, what are we being told to do? Increase the entitlement spending for health care and put future Congresses in an even deeper financial bind by taking even more of the total portion of the Federal budget that is outside the appropriations process and putting it on autopilot. That is the issue we must keep in mind as we look at this whole circumstance.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I wish to make the point, again, following up on what the Senator from Tennessee has had to say, that the argument we are hearing from the other side is a false argument when they say it is either this bill or the status quo and the Republicans have nothing to offer. We have been offering proposals all along. I have been immersed in this for 3\1/2\ years, cosponsoring, with my Democratic friends, ideas on the way to go forward. Those proposals were not even allowed to be considered in committee. The 2,000 pages we see before us were written without a single Republican knowing where the room was, let alone being in the room. Then we are told: But you stand for the status quo, and the status quo is unacceptable. I repeat what I said earlier: The way this bill is constructed, the status will remain quo until 2014, as far as benefits are concerned, but the taxes will start immediately. But we all know the revenue that comes from those taxes will not be held in trust to pay for the benefits in 2014. They will go for other things, to pay for the $1.4 trillion deficit we have this year. Then, in 2014, when the expenses start, the money will all have been spent that had been brought in, in the 4 years previously, and, as the CBO says, there will be change. I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I enjoyed listening to my colleague from Maryland. He says to us repeatedly the status quo is not acceptable. I agree with that. I would point out to him that the bill that has been presented to us by the majority leader guarantees the status will remain ``quo'' until 2014. This bill delays implementation until 2014. For 4 years the status will remain ``quo'' on key provisions.

Mr. BENNETT. I am happy to yield.

Mr. BENNETT. I understand, but the key provisions of the bill that cost significant money are postponed until 2014. Why? Because unless you make that postponement you cannot get the score down to the point where it is in the majority leader's bill. The challenge is that the real cost of health care is substantially more than this bill demonstrates as it comes out of the Congressional Budget Office. Why? Because the Congressional Budget Office is required by law to give costs over a 10-year period. If this whole thing started at the time the bill was passed and ran for the whole 10 years, the cost would be so high that it could not be offset with the programs that have been put in the bill. So the easy way to save costs and bring it down below the level that is acceptable is to delay the implementation until 2014. We saw that in the Finance Committee. The Baucus bill moved the date of implementation from January 1, 2013, to July 1, 2013, to save money. Now the Reid bill moves it from July 1, 2013, to January 1, 2014, an entire year of additional ``savings.'' These are not savings at all. These are simply a delay in the implementation and therefore a delay in the expenditures. I want to move to the point the Senator from Mississippi was making with respect to the impact of this on the national debt and the national deficit. The last time we had a budget from President Bush, the last Bush budget said the total expenditures would be $3.1 trillion. President Obama's budget called for expenditures of $3.6 trillion or \1/2\ trillion more. OK, \1/2\ trillion more, you would assume, therefore, that the deficit that would occur would be roughly \1/2\ trillion more than the Bush deficit. But the last deficit of the Bush administration, before the financial crisis hit us, was $116 billion. That is .1 trillion of the $3.1 trillion. And the first deficit of the Obama administration is $1.4 trillion. You say: Wait a minute. Those numbers do not add up. The reason they do not add up is, we can control how much we spend, but we cannot control how much we take in. How much we take in is a function of the economy. Let's go back to the budget that was submitted and passed by the Obama administration and passed on the floor of the Senate by the Democratic majority. It projected $2.2 trillion in revenue, and it projected $2.2 trillion in entitlement spending, mandatory spending. That meant that everything else in government had to be borrowed. Money for the Defense Department had to be borrowed, the State Department, all of our embassies overseas, all of that money had to be borrowed. The money for transportation, for the Federal Aviation Administration had to be borrowed. The money for national parks had to be borrowed. The money for education had to be borrowed. It wasn't that the expenditures went up an extra $1\1/2\ trillion to get a $1.4 trillion deficit. It was that the revenues went down. Yes, the expenditures did go up. The expenditures under the Obama budget went up roughly $\1/2\ trillion from the expenditures under the Bush budget. But the big problem was, the revenues went down at the same time. The cautionary tale that comes out of this is, again, we can control how much we spend, but we cannot control how much we get in. That is a function of the economy. Money does not come from the budget; money comes from the economy. When the economy is weak, as it is now, we are going to have deficits, no matter how big an effort we make to try to avoid them, because the money simply doesn't come in. The reason I make that point is because, back again to the numbers that we realized when we were debating the budget, the money coming in was $2.2 trillion and the money already committed in entitlement benefits that the Congress did not deal with in the appropriations process was $2.2 trillion. What we will do, if we pass the bill the majority leader has introduced or will introduce, is to increase the amount of mandatory spending, increase the commitment of the Federal Government to make expenditures in the health care area that will be beyond the reach of the Appropriations Committee, that will be going out whether or not we have the money coming in to pay for them. I know the score out of CBO says this will save money for the Federal Government, but let's get into the details of what the CBO had to say to see how much it would save and see why it would save. The CBO says, about the longer term calculations with respect to this bill: These longer-term calculations assume that the provisions are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is often not the case for major legislation. I think that is one of the understatements of the year. Major legislation does not often go unchanged for two decades. Congress will add goodies. Congress will delay some of the tax provisions. We see that every year with respect to the legislation known around here as the doc fix. It is in the law right now that every year we cut reimbursements to doctors under Medicare, and every year the Congress comes in and says: We won't do it this year. The doc fix comes in and says: We will change this earlier situation. That means any score that depends on our not passing a doc fix is going to be wrong. CBO says that. Again: These longer-term calculations assume that the provisions are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is often not the case for major legislation. We keep hearing how the costs are going to come down. What does CBO have to say about that? This is the quote that has to do with what I was talking about with respect to expanding the Federal commitment for entitlement spending in health care. Quoting again from CBO: Under the legislation, federal outlays for health care would increase during the 2010-2019 period, as would the federal budgetary commitment to health care. The Federal budgetary commitment to health care will increase. So how do we get a score that says we will save money? You get the score because you have projected revenues that will increase. You have tax provisions in there that say we will get the money from this tax, we will get the money from that tax. Then it will be a saving to the Federal Government. It is not a saving to the Federal Government; it is a raising of Federal revenues above the commitment to spend. But as I pointed out in the beginning, the raising of Federal revenues is not an automatic thing upon which we can depend. It is dependent upon the economy. What happens if we make the commitment to the spending and then the economy is not good and the revenues do not come in at the level CBO is projecting? These are all assumptions CBO is making, feeding into the computers. The computer cannot and does not project any kind of economic downturn, any kind of recession, any kind of problem. It just says: If, if, and if, you will get this number. And then they plug that number in, and that number says it will be big enough to pay for all of this. But make no mistake, what CBO says on the side where we can control it, the spending side, it says it would increase the Federal budgetary commitment to health care. So once again we have entitlement spending. We have the demand for money going out going up on the hope that the revenues coming in will somehow be greater than the amount going up, and therefore we can project that this will save the government money. How accurate has CBO been in the past with respect to the spending side? Well, we can go back