Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I rise to speak on the budget deficit and a mechanism this body has embraced in two prior budget agreements that I think it is time to put in place now. It is called the CARFA mechanism, the Committee on Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies. It is a BRAC process on spending. We passed it in the budget resolution twice, with votes on both sides of the aisle for it. What it does is it basically says: OK, we have to look at all of the Federal Government. Places that aren't working, we need to eliminate, and the rest, then, we can use to pay down our debt and deficit. If there were ever a time to do this, this is the time. I have argued for a decade that we need to do this, and I put this bill forward for a decade. This is my last year in the Senate, and I hope we can get it done this year. It has received bipartisan votes, as I mentioned, two times before in the budget. It is a simple mechanism. What it does, it is an eight-member commission, four appointed by each side of the House and the Senate. It has to pass by--six of the members, of the eight have to vote to put forward the recommendations of the commission. It takes a fourth of the Federal Government each year and it recommends spending cuts in that fourth. That is then referred to the appropriate committees, and then within 30 days after the commission reports out, it is subject to a privileged motion, that the actual recommendation of the commission must be voted on by Congress. It then has a limited timeframe for debate without amendment, and you get a vote up or down--very similar to the BRAC process that we have followed for many years on base closing and realignment. I might remind my colleagues, that BRAC process, while creating consternation across the country, has now saved us $60 billion. We have had several places in Kansas that have been closed in that BRAC process, but we have also had consolidation of troops and operations at, say, Fort Riley that have gained by that, and we have an economy and we have a better aligned military. This is the same process. It is only on spending, it isn't on taxes, and it is applied now to the full breadth of the government, discretionary and mandatory spending. So it is everything included within a BRAC process. It is a supermajority within the commission itself. Six of eight members must sign on to it, so you cannot get it just gamed one way or the other. It is a simple majority once it gets to the body; it is under the privileged motion. It isn't a 60-vote point of order, it is a 50-plus-1 vote to be able to get it on through this body, and a majority in the House. This is a tried-and-true practice. It doesn't include tax increases, and my other colleagues are putting forward a commission process as well that does include tax increases which a number of people have a great deal of difficulty with and certainly people across the country have difficulty with. This is not the time nor the economy for us to be talking about tax increases. We have been pounding away at that for a long period of time, but clearly people are saying: No new tax increases. I think they certainly would say that prior to us going through our own spending. There is nothing that prevents this body from passing a tax increase. We can pass it at any point in time. But I think, to have any validity, you would have to go through the Federal spending first and say: Let's cut the spending before we even look at the tax increase side of this equation. That is what this does. This looks at the spending piece of the equation, not at the tax piece of the equation. We owe that to the American public. If there is going to be any credibility of saying we need to raise taxes, which I don't think we need to, but if there were to be any credibility, you would have to first go through Federal spending and say: We have cleaned out everything we can. I, frankly, believe there are a number of Federal agencies that could take a major reduction and that we could end up with better government. I want to point this chart out to you. This is a report card that the Federal Government does on itself on the effectiveness of its programs given the design they were based on in the Congress. The OMB does this. They do this on an annual basis. They take different agencies each year and rate them for total effectiveness of that program. And you can see we have a couple of agencies here. We have a 100-point scorecard. The best one is the State Department which gets a 79.47 grade average. We have the Education Department at 49.91. We have the Labor Department at 58.14, of an average grade score of the programs reviewed within that agency, within Labor, 35, within Education, 93. My point in saying that is that my guess is that within the 35 programs, we can find quite a few there that actually should be eliminated, that are not hitting the target, that are not getting the job done. This is the process we went through with military bases. For instance, in my State, we had a munitions plant that was closed down near Parsons, KS, and we had a munitions plant near the Kansas City area that was closed. These plants were providing services. They were doing legitimate functions for the military. But the military said: We can consolidate this in one place and save money and close these plants down, and then we will turn the land back over to private and public entities. That is what is taking place. We have done that across the country, creating a more efficient military installation process. It had a negative impact on a couple of my communities, but now we are kind of dealing with those issues and working hard on them. But we have a better structured military. What if we did that in the rest of the Federal Government? And we clearly should do that at this point in