to Lyndon Johnson and Joe Califano, who created Medicare, and take their original projections as to how much Medicare would cost. I have given that speech on the floor before. The answer is, Medicare costs 20 times more than was projected at the time it was put in place. We could do the same thing with Medicaid. It is not quite that big, not quite 20 times. SCHIP, whatever it is. With the exception of Medicare Part D, which was a Republican initiative, every single time the Federal Government has put in a Federal program for medical activity and medical expenditures, the actual expenditures have exceeded projections, sometimes 20 times exceeding it, going back to Medicare. That is the spending side. We cannot produce that kind of money on the revenue side because we cannot really control the amount of revenue that comes in. The amount of revenue that comes in is a function of the economy. Once again, where are we this year? Mr. President, $2.2 trillion in revenue, substantially below the amount of revenue that came in in the Bush administration. It is not Bush's fault that there was more or less. It was the economy that made a downturn. And if we think in this body we can repeal the business cycle and see there will be no more downturns in the future, we are really kidding ourselves. There will be downturns, and there we will be, with the commitment in place, the increase in the Federal budgetary commitment to health care, without the revenue to pay for it. This is CBO again: The long-term budgetary impact could be quite different if key provisions of the bill were ultimately changed or not fully implemented. If those changes arose from future legislation, CBO would estimate their costs when that legislation was being considered by the Congress. In other words: We will make no attempt to guess what is going to happen in the future, but we can tell you that any kind of tinkering with this in the future is going to make all of our predictions wrong. That is the logical thing for them to say, it is the prudent thing for them to say, and it is the accurate thing for them to say. There are many things about this bill that I don't like. I am convinced it will increase premiums for those who currently have health insurance. There is no way it can produce the kinds of results my friend from Maryland talked about of covering 30 million more people and cutting costs for everybody in Middle America without costing a lot more money someplace else. One of those places is going to be either in your tax responsibilities or in increased premiums or in the States. We all know how the Governors feel about this proposal. The Governors have said this proposal will bankrupt us by the rolling of Medicaid costs onto the States--not Republican Governors, it is Democratic Governors who have come forward and said: We can't handle this. So there are lots of things about this bill I don't like. But I believe the score that has been put together is not an honest one. I am not accusing CBO of doing anything wrong. I am accusing those who wrote the bill of putting in provisions so that we will delay this implementation there, we will call for this tax here and the score that goes there and so on. And it ends up that when we feed all of that information into the computer and then say: O mighty computer, none of this will change, what is the number, the computer gives you a number, but it is a number based on assumptions that are based on smoke and mirrors. There is an old saying: Where there is smoke, there is fire. This bill has a lot of smoke in it, and, in my opinion, it is the American people who are going to get burned. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, as we approach the commemoration of Veterans Day, I rise to speak in recognition of veterans across the country, but particularly those in Utah. In doing this, I wish to be careful to not allow the regularity of this topic diminish its significance or make our veterans seem ordinary. Those who know them best know they are anything but. When speaking of our veterans, perhaps we remember news clips of heroic jungle rescues, a frozen, rocket-blasted hill, or soldiers fighting bravely in the searing heat of the desert. We rightly celebrate them for what they did, but more than that--let us celebrate them for who they are. As meaningful as words of praise may be, they often are all we give to our veterans. It is too rare when we can present our veterans with a gift--a concrete reminder that this Nation honors those individuals who fight to keep us free. Today, I am especially pleased to recognize the opening of the George E. Wahlen Veterans' Nursing Home in Ogden, UT. On November 19, officials and the public will gather to commemorate the opening of the nursing home and present this impressive facility to the veterans of northern Utah. As with any major accomplishment, the list of people to thank stretches long, including public officials from local, State, and Federal Government, particularly State Representative Brad Dee and State Senator Pete Knudson who sponsored the legislation that made this all possible. However, I would also like to recognize two Utah veterans, whose contributions made this project a reality. Terry Schow is a Vietnam veteran and the director of the Utah Department of Veterans Affairs. His efforts to reach out to his fellow veterans are not confined to his professional obligations. Rather, his passion and unmistakable tenacity give power to his fundamental belief that kind words simply are not enough when it comes to caring for our veterans. Determined to make sure that all veterans receive the support they deserve, Terry was instrumental in seeing that no bureaucratic or logistical obstacle prevented the creation of the veterans' nursing home. Finally, I wish to speak of the late George Wahlen. A World War II veteran and recipient of the Medal of Honor, George passed away on June 5, 2009, just 5 months before completion of the facility that he fought so hard to establish. Along with several of his colleagues, George made the repeated trek to the Capitol building in Salt Lake City, UT, to persuade legislators of the need to provide funding for a veterans' nursing home in northern Utah. It is noteworthy that in fighting for the needed funding, George never sought any personal benefit. He never knew the nursing home would be named in his honor. Instead, at a time when he could have retired and spent his life in comfort and quiet, he chose to take up this cause, a symbol of his dedication to the service of his fellow veterans. After numerous meetings, phone calls, and hearings, the persistence of George as well as dozens of other veterans paid off when on January 24, 2008, the State House, and later on February 29, 2008, the State Senate voted unanimously to advance all funding for the construction of the facility. This measure was then signed into law by Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr. on March 18, 2008. For George Wahlen and Terry Schow, their work for their country and fellow servicemen did not end when they became veterans. These two men have inspired many of us in Utah by their integrity, character, and passion to ensure our country returns the favor for the many sacrifices made by our servicemen and women. You see, it is not that George or Terry or any number of veterans did this one single thing or that. What sets them apart is the character which leads them to do it again, and again. When honoring our veterans this Veterans Day, let us not forget their valiant acts of courage--but may we always remember their character. As a Senator, I am acutely aware of the many issues that face veterans. I am sure each of us would like to give them more. But, while much remains to be done, let the George E. Wahlen Veterans' Nursing Home in Ogden, UT, stand as undeniable evidence that America is a nation that honors its veterans.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Madam President. We are in a time when we are talking about money; we are talking about debt; we are talking about taxes; we are talking about stimulus; and we are talking about health care. I wish to put the whole situation with respect to money into some perspective. Having been a businessman, I did my best to try to draw up a balance sheet for the United States. This is a very simplified balance sheet. It is in summary numbers only. But by going to the Federal Reserve Board and the Social Security and Medicare trustees and the Census Bureau, I have come up with the following balance sheet for citizens of the United States. We start out with assets and liabilities. These are personal assets and personal liabilities. It is amazing to me that the number of household assets on a per-person basis is this high, but it is. If you take all of the personal assets in the United States, lump them together, and then divide them by the number of people in the United States, you get personal assets of $218,000 per person, and personal liabilities or household debt of only $45,000 per person. So the balance sheet looks pretty good. However, as citizens of this country, we have debt beyond our personal debt. So when we add the national debt and each individual's share of it to the balance sheet, that adds an extra $37,982, so that the amount of debt goes up when you add each individual's share of the national debt. The national debt is not the only debt we have. Let's add State and local government debt on a per-person basis, and it goes up another $7,500. But that is not the only debt we have. We have obligations, each one of