time. We are looking at a Federal deficit, a government-run Federal deficit of $1.472 trillion--116 percent greater than the 12-month period ending December 31, 2008. I have asked my colleagues to consider this amendment in the Federal debt limit ceiling, for us to go back to this process that has already passed this body in budget votes before, but we have never been able to get a vote that would take it all the way through the system. So my colleagues are very familiar with this process. It has worked. Let me repeat that. It has worked before for us. It will work again. We are not building from scratch. We already have some scorecards. And we have to start taking care of this. This is the legacy we are leaving our grandkids--deficits that are running in huge quantities. The first thing to do in a deficit is--if you are digging a hole, you have to stop digging--stop spending, stop spending in the wasteful areas. There is nothing that drives my constituents more crazy than wasteful government spending. People look at that, and it is just mind- boggling to them. This is a legitimate process to get at wasteful spending in a process we have approved before, and it is clearly time for us to do it. With this sea of red ink, anybody in this body who has been a Governor has looked at these sorts of issues and said: OK, first, where can we cut our spending? And you would look at that. This does that process. The CARFA project and the CARFA bill and the CARFA structure go at spending first, and that is the first place you would look, and you would certainly look there before you would look toward any tax increases. I think this is something whose time has come and this is something this body really should support. I would also point out that the route we are going right now, with massive increases in spending and sharp drops in revenues--you talk about bending cost curves down, let's bend this cost curve down on spending by the Federal Government. That is what CARFA can do in a bipartisan, fair process, not just one side or the other saying, cut here, cut there. It is looking at all of the Federal Government, and it is then putting it in a process where we make recommendations--the commission makes recommendations on spending first. Address spending first. That is clearly what our constituents want us to do. They want us to look at spending. That is not a partisan statement, that is what the public wants us to do, and to get at the wasteful pieces of it first. So I would urge my colleagues, in this bill--I hope we are going to be able to get this up as a piece of it, an amendment, the CARFA bill that has been voted on previously, and that we will have a chance for people to say: Yes, let's go at spending, let's go at spending. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I am glad to join my colleagues in talking about the health care bill. If you looked in the New York Times today, there was a full-page ad describing the bill. I am putting it up here, the same thing that was in the New York Times today. It starts with the question, I want to receive care from my doctor. This, on one page, puts the 2,600 pages in kind of what you are going to see with this bill. It is convoluted. It is difficult. It is expensive. This is what you are going to get. This was in the New York Times today. This is where I sit or this is what is going to happen to me in this overall system. It is no wonder the American public doesn't want this. They are not excited about this. They are not excited about what it is going to do to the budget--$2.5 trillion. That is about $700 million a day, if you are counting in millions a day as one way to look at it. There are some interesting things hidden within the bill. One of the things I want to point out is the transfer of wealth from young people to old. One of the things that has really bugged me about what we have done in so many of the government systems here--it has been a wealth transfer from younger people to older. Several of my children are students and working part-time jobs, and they are paying payroll taxes. They say: What is this payroll tax going to? I say: Well, talk to your grandparents and tell them to say thank you to you. These are funds collected that are going to pay for their retirement funds. They do, and the grandparents say thank you. But it doesn't seem to be satisfying to them because they are saying: Why aren't I putting this in something I am saving money for me so that I can have something later on instead of this sort of, OK, I am paying and they are getting. What is going to be there when I get there? That sort of wealth transfer from young people to old people continues in this bill. Look at this wealth transfer. Younger workers will pay more for health insurance premiums so that older workers can pay less. Their cost at age 25 will go up 25 percent for health insurance premiums. If you are 64, it will go down 20 percent for health care. This is another one of the wealth transfers that take place. It isn't right. It is taking from the kids. It is taking from the grandkids. It should not be continued. It is continued in this bill. You can look at it another way: Subsidies in this bill go disproportionately to older Americans. Average subsidies for the 55- year-olds are nearly 10 times that of a 25-year-old. A 25-year-old gets a subsidy of $458, a 55-year-old gets a subsidy of $4,427--another wealth transfer from younger to older. Then you can look at the claims in this bill that there are going to be tax cuts for the middle class. That is if you are in the lucky group. For every low-to-middle-income family with a tax cut, three low- to-middle-income families have a tax increase in this bill by the structure of this bill, by this structure, this convoluted, difficult- to-navigate, hard-to-understand, expensive, $2.5 trillion