us, with respect to Social Security. There is a Social Security liability and the present value of that Social Security liability is another $17,251 per person. All right. It still looks like a pretty good balance sheet. With the assets at $218,000, this is about half. But there are two other liabilities we have to put on the balance sheet. The first one is the present value of Medicare hospital insurance. Over the next 75 years, the present value of that unfunded liability is $43,616 per person, almost as much as the total amount of debt that each one of us has as an individual. Now the balance sheet is looking a little scarier. But we have one more item we have to put on the balance sheet, and that is the present value of Medicare supplemental medical insurance, and that is another $79,095 per person. So when you add it all up, this is the balance sheet we are facing today: $218,000 in assets, and $231,000 in liabilities. If this were a corporation with this balance sheet, we would say the corporation is underwater. As we begin to break this down, we realize that the Medicare liability is more than everything else put together. The Medicare liability is more than our personal debts, our share of the national debt, our share of State and local debts, and our share of Social Security. The Medicare liability is more than all of that put together. Is it any wonder, then, that the No. 1 issue we should be talking about when we are talking about health care is how to get the health care costs under control; to use the terms that the budgeteers use, how to turn the cost curve downward on health care. We can talk about earmarks. We can talk about spending on appropriations bills. We can talk about holding down discretionary spending on other issues. All of those things are worth talking about, but they are dwarfed by the challenge of turning down the cost curve on health care. I have said this before, but it still works: One of the statements that has gotten into American folklore is a statement attributed to Willie Sutton. Willie Sutton was a bank robber. Not very many people knew much about his robbing banks, but he kept doing it. He would get arrested, he would get out on parole or he would leave prison and he would rob another bank. Finally someone said to him: Willie, why do you keep robbing banks? He said: Because that is where the money is. If we are going to talk about the balance sheet that every American faces in debt and debt obligations, we have to talk about health care because that is where the money is: more for health care liabilities than everything else put together. Let's discuss this question of turning the cost curve down. How good a job have we done as a government in making projections as to the cost of health care? On the second chart, let's look at the years and at the projections. In 1965 when Medicare was first proposed, we made a cost projection. We, the government, made a cost projection as to how much it would cost us, and that is represented by that red bar there on that chart. Then the actual numbers came in, and they are represented by the green bar on the chart. Let's look at 1965 Medicare hospital insurance. That is a separate program. The cost projection is there in the red bar; the actual figures that came in are in the green bar. In 1987, we added Medicaid, and the Congress told the people: Medicaid won't cost much at all. You see, it is hard to find even on the chart. The actual cost was 17 times the projection that was made. In 1988 we added Medicare for home care. It was going to cost a little more. Once again, the gap between the red bar and the green bar--it has always cost more. We did a little better with SCHIP, but SCHIP is still a relatively new program, created in 1997, so the disparity between the projection and the reality is relatively small, but, once again, the reality has been greater than the projection. There is one exception, and that is Medicare Part D, and that is the final pair there. The red bar shows what was projected that Medicare Part D would cost and the green bar shows, almost magically, this one costs less than the projection. Why? I wish to quote from an editorial in the Wall Street Journal where they quote from White House Budget Director Peter Orszag. Peter Orszag was the head of the Congressional Budget Office at the time that cost projection was made. This is what the Journal has to say: But as White House budget director Peter Orszag told Congress when he ran the Congressional Budget Office, the ``primary cause'' of these cost savings is that-- quoting from Orszag the pricing is coming in better than anticipated, and that is likely a reflection of the competition that is occurring in the private market. I will repeat that: That is a reflection of the competition that is occurring in the private market. The Journal goes on to point out something I recall, because I was here during that debate. I was part of that debate. The Journal says: Liberal Democrats fought that private-competition model (preferring government drug price controls), just as they are trying to prevent private health plans from competing across state borders now. The lesson here is that spending on nearly all federal benefit programs grows relentlessly once they are established. This history won't stop Democrats bent on ramming their entitlement into law. But every Member who votes for it is guaranteeing larger deficits and higher taxes far into the future. Count on it. The history of cost containment with respect to health care is not a pleasant one. The history of predicting what health care will cost is not a pleasant one. The only example we have where costs have come in lower than projected has been in that circumstance where competition in the private sector has been protected. That has been the core of the bill Senator Ron Wyden and I have introduced as the Healthy Americans Act: private competition absent a government plan. We look at the history and see that will turn the cost curve down. That will begin to save money. CBO examined our bill. Peter Orszag was the head of CBO when they looked at our bill and said it is revenue neutral--that is a good start--and then likely to save money in the future. They didn't put a number on it, but the Lewin Group has put a number on it and said that the Healthy Americans Act, cosponsored by Senator Wyden and myself, would save $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years. I don't know whether that number is right or wrong. I do know. It is wrong. I don't know how far wrong it is. But the point is it demonstrates turning the cost curve down rather than turning the cost curve up. And that is what we have to do, as our balance sheet reminds us so dramatically. Let me talk briefly about the idea of a government-run plan, a public option, or whatever it is we want to call it, as the way to turn the cost curve down. Once again, the history of government plans is not encouraging as far as turning the cost curve down as we look at Medicare and how little it was supposed to cost and how dramatically much it has cost. Let me quote Robert Samuelson from his column that appeared in the Washington Post recently: Medicare has low marketing costs because it's a monopoly. But a non-monopoly public plan would have to sell itself and would incur higher marketing costs. Private insurers' profits (included in administrative costs) also explain some of Medicare's cost advance. But profits represent only 3 percent of the insurance industry's revenue. Moreover, accounting comparisons are misleading when they don't include the cost of Medicare's government-supplied investment capital. So we are trying to mix apples with oranges when we say, look at the low administrative costs with Medicare and the high administrative costs with private insurance. Medicare can do it cheaper. Every projection about Medicare doing it cheaper has demonstrated not to work out. Samuelson says this: The promise of the public plan is a mirage. Its political brilliance is to use free-market rhetoric (more ``choice'' and ``competition'') to expand government power. But why would a plan tied to Medicare control health spending, when Medicare hasn't? . . . A favored public plan would probably doom today's private insurance. I think that is true. That is one of the reasons I am opposed to that kind of thing. Samuelson goes on to make this final comment: Many would say: Whoopee! Get rid of the sinister insurers. Bring on a single-payer system. But if that's the agenda, why not debate it directly? It's not insurers that cause high health cost; they're simply the middlemen. It's the fragmented delivery system and open-ended reimbursement. Would strict regulation of doctors, hospitals and patients under a single-payer system provide control? Or would genuine competition among health plans over price and quality work better? That's the debate we need. I agree. That is the debate we need. That is the debate that focuses on, how do you get this cost curve under control? How do you start to turn it down? How do you get the kind of score that Senator Wyden and I have gotten from CBO that says our plan is revenue neutral and that others say will save $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years, compared to the cost history of government-run plans that say they are only going to cost this much and end up costing that much and driving us to this kind of present value liability--twice as much as everything else put together. That is a staggering thing to contemplate, but that brings us back to what I said in the beginning. The core of this debate should be focused on how we turn the cost curve down. I have one more comment to make with respect to that. As I have worked with Senator Wyden over the last 3\1/2\ years to try to understand this issue and come up with solutions to it that make marketplace sense rather than political sense, I have come to a great truth that we don't seem to be discussing in this debate at all, and that is this: The greatest cost control factor in health care is quality. The best health care is the cheapest. And we have built into the system now incentives that drive us away from the best care. Most of the perverse incentives that drive us away from the best care and to the highest costs are in Medicare. They are in the Medicare system that has gone 10 times, 20 times above its original cost, and they are still there, and the care they produce is less than the maximum care people can get when they go to the places that give us the best health care. It is parochial for me to repeat this, but I am happy to do it on every occasion. Dartmouth has done a study as to where the best care is available throughout the United States, and they said it is in three cities: Seattle, WA; Rochester, MN; and Salt Lake City, UT. And then they say that if every American got his or her health care in Salt Lake City, UT, it would be the best in the United States and one-third cheaper than the national average, and that is because of a variety of reasons. They practice the best health care, and they have focused on outcomes rather than the kinds of perverse incentives that are built into government-run programs. We have a lot to do and a long time to go before this health care debate is finished, but I hope we recognize that hanging over us, regardless of everything else we say with respect to health care, is the fiscal reality that our current value obligations for health care dwarf every other debt we have in the United States. Personal household debt, the national debt, State and local debt, and Social Security debt all put together do not add up to the amount of health care debt we are facing. The challenge of turning the cost curve on health care down is the No. 1 issue we should be addressing as we are talking about this. The irony of it is, if we are successful based on what we know, we can get the cost curve down and produce a better health care outcome and result. I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, it has been a little over a year since a group of us met in the Foreign Relations Committee room headed by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, to talk about the financial crisis we were facing and how we would deal with that. We came out of that meeting, held a press conference where we sounded perhaps more optimistic than we should have at the time about having a solution to that problem. And out of that has come now a name that is well known throughout the country called TARP. We did not call it that at the time. But we talked it through in a completely bipartisan and substantive way and voted for the rescue package that came out of that discussion. I voted for that package. I voted for the original disbursement of TARP. I stand by that vote a year later. It was the right vote, the right situation, the right time, and the right thing to do. But I will share now some of the thoughts that went into my participation in that particular meeting and some of the things that came out of it. In anticipation of the meeting, I called some people whose judgment I trust and discussed this. I was told Treasury cannot physically push $700 billion out the door. You cannot sign that many contracts. That is far too much money. The suggestion I made was: Why don't we give them $50 billion, because I was told that is the most they could spend in any one month. Why don't we give them $50 billion for 5 months or $250 billion and see how it works before we buy into the $700 billion number that Secretary Paulson was talking about. No, Secretary Paulson let us know he had to have $700 billion as the headline. He could not calm down the markets, the international markets, unless he had a number that big. We talked it over in that room and came up with this solution, which I think was a good one. We would give them a $700 billion headline, because we authorized $700 billion, but we actually only gave him $350 billion and said he would have to come back to the Congress for the second 350. Also in that group--and it was not by any means my suggestion or anyone else's suggestion--it was overwhelmingly the consensus: We have to put some controls in here. We have a congressional oversight committee that we created. We have to create an inspector general. I remember one of the members of the group saying: I do not trust any Treasury Secretary, no matter how bright he is, with $700 billion and absolutely no reporting or transparency or control situation. One of the things that was discussed and that I thought was put in the bill was that when the money starts to come back--because, understand, TARP was not a bailout program in the sense that we gave money to people never to recover anything. It was a program where we were acquiring things, either acquiring collateral or acquiring stock. When the money starts to come back, it will be used to pay down the national debt. If we are going to expend $700 billion to stabilize the system, when the $700 billion comes back, it goes to reduce the debt that was created when it went out. That was my understanding of the agreement we made. Well, I voted for the TARP and I voted for the first $350 billion. After we came to the second tranche, the second $350 billion, listening to the inspector general and listening to what the congressional oversight committee had to say, and looking at how well the first $350 billion had worked in stabilizing the situation and getting us past the panic we were facing, I voted against the second $350 billion because I was afraid it would turn into somewhat of a bailout fund that could be used for things other than acquiring assets that could be liquidated and bring money back to the Treasury. That is indeed what has happened, because much of the money went for things very different than that which we were talking about in that room that morning. The amendment I will offer to the bill, when we get on the bill, will be to sunset TARP at the end of this year. This is where we are. Treasury is sitting on about $370 billion in the TARP fund right now. The recession certainly is not over and the challenge in our economy is still there with tremendous force. But the crisis we were facing when we had that meeting is over, and Treasury, to deal with that kind of a crisis, no longer needs that money. The fear I have is that Treasury is starting to recycle the money and it is not going to pay down the national debt. It has become something of a slush fund to say: All right, if we have a circumstance here where we wish to spend some money, we cannot get it from the Congress, let's take it out of the TARP. If there is a situation over here where we think it might be helpful, and we cannot get the Congress to support us, let's take it out of the TARP. The temptation, sitting on $370 billion, to spend that money, is overwhelming. When Secretary Geithner came before the Banking Committee or the Joint Economic Committee--I am sorry, I cannot, with my memory right now, put the exact committee to it--the question arose about repaying the national debt rather than recycling the money. He said the lawyers from the Treasury Department had looked at the act of Congress, and they made it clear we in the Congress had made it clear the money could be recycled, it could be relent, it could go out again. That came as a great surprise to me because I thought the conversation we had in that room, as the bill was being written, made it clear the money had to go to pay down the national debt. But I am not in a position to sue the Treasury and argue with their lawyers, and even if we did over the actual meaning of what was in the bill, it would take so many years to adjudicate there is no point in it. But it comes as a great surprise, as I say, to me that as the money comes back in--and money is coming back in from TARP--it does not go to pay down the national debt, and that it is being treated as a revolving fund, almost a revolving credit card, if you will, that the Treasury can use for the purposes it deems well. So I will offer an amendment that will sunset TARP at the end of this year. I will point out, the inspector general and the congressional oversight committee we set up on that occasion still have a number of questions about TARP and the way it is being used, and there is great concern that the transparency we had hoped for is not there. I had come to the decision to offer this amendment for myself and Senator Thune--and we will do so, if we are allowed to, when we get on the bill--long before the Wall Street Journal offered an editorial. But on October 27, the Wall Street Journal had an editorial entitled ``Rolling up the TARP,'' which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. BENNETT. The lead paragraph I wish to quote. It says: The Troubled Asset Relief Program will expire on December 31, unless Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner exercises his authority to extend it to next October. They obviously did not know about my amendment or I am sure they would have endorsed it. We hope he doesn't. Historians will debate TARP's role in ending the financial panic of 2008, but today there is