structure. That is where we stand. Likely to pass this body and then go to the House of Representatives where there is a major issue that is still brewing, difficult, and must be dealt with, and that is the issue of public funding of abortion that is in this bill. If you want to cut some of the cost out of this thing, why don't you take some of those expenses out of this. That would be one way to cut back some of the expenses. But in the House bill, they included Stupak language which continued the Hyde tradition and law of the land that the government will not pay for abortions other than cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. Except now buried in the Senate bill, in the Reid amendment, is the public funding of abortion, which we haven't done for years. Yesterday I talked to both Congressman Stupak and Senator Nelson. They both agree that the Stupak language is far superior. It doesn't publicly fund abortions, whereas what is in this bill now does. You don't need to take my word. Here is what others have said. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, who want a health care bill but are opposed to the public funding of abortion and opposed to abortion, say: The bill is morally unacceptable unless and until it complies with longstanding current laws on abortion funding such as the Hyde amendment. We voted on this floor for the Nelson-Hatch amendment which is now not in the bill. You don't have to take that. You can take Bart Stupak, Democrat from Michigan, who voted for the bill in the House. He says: It is now not acceptable. A dramatic shift in Federal policy that would allow the Federal Government to subsidize insurance policies with abortion coverage. The American public doesn't want that either. The latest poll of December 22 shows that 72 percent of Americans oppose using any public money in the health care overhaul to pay for abortion, including 54 percent of Democrats and 74 percent of Independents. That is where they are. That is where the public is. National Right to Life, which is the gold standard on standing up for life, says: The Reid managers amendment requires that all enrollees in an abortion covering plan make a separate payment into an account that will pay for abortions. The bill also contains language that is intended to prevent or discourage any insurer from explaining what this surcharge is to be used for. Moreover, there is nothing in the language to suggest that payment of the abortion charge is optional for any enrollee. This base bill has another thing in it: It takes the individual opt- out and moves to it a State opt-out. So while let's say Kansas may opt out of the abortion funding in the bill, they still have to pay their taxes that go to another State to pay for abortions there which are equally offensive to my people or other States that don't want to see this funding take place. It doesn't address the issue of having preventive services include abortion. There was discussion that we are not going to include preventive services in it, but that is not in the language. There was discussion. We tried an amendment. That is not there. It can still be defined. Now it may ultimately unwind the entire bill based upon the funding of abortion that is in the Senate bill. It will be up to House Members, a number of whom are very concerned and quite fired up about this particular piece, to take this out. I know Congressman Stupak is working to do that, wants to see that done, agrees with Senator Nelson that his language is far superior, actually does that. It is supported by the Catholic Bishops, the National Right to Life, and other pro-life groups that say the way to go is the Stupak language. It is not what is in the Senate bill. The Senate bill will actually fund abortions. Then we go through the specifics, as I have in here, of the various places that it has. I met with Senator Nelson about those specifics. I have addressed a number of those concerns. I know he continues to work on it, but at the end of the day this is one of those babies you cannot split. You need to have the Stupak language in this bill. I am afraid at the end of the day that is not going to be in there. I know Congressman Stupak is pushing very hard for its inclusion, and I wish him all the best. If this legislation passes this body, it is going to be up to the House of Representatives to put in that Stupak language. And they can do it. It is my hope they will do it. I do not think the overall bill should be passed, but certainly you should not have this piece of funding in this bill, in breaking the longstanding work we have had in the Hyde agreement, in the Hyde language. Thank you very much, Madam President. How much time do we have remaining on our side?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, in that concluding minute, what I would like to briefly speak about is the overall process. I think there are people in this body who did not want to include things such as abortion funding in the bill. But when you operate in a closed process like this, these sorts of things end up happening because the people who work on these issues are excluded. I certainly was not consulted. I am not saying anyone said: Well, look, we are not going to get your vote anyway, so we do not need to have it. But if you do not want to have abortion funding in it, one should look past that and say: Let's get the people who understand and work on this issue-- and we agree, we should not have it in there; that is what President Obama said; it should not be in there--and let's see what language passes by their muster. That was not done. Unfortunately, that is part of what has happened in this process. I think it is tragic that it has happened that way in this process. I think it is wrong. I think it builds a bill that then people are not satisfied with, and certainly