little evidence that the government needs or can prudently manage what has evolved into a $700 billion all-purpose political bailout fund. We supported TARP to deal with toxic bank assets and resolve failing banks as a resolution agency of the kind that worked with savings and loans in the 1980s. Some taxpayer money was needed beyond what the FDIC's shrinking insurance fund had available. But TARP quickly became a Treasury tool to save failing institutions without imposing discipline (Citigroup) and even to force public capital onto banks that didn't need it. This stigmatized all banks as taxpayer supplicants and is now evolving into an excuse for the Federal Reserve to micromanage compensation. I think we take the decision for Secretary Geithner and we sunset TARP on December 31, and that will be the amendment I will offer when we get on the bill. Exhibit 1 [From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 27, 2009] Rolling Up the TARP The $700 billion for banks has become an all-purpose bailout fund. The Troubled Asset Relief Program will expire on December 31, unless Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner exercises his authority to extend it to next October. We hope he doesn't. Historians will debate TARP's role in ending the financial panic of 2008, but today there is little evidence that the government needs or can prudently manage what has evolved into a $700 billion all-purpose political bailout fund. We supported TARP to deal with toxic bank assets and resolve failing banks as a resolution agency of the kind that worked with savings and loans in the 1980s. Some taxpayer money was needed beyond what the FDIC's shrinking insurance fund had available. But TARP quickly became a Treasury tool to save failing institutions without imposing discipline (Citigroup) and even to force public capital onto banks that didn't need it. This stigmatized all banks as taxpayer supplicants and is now evolving into an excuse for the Federal Reserve to micromanage compensation. TARP was then redirected well beyond the financial system into $80 billion in ``investments'' for auto companies. These may never be repaid but served as a lever to abuse creditors and favor auto unions. TARP also bought preferred stock in struggling insurers Lincoln and Hartford, though insurance companies are not subject to bank runs and pose no ``systemic risk.'' They erode slowly as customers stop renewing policies. TARP also became another fund for Congress to pay off the already heavily subsidized housing industry by financing home mortgage modifications. Not one cent of the $50 billion in TARP funds earmarked to modify home mortgages will be returned to the Treasury, says the Congressional Budget Office. As of the end of September, Mr. Geithner was sitting on $317 billion of uncommitted TARP funds, thanks in part to bank repayments. But this sum isn't the limit of his check- writing ability. Treasury considers TARP a ``revolving fund.'' If taxpayers are ever paid back by AIG, GM, Chrysler, Citigroup and the rest, Treasury believes it has the authority to spend that returned money on new adventures in housing or other parts of the economy. A TARP renewal by Mr. Geithner could thus put at risk the entire $700 billion. Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R., Texas) and former SEC Commissioner Paul Atkins sit on TARP's Congressional Oversight Panel. They warn that the entire taxpayer pot could be converted into subsidies. They are especially concerned about expanding the foreclosure prevention programs that have been failing by every measure. TARP inspector general Neil Barofsky agrees that the mortgage modifications ``will yield no direct return'' and notes charitably that ``full recovery is far from certain'' on the money sent to AIG and Detroit. Mr. Barofsky also notes that since Washington runs huge deficits, and interest rates are almost sure to rise in coming years, TARP will be increasingly expensive as the government pays more to borrow. Even with the banks, TARP has been a double-edged sword. While its capital injections saved some banks, its lack of transparency created uncertainty that arguably prolonged the panic. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson recently admitted to Mr. Barofsky what everyone figured at the time of the first capital injections. Although they claimed in October 2008 they were providing capital only to healthy banks, Mr. Bernanke now says some of the firms were under stress. Mr. Paulson now admits that he thought one in particular was in danger of failing. By forcing all nine to take the money, they prevented the weaklings from being stigmatized. Says Mr. Barofsky, ``In addition to the basic transparency concern that this inconsistency raises, by stating expressly that the `healthy' institutions would be able to increase overall lending, Treasury created unrealistic expectations about the institutions' conditions and their ability to increase lending.'' The government also endangered one of the banks that they considered healthy at the time. In December, Mr. Paulson pressured Bank of America to complete its purchase of Merrill Lynch. His position is that a failed deal would have hurt both firms, but this is highly speculative. Mr. Barofsky reports that, according to Fed documents, the government viewed BofA as well-capitalized, but officials believed that its tangible common equity would fall to dangerously low levels if it had to absorb the sinking Merrill. In other words, by insisting that BofA buy Merrill, Messrs. Paulson and Bernanke were spreading systemic risk by stuffing a failing institution into a relatively sound one. And they were stuffing an investment bank into one of the nation's largest institutions whose deposits were guaranteed by taxpayers. BofA would later need billions of dollars more in TARP cash to survive that forced merger, and when that news became public it helped to extend the overall financial panic. Treasury and the Fed would prefer to keep TARP as insurance in case the recovery falters and the banking system hits the skids again. But the more transparent way to address this risk is by buttressing the FDIC fund that insures bank deposits and resolves failing banks. The political class has twisted TARP into a fund to finance its pet programs and constituents, and the faster it fades away, the better for taxpayers and the financial system.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am pleased to come to the floor and recommend passage of the energy and water conference report for the fiscal year 2010. Despite the President sending up his budget in May, nearly 4 months after the budget had been traditionally sent to Congress, this subcommittee worked hard to produce a conference report that is ready earlier than any that I can remember. I compliment my chairman, Senator Dorgan, for his hard work in developing a balanced bill in a legitimate time period. The subcommittee produced a bill that is under the President's budget request by nearly $1 billion. That is quite extraordinary in this world where we are trying to shovel more money out the door, to come in with a number that is less than the request of the President. The House and Senate bills differed significantly in their priorities, but I believe the conference report before us balances the funding interests of both bodies and those of the administration as well. The Corps of Engineers remains an area of great interest. The budget request for the corps is down $277 million from fiscal year 2009. The conference report has restored $320 million to meet the large number of member requests, and the conferees allocated $313 million to work off significant construction backlogs. The Senate bill did not include new starts in the mark. Both the House and the administration proposed new starts, so we had to resolve that issue in the conference. The conference provides $100,000 per project in new starts in this bill. Turning to the Bureau of Reclamation, the budget request was $55 million below fiscal year 2009 levels. The conferees provided an additional $67 million for the Bureau of Reclamation, which is 6.3 percent over the request and 1 percent over fiscal year 2009. Once again, as the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation has a tremendous backlog of underfunded and meritorious projects, and we did our best to try to work into that backlog. Finally, as to the Department of Energy, the conference report recommends $27.1 billion for the Department of Energy, which is $1.3 billion below the President's request and $318 million above the current year. We cannot ignore the fact that $44 billion was provided in stimulus funding for the Department this year, including $16 billion provided for renewable energy accounts. That is why we have been able to make the changes we did. In restoring balance to the energy programs, the committee recommends an additional $25 million for nuclear energy R&D, including an $85 million increase for the Nuclear Power 2010 Program. With respect to the concerns raised by the Senator from Oklahoma, I point out the Senate adopted his amendments by unanimous consent. I was in support of those amendments and would be happy to support them again as they come in other appropriations bills. The reaction on the part of the House was that there were two amendments proposed by the Senator from Oklahoma: one they were willing to accept and one they were not. We had to make a decision as to which of the two we would support and, with Senator Dorgan, I supported one of the amendments of the Senator from Oklahoma that made it into the conference report. I am sorry we were unable to get the other one in, but we did our best and we would be happy, as I say--at least I would be happy; I will not speak for the chairman--I would be happy to support this at some point in the future. I yield the floor and whatever remainder of the time I may not have used I ask accrue to Senator Dorgan.