a process they do not agree with that takes place in this overall bill. It is still not too late. There is still time to address these issues, now that we have the bill to be able to look at. If people of good faith on the other side want to get these addressed, there are ways, and we have the language on how to address it. It is called the Stupak language. It has already passed the House of Representatives. It is called the Nelson-Hatch amendment that was debated here, although it was not passed. We can do that. It is important that it get done. This bill is not supported by the American public, and particularly this funding piece that is so offensive to so many Americans. We can debate about abortion, but the government should not be funding it, and that is agreed to by over 70 percent of the American public. I just ask my colleagues on the other side, as you move on forward with this--if this bill passes here--take this piece out. We know what language is agreed to and works. This piece can be taken out. It can be taken out yet. And I think the whole bill may unwind if it is not taken out--unwind because of a number of Democrats who voted for the bill on the House side who want the Stupak language, and they do not want the inferior language that was put in on the Senate side that will actually allow and start the funding of abortion, that we have not done for 30 years. Madam President, I thank my colleagues and yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would also like to highlight a section of this conference report that means a great deal to many American Indian tribal leaders in this country, to several of my colleagues and to me personally, the Native American apology resolution. I am very pleased to report that with the addition of this language in the defense appropriations conference report, we--the United States of America--will officially apologize for the past ill-conceived policies and maltreatment by the United States toward the Native peoples of this land. With the passage of this language, we, as a Nation, will reaffirm our commitment toward healing our Nation's wounds rooted in a difficult past of Federal-tribal relations and work toward establishing better relationships rooted in reconciliation and forgiveness. Native Americans have a vast and proud legacy on this continent. Long before 1776 and the establishment of the United States of America, native peoples inhabited this land and maintained a powerful physical and spiritual connection to it. In service to the Creator, Native peoples sowed the land, journeyed it, and protected it. The people from my State of Kansas have a similar strong attachment to the land. Like many in my State, I was raised on the land. I grew up farming and caring for the land. I and many in my State established a connection to this land as well. We care for our Nation and the land of our forefathers so greatly that we too are willing to serve and protect it, as faithful stewards of the creation with which God has blessed us. I believe without a doubt citizens across this great Nation share this sentiment and know its unifying power. Americans have stood side by side for centuries to defend this land we love. Both the Founding Fathers of the United States and the indigenous tribes that lived here were attached to this land. Both sought to steward and protect it. There were several instances of collegiality and cooperation between our forbears--for example, in Jamestown, VA, Plymouth, MA, and in aid to explorers Lewis and Clark. Yet, sadly, since the formation of the American Republic, numerous conflicts have ensued between our government, the Federal Government, and many of these tribes, conflicts in which warriors on all sides fought courageously and which all sides suffered. Even from the earliest days of our Republic there existed a sentiment that honorable dealings and a peaceful coexistence were clearly preferable to bloodshed. Indeed, our predecessors in congress in 1787 stated in the northwest ordinance: ``The utmost good faith shall always be observed toward the Indians.'' Today we live up to this goal, today, we right a wrong that has been committed in this Nation. This amendment extends a formal apology from the United States to tribal governments and Native peoples nationwide--something we have never done; something we should have done years and years ago. Further, this resolution will not resolve the many challenges still facing Native Americans, nor will it authorize, support or settle any claims against the United States. It doesn't have anything to do with any property claims against the United States. That is specifically set aside and not in this bill. What this amendment achieves is recognition, honor, and the importance of Native Americans to this land and to the United States in the past and today and offers an official apology for the poor and painful path the U.S. Government sometimes made in relation to our Native brothers and sisters by disregarding our solemn word to Native peoples. It recognizes the negative impact of numerous destructive Federal acts and policies on Native Americans and their culture, and it begins--begins--the effort of reconciliation. Apologies are oftentimes difficult, but like treaties, go beyond mere words and usher in a true spirit of reconciling past differences and help to pave the way toward a united future--a future that transcends the individual but strives to reach into eternity. The notion of the creation of the ``Beloved Community'' that Dr. King spoke of . . . that my good friend representative John Lewis speaks of is very appropriate at this moment for this time. ``The end is reconciliation, the end is redemption, the end is the creation of the beloved community.'' This is our goal; this is my hope for our Nation united as one people.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I appreciate the chance to hear my colleague from South Dakota speak and talk about the bill. Statements he has made I am in agreement with. This is a huge bill the American public doesn't want. Gallup polling finds 61 percent of the American public oppose the Senate Democratic health care bill. In Kansas, I find widespread opposition--much higher than that. You can look at these numbers and quickly see why. Just one of the pieces of it--the Medicare cuts--will hurt Kansas. There is a 63.7-percent cut in Medicare Advantage. The benefits will affect more than 1 in 10 of Kansas Medicare beneficiaries. Those cuts are to the point that the program will no longer exist. There is $1.5 billion in cuts to Kansas hospitals--many of our rural hospitals operating on the margins, on the edge. They get cuts. There is $239.8 million in cuts to home health agencies. This is going to put over 60 percent of them out of business in a 10-year timeframe. They don't like this. Great Christmas present. There is an 11.8-percent cut in hospice payments. Hospice? Of all things to cut. It is a program that has been helpful to so many people late in life, and it is being cut. There is $124.2 million in cuts to skilled nursing facilities. All of those are things being cut directly to Kansans, directly to people who benefit under current programs, and this is all to start a new entitlement program--cuts Medicare and raises taxes, neither of which we can afford. Medicare is already scheduled to go bankrupt, as we well know, so this is like writing a big fat check on an overdrawn bank account and saying we will come up with the money. It is not going to work. It is going to take money from Medicare. It is going to raise taxes in a weak economy. It is going to hurt overall. One of the issues that has come down to be one of the final pieces of this that the Democrats have put forward is the issue of funding of abortion. We have had 30 years of agreement in this body and in this Capitol that the Federal Government would not fund abortions other than in cases of rape, incest, and saving the life of the mother. That was it. Thirty years ago, the Hyde amendment was put in place. It said we would not fund abortions. There was a big debate in the country about abortion, but there has been no debate about funding of abortion. We said we are not going to fund it. Taxpayers should not be funding abortions. If people want to do that, that is their choice on elective abortion. We are not going to fund it. In this bill, we are going to break that amendment for the first time in 30 years. What the President said in the joint session of Congress is no longer true. This will not be true if this passes in this bill. What the President said in the joint session of Congress: One more misunderstanding I want to clear up. I was listening. Under our plan no Federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and Federal conscience laws will remain in place. I point out that he said ``no Federal dollars'' and ``Federal conscience laws will remain in place.'' He said he wanted to clear up the misunderstanding. This is not the case. We just got the managers' amendment recently, so this has been feverishly where we have had to go through what is actually in the managers' amendment. What you will find is that all the major pro-life groups are opposed to the managers' amendment because it does fund abortion. I will go through the specifics. Bart Stupak a Democratic Member on the House side. He has been the lead guy on the House side to say we should continue with the Hyde language. There are disputes about abortions. There is not a dispute about the funding of it by taxpayer money. So Bart Stupak has led a group of Democratic Members on the issue overall and said we are going to pull it out. It is not in the House bill, but now it is in the Senate bill. He says: Not acceptable . . . a dramatic shift in Federal policy that would allow the Federal Government to subsidize insurance policies with abortion coverage. That is what Bart Stupak says about it. What do some of the other pro-life groups say about what is in the managers' amendment. These groups track this stuff. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which wants a health care bill--I think they are a pretty fair reviewer of this because they want a health care bill to go through, but they are committed to life. They do not want taxpayer money to go to end a child's life. They are opposed to that--completely opposed to that on moral grounds, saying this is the highest moral order that has to be protected. Human life has to be protected, and they say, of this legislation, the managers' amendment: This legislation should not move forward in its current form. It should be opposed, unless and until such serious concerns have been addressed. This is on the abortion language. Now let's look at the National Right to Life Committee. The National Right to Life Committee--they are the gold standard of review. They have been looking at this issue and tracking it since Roe v. Wade was passed. They are committed to life at all stages, in all places, believing that life is sacred; it is unique; it is beautiful; and it should be protected. What do they say about the managers' amendment? They say: Light years removed from the Stupak-Pitts amendment that was approved in the House of Representatives on November 8 by a bipartisan vote of 240-194. The new abortion language solves none of the fundamental abortion-related problems with the Senate bill, and it actually creates some new abortion-related problems. Let's go through the specifics, because I think what we should do is go through the specifics of this bill and look at what are the specific areas of concern. Many of the abortion changes that Senator Reid smuggled into his managers' bill