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, along with my colleague, I noticed, with great interest, the headline in this morning's paper that said the Congressional Budget Office has said the health plan that is coming out of the Finance Committee will not increase the deficit. I thought: That is a little bit hard to believe. Then I looked at the details, and all of this reminded me of a scene out of an old movie. The movie is not worth talking about, but the scene is worth talking about to describe what is happening. It was a circumstance where a spendthrift husband comes home to a frugal wife with a new car. The wife takes one look at the new car and says: Why in the world are we doing this? We can't afford a new car. He said: No. Remember, we got that windfall. There was an inheritance that came through. We got some extra money. We can afford the new car, and it will not add--to use the terms of politicians--a dime to the deficit because we have this windfall coming in and we can spend it on the new car. She said: Are you kidding? The roof is leaking. The college fund for the kids is empty. Our house payments are in arrears. We got that windfall. We could take care of some of these other problems. We don't need a new car. Well, he said: We got the money and I have already spent it on the car and there is nothing you can do about it now. As it turned out in the movie, the new car got repossessed later on because he had only made a downpayment on it, and they could not afford the payments to keep the car. Why do I say the health care debate reminds me of this scene from the movie? The Federal debt is rising. The deficits from the regular appropriations bills are enormous. We are wallowing in red ink in the Federal Government. But this bill is not going to add to the deficit because we found $1 trillion as a way to pay for it. We found $1 trillion someplace else we can use to pay for this bill. We can buy this new car, and, OK, the roof is leaking, the college fund is gone, the house payments are in arrears, but somehow we have a trillion extra dollars that we think is best spent on the new car. If the new car is that much better than the old car, maybe the case could be made that we should take this $1 trillion and spend it on the new car. What do we get for $1 trillion from the Baucus bill? The $1 trillion, which, if it is available to make this thing deficit-neutral, could very well be spent in balancing other budgetary problems and paying down the national debt and doing other things with it. If we do have $1 trillion to spend here, what are we getting for it when we are spending it entirely on the Baucus bill? Well, we are getting a continuation of defensive medicine because there is no significant malpractice reform, tort reform in this bill. In his speech to the Congress, President Obama said: I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. I do not want to argue with the President that much because I was delighted when he said that, and I was on my feet applauding with others for that particular statement. I would say, defensive medicine not ``may be'' contributing to unnecessary costs; defensive medicine ``clearly is'' contributing to unnecessary costs. But we are not dealing with that in the Baucus bill. We are raising $1 trillion somewhere else so we can continue business as usual with respect to defensive medicine and malpractice awards within our present system. So the new car is no better than the old car. It is costing us a lot more money, but it is no better than the old car. Are we getting coverage of the 47 million Americans whom we hear about over and over again in the debate, when they say: Well, the whole purpose we have to undertake this is because we have 47 million Americans who do not have health care coverage. Are we getting them taken care of? Do we have room for them in the new car? Well, not really. According to the paper this morning, we are going to get 29 million of the 47 million taken care of, which means roughly 20 million left out. We can go into the details of who the 47 million are. As we do, we find out it is a very mixed bag of people who are just passing through that category, people who deliberately choose not to be there. If we are spending $1 trillion just to get to 29 million out of the 47 million, we are not getting a very good new car. We are not getting an improvement over what we have already. Again, that $1 trillion could be spent in a much better and wiser way. If, indeed, we have an extra $1 trillion we can spend on health care--if, indeed, we do have an opportunity to buy a new car--this is the kind of thing we could get for the $1 trillion, if we said: All right, we have an extra $1 trillion lying around, let's put it in health care. We could double cancer research funding; we could provide treatment for every American whose diabetes or heart disease is going unmanaged; we could create a global immunization campaign to save millions of children's lives; and we would still have enough money left over to keep doing these programs for at least a decade and probably more. That is what we could get for a new car in the form of health care reform, if we were willing to spend the trillion dollars on trying to improve people's health. Instead of trying to improve people's health, we are simply trying, through this bill, to keep the present system as it is. I have heard my friends from the other side of the aisle say repeatedly: The present system is broken. The present system is not an acceptable alternative. The present system must be changed. I say: Hooray. I agree. I just wish the Baucus bill would deal with the present system. I just wish the Baucus bill would give us, in fact, a new car rather than simply replacing the old car with a duplicate of the old car that happens to cost an extra $1 trillion. So I am hoping that as we move things forward, we can make some significant changes in it because at the present time what we have here is a program that would spend Federal cash for a clunker. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Vitter for proposing this amendment. It follows the idea of the bill I introduced a few weeks ago that is now S. 1688, the Fairness in Representation Act. My bill, obviously, will not pass before we get so far down the road to deal with this issue. So it is appropriate for the amendment to be offered, and we can accomplish the same thing with the amendment that would happen if my bill were to pass. Since my bill was introduced, I have had three primary objections to it. I wish to deal with each of those, because they would probably be raised with respect to this amendment as well. No. 1, you cannot ask somebody who is an illegal alien to identify himself or admit that he is here illegally when you are doing the census calculation. Well, it may surprise some people to know that the Census Bureau already asks for this information. It collects it on the ongoing American community survey. That is not as comprehensive as the entire census. If it were, we wouldn't need to do it here. But the Census Bureau already has a track record of asking this question without running into that particular difficulty. The information collected by the census is 100 percent confidential under penalty of law, and the census takers can make that clear to any individual who might be concerned about that. So that is not a major problem. No. 2, people say, well, since the census data is used to determine funding levels for a variety of programs, and since the illegal aliens get involved in the funding, if you do this, you will be cutting funding for State programs that service the illegal aliens, and that is not fair. The reality is that this amendment, and my bill, do not cut funding. There is nothing in the bill that would say that funding formulas would change. This is an attempt to find out how many illegal aliens we have in this country and where they live--the statistical information, which we do not fully have now, as a result of the American community survey. We have a hint at it in the American community survey, but we are extrapolating for that and making a guess. Since the census is a once-every-10-year attempt to discover what America is like, who the Americans are, and where they live, it seems to me very logical that the census should add this particular piece of information to it. Well, after these two arguments have been made and dismissed, the third argument--and we get this most strongly from the people at the Census Bureau--is that it is too late, too bad; you should have brought it up earlier, Senator Bennett, but we started to print our surveys already and we cannot reprint them; it is too late. I wonder if they have ever thought of printing an extra sheet or extra card. You don't have to reprint the whole survey if you have one additional question you want answered. I have seen books where there have been errors in the book that have come out after the book is published with an errata sheet--that on page so-and-so this particular entry is not correct. It is not that big a deal for the Census Bureau to do some kind of addendum that could be printed and made available so we could solve this particular problem. All right. Aside from knowing, what do we intend to do with this data if we get it? Senator Vitter made reference to this in his discussion of the amendment. I want to use it today to deal with the question of the apportionment of the voting powers in the House of Representatives. If we go back in history, we find there was no more controversial issue in the writing of the Constitution than the question of representation in Congress. Small States wanted it by State. Large States wanted it by population. The great compromise came along that created this body and said that membership in the Senate would come by State, and membership in the House of Representatives would come by population. But it was left up to the State legislatures to determine how that population would be apportioned. Each State was given a number of representatives based on the population. But the State legislatures could determine where the lines were drawn and how the districts would be created. We had a situation develop over time where States would draw a line and simply leave it. People would move from one congressional district to the other, but the line would not be changed. There was a situation where there were many congressional districts whose representation, numerically, was substantially less than that of some other congressional districts in the same State. This brought about a lawsuit that went before the U.S. Supreme Court. In the decision in the case of Reynolds v. Symms, issued in 1964, the Supreme Court gave us the one man, one vote rule, which said that the districts should be close enough in population that, in effect, every voter had the same weight of representation in the House of Representatives. If we have this tremendous number of illegal aliens concentrated in a few States, we have an impact of changing the one man, one vote dictum of the Supreme Court; that is, a State with a large number of illegal immigrants will see to it that its voters have greater representation than voters where the illegal immigrants are not. All we ask in this amendment and in the bill I proposed is that the Census Bureau be instructed to ignore the presence of illegal aliens when allocating the number of representatives in a State. As I say, it has nothing to do with the funding of programs, because the programs have to be funded where the people are, and we understand that. I believe it is entirely constitutional that the allocation of the congressional seats can be done on the basis of those who are here in a legal circumstance. As the Senator from Louisiana has pointed out, this is not a trivial matter. There will be eight States that will lose representation to four States if this is not done. Four States' voters will be overrepresented in the House of Representatives because of the large population of illegal immigrants in those four States, and nine States will be underrepresented because of the fact that their voters do not happen to live in a State where there is a large population of illegal aliens. I am happy to join my colleague from Louisiana in cosponsoring this amendment. I hope our colleagues in the Senate will see fit to support it. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, NASA is at a very difficult crossroads right now in determining the future of human space flight, and I would like to talk about that. NASA is in the process of deciding where to put its full support and funds--whether it should be behind the current Constellation Program or whether it should change course and go in another direction. The Augustine Commission has announced some recommendations and described them both but leaves it up to NASA to make the decision as to where it will go. I am very concerned NASA will agree with those recommendations that will relate to access to the International Space Station and will affect low-Earth orbit in these difficult budgetary times. We have just finished the space station. So the time comes now to decide how to use it to its greatest advantage. The space station was built with the shuttle program, and it has always been understood that the space shuttle will be retired next year. After that happens, we will be relying upon Russia to get our astronauts into space. The original plan was that once the shuttle was retired, the next vehicle to get us into space would be the Ares I. That is the pivotal point where the decision has to be made: Shall we go ahead with Ares I? I am very concerned that NASA may want to divert precious resources from the Ares I program in the hope that the commercial space industry can fill the void. Well, it is disconcerting to me because we have a successful track record of the Ares program but a less than desirable record of the commercial space industry. We have invested over 4 years and $6 billion in the Ares I and Orion programs, and it is on track. Just last month, we had a successful ground test of the new Ares I rocket in Utah. Later this month, NASA will conduct the first flight test--on track to deliver a safe, reliable rocket. Changes in NASA's plan should only be made if alternatives are available to provide significant advantages in cost, schedule, performance, and safety. The program that is working should not be dropped unless those advantages are very clear, and as of now there are no credible alternatives. To me, it makes sense to stay committed to a program we have already invested billions of dollars in and which has met its significant benchmarks. Right now, the Ares I is the only credible solution we have for getting crew and cargo services into space once the shuttle is retired. The Ares I system came out of the Gehman report that followed the Columbia accident, recommending that the shuttle be replaced with a launch system that would maximize crew safety. Aries will achieve those standards. The system builds on an existing manufacturing infrastructure that builds on our strengths. We already have the industrial base to go ahead with Ares. We do not have to invent anything new. We paid for the research. Why would we forego years of successful research and billions of dollars in the promise of an untested method of getting into space? Why would we take the gamble? If it turns out the hope that the commercial people could fill the void is wrong, we will have lost the industrial base that preserves our existing alternative to the commercial system. What will NASA do then, if that which they might place their hopes in turns out to fail, and they have dismantled the program we now know works? How much money would we save if we were confronted with that situation a few years down the road? We risk losing the industrial base that is paramount to American competitiveness. I know I will be accused of being parochial because a good portion of that industrial base is in my home State of Utah, but that does not lessen its significance or its competence. The Ares program takes advantage of facilities and an already-trained workforce that has made the most reliable rockets in the world, having flown and tested over 200 of these solid rocket motors. We are already seeing reductions in our manufacturing base in this circumstance in Utah. Just this last week, 550 more people who would be critical to NASA in maintaining that base have lost their jobs, and if we abandon the Ares program, we could lose thousands more. Yes, I am interested because it is important to my State, but I am equally, if not more, interested because I think it is important to the Nation not to take this kind of gamble. I seriously urge the administration to take a look at the bird they have in their hand, the bird that has flown over 200 times successfully, and not be too excited about the bird that may lie waiting for them somewhere in the bush. I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I will not prolong this a great deal, but I need to stand as Orrin's junior colleague and acknowledge not only all the things the two leaders have acknowledged, but the great friendship I have experienced coming here as a Senator. Orrin, we shall now reveal, was somewhat enamored of my opponent when I ran the first time. He, at the same time, in great fairness, reached out to me to become acquainted with me, and after we had a particular problem arise in that campaign, Orrin reached out to my opponent and settled that problem with the kind of diplomacy and capacity he always has. From that time forward, I could not have had and could not have wished for a more reliable or more supportive senior colleague than Orrin Hatch. I am senior to him when it comes to age. You wouldn't think that, but it happens to be true. But never at any time has he treated me as anything but a complete equal. He has acted as a mentor. I am grateful to the two leaders for their setting aside this time. I wish to join with them in congratulating Orrin on his 12,000th vote.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have said repeatedly that I would vote against my own bill, even if it were to pass the Senate unanimously, unless there were an ironclad guarantee--iron is not strong enough; carved in marble guarantee--from the President that he would veto a conference report that came back that did not have the kinds of protections I think my bill has. I agree completely with the Senator from Arizona. The big fear is that we craft something in the Senate that is reasonable and then submit it to a conference and it comes back in a conference report that is not amendable and gets passed by a majority vote here and we are stuck with it. As important as it is that we try to get the Senate bill right, we must recognize that there are two Houses of Congress. At the moment, the other body is not showing the degree of analysis we are trying to get going here in the Senate. The House bill is completely unacceptable. If I could pick up on the comment about the consequences of what is being done with respect to Medicaid, I will add the experience from the State of Utah to the experience that has been referred to for other States. In Utah, an expansion of Medicaid, as outlined in the Finance Committee bill, would mean anywhere from an additional $150 million to $248 million to Utah taxpayers. I realize that in a State such as California that is multiple billions of dollars in debt, an extra $150 million to an extra quarter of a billion is not a lot of money. But in Utah, it is a significant amount. We need to pay attention to the fact that every State is facing those kinds of significant increases. I call the attention of the Senate to an analysis that is in today's Congressional Quarterly, dated September 30, talking about the bill as it is moving through the Finance Committee. I quote: Under current law, taxpayers can deduct expenses that exceed 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income. Under the Baucus original proposal, that floor would have been raised to 10 percent, starting in 2013. Then further: According to data from the Joint Committee on Taxation, 45 percent of the taxpayers affected and 53 percent of the revenue from the change would come from people 65 and over. So for those who are asking--and we read about them in the paper all the time--why are the elderly upset, they have Medicare? The elderly are smarter than that, and they recognize that 53 percent of the increase that would come as a result of these proposed changes would come from them.

Mr. BENNETT. They certainly are going to want us to read the bill and be honest with them as to what is in it. They are going to want us to go into the managers' package, into the small details that usually are considered technical and get passed over, and be very specific in saying to our constituents: We know what is in the bill, and we are being very upfront with you in telling you what is in the bill. One of the things we need to be upfront about is the amount of increase this will cost seniors and the amount of impact it will have on States. States will then have to turn around and raise their taxes, and seniors will pay twice, with the increase at the Federal level and the increase at the State level.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I will make this comment with respect to the remarks of the Senator from Tennessee with reference to the CBO. We need hard numbers, but we do have a preliminary understanding already. The Director of the CBO, Mr. Elmendorf, was asked if it is true that the fees established in the bill would ultimately be passed on down to the health care consumer, and his response: Our judgment is that the piece of legislation would raise insurance premiums. If we go more deeply into the CBO analysis, we find that not only would premiums in the individual market be higher than under the proposed reform, but taxes on insurers and drugs and devices would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums. Finally, CBO also says that the premiums would be extremely high even after the proposed reforms because taxpayers would be subsidizing expensive plans. We clearly need the kind of careful analysis that clothes these comments with actual numbers. Without those, how can we vote with any kind of clarity on the proposal before us.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, as I listen to all of the discussion about health care, I have come to several conclusions. No. 1, there is a 100-percent bipartisan agreement that something has to be done. But No. 2, there is a growing strong bipartisan agreement that this bill is not the something that should be done. From the New York Times: The first big fight over the Senate Finance Committee's health care legislation erupted Tuesday night: a rollicking brawl over a deal that the Obama administration cut with the pharmaceutical industry to achieve $80 billion in saving on drug costs over 10 years, money that would help pay for the legislation. Top House Democrats have hated the deal from the get-go. Senate Democrats are now bitterly divided. . . . This resonates with the comment that the Republican leader made where he says the only truly bipartisan thing about this bill is the opposition to it. I think this demonstrates that we need to slow down, start over, and do it right. We have heard many speeches saying we can't wait. We see people carrying signs: ``Health Care Reform Now.'' We have just heard from the Senator from Nebraska that this bill will give us health care reform not now--4 years from now. Four years is a long time to wait. We can do it faster than 4 years, but we can do it faster only if we slow down, start over, and do it right. We can do it in this Congress if we slow down, start over, and do it right. What are the things on which we need to start over? The looming challenge in this whole debate is cost. The numbers that are being thrown around are astronomical, and we still don't know exactly what they are. These are still estimates. The Senate Finance Committee has not reduced their proposal to legislative language. The CBO says: We can't give it a score until we get legislative language, and by the time we get the language, it is at least 2 weeks before we can produce a score. Yet we are being told we must pass this bill next week? Slow down, start over, and do it right. We are going to pay for it, we are being told, by taking $500 billion out of Medicare. And every study of Medicare says at least $500 billion is being wasted, so that is easy. Let's take $500 billion out, and we will solve the problem. We can take $500 billion out of Medicare with a meat cleaver, and that means we are cutting the programs that are good in Medicare, the things about Medicare that work as well as the things that do not work. Maybe we should slow down, start over, and do it right by taking the $500 billion out of Medicare with a surgeon's scalpel rather than a meat cleaver and spend the time to find out where the money is being wasted, how it could be changed, where the incentives need to be altered so that the $500 billion comes out of the right part of Medicare instead of with a slash with a meat cleaver. Medicare is not the only one where more careful examination could produce significant savings. We are told that Medicaid in 2007 spent $30 billion improperly. If we extrapolate that over the 10-year period that we use to make these projections, that is $300 billion that could come from Medicaid. Are we going to take a meat cleaver to Medicaid and say we are going to arbitrarily cut $300 billion out of Medicaid in the next 10 years because there is a study that says that much is being wasted or are we going to listen to the Governors, bipartisan, Democrat as well as Republican, who are telling us: What you are doing in this bill on Medicaid is going to bankrupt the States because they simply cannot sustain the kinds of increases that are built into it and nothing will be done about the $30 billion of waste and abuse that is there. How are we going to get at it? How are we going to discover what that $30 billion is? How are we going to deal with it in a way that does not bankrupt the States? To answer that question, we need to slow down, start over, and get it right. If I can be provincial and parochial for just a moment, my home State of Utah has done a great amount of work on health care. They have been very entrepreneurial and innovative. They have come up with ideas to deal with health care, ideas from which we at the Federal level could learn a great deal, but we cannot learn anything from the experimentation that is going on in the States if we continue this rush to an arbitrary deadline, to get this thing done within a couple of weeks. The States have great experience with this. There is much the States can teach us. There is much the Governors need to tell us before we rush to spend this much money, which means we should slow down, start over, and do it right. As I talk with the businesses, as I talk with my constituents in Utah, I come back to the same thing I said at the beginning. There is a 100-percent bipartisan agreement that something has to be done. Our long-term challenges with health care are absolutely unsustainable, to use a Washington word. That is another word for disastrous. We have to deal with this, and we have to deal with it in an intelligent way. The numbers are very large, and we have to recognize the stakes are very high. But that is, again, the message that comes from those who will be most affected by what we do, either in their businesses or their personal lives or their tax returns. It is very important that we get it right; and if we are going to get it right, we have to start over. If we are going to start over, we have to slow down. That is the wisdom this body should adopt as it deals with this challenge so that we can change the reality of where the bipartisan agreement is. Instead of the bipartisan agreement growing in opposition to the bill, we need a circumstance where a bipartisan agreement will grow in support of a bill that will solve our problem. The bill before the Finance Committee is not that bill, and a large number of Members of this body of both parties are increasingly coming to that conclusion. I yield the floor.