behind closed doors make the bill worse than ever before. It violates the Hyde amendment and Hyde principles set in precedent through all other Federal administered health programs like Medicare and Medicaid. It preempts State laws and conflicts with some existing laws on abortion. Third is the so-called firewall. There is a firewall provision between Federal and private funds. That is inconsistent with the Hyde and Stupak-Pitts amendment. The firewall language is not very fireproof. It is a mere accounting gimmick, where they put the money in one pocket and pay for abortions from the other. It is still money that goes through the Federal Government to the Federal Government to pay for abortions. Fourth, it departs from the way the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program is governed with respect to private plans covering abortion, so it changes that. Fifth, it allows executive branch officials to require private health plans to cover abortions simply by defining them as ``preventive care.'' We have debated this piece calling abortions preventive care in committee and on the Senate floor. Both times we have tried to take that out and say preventive care does not include abortions, and we have not been able to get that definition to the point where abortion can still be called preventive care. This is the Mikulski amendment, which mandates that all plans cover abortion by defining abortion as a preventive service. If you just define it as a preventive service, you can pay for it. But it is still being paid for then, and that is in this bill. No. 6, it inserts text of the Indian health reauthorization bill. That passed last year and didn't get signed into law. It passed this body. That does not contain the Senate-passed Vitter amendment to permanently prohibit coverage of elective abortions in the federally funded Indian health programs. And, No. 7, basic conscience protections, like the Weldon language, are not included in the Senate version. There are other problems, but these are just seven of the most egregious. I can't imagine that people across the country--certainly people across my State and other places, such as Virginia, Missouri, California, Wisconsin, or anyplace else would agree that the Federal Government should break with longstanding policy against federally funded abortions, but that is exactly what has happened and what is in this bill. Abortion is not health care. Why is it even in this bill at all? The President himself said that at the joint session of Congress. At the end of the day, the vote for cloture is an affirmative vote for the Federal funding of abortion. There is no way around that fact. Some people on the Democratic side, particularly Senator Nelson of Nebraska, with whom I have been working closely on this issue, want to keep abortion out of this bill. I believe there are huge flaws still in it. He has been fighting to keep abortion out of it. He said this: Taxpayers shouldn't be required to pay for abortions. That is his statement on the issue. He says it should not be in there. He worked to try to get this out. I think there are still enormous flaws and holes in this. If we start the funding of abortions, the last time we did fund them, over 300,000 were paid for by the Federal Government in a 1-year period of time through Medicaid Programs; 300,000 annually were funded from 1973 to 1976. How many are we looking at now if we start down this road? We need one Democrat in the Senate who will stand and say this is not taking care of the unborn. This is breaking the Hyde language that many on the other side have supported for years, saying they are pro-choice, but they don't think the Federal Government should fund abortions. This breaks the Hyde language in the six ways I mentioned and, seven, it does not provide for conscious clause protection so someone, maybe they are in a Catholic hospital and they do not agree with providing abortion services. They would be required to do things in certain circumstances--maybe that is not one of them--but certain circumstances to which they would not agree. This is a big part of this debate, and it has certainly elevated it here. The American public does not want the abortion language in the bill. Mr. President, 6 in 10, in a CNN survey, say they do not want it in this bill. In fact, one-quarter of House Democrats voted for the Stupak-Pitts amendment. That is the compromise that continued on the Hyde principle and said we will not fund this. National Right to Life, I mentioned earlier, goes through some of the specifics on this language. I will just say, where we are right now all seems so odd to me. We are in the final days of Advent season. We are here when we should be home with our families. I am missing a lot of the celebration of the Christmas season. This is the final days of Advent. Advent is the season of anticipating the birth of a child. It is a season of joy, a season of happiness. You are looking forward to the day of the birth of Christ, December 25. That is the season we are in right now. It is a season of joy. How sad we might see the end of lives of children in this bill, in this season of joy. It does not have to be that way. It should not be that way. But now this is, I believe, the central issue in this health care debate. If this body passes this bill--and I do not think it should--it goes back to the House of Representatives, where Congressman Stupak and a group of others have said they will not support the language if it has the abortion language. The issue of funding abortion has now become a central issue in the health care debate. It should not be there. It is wrong. It is opposed by the American public. I ask my colleagues on the other side, please, please, please take this out. It does not belong here. It is not the thing to do. It is harmful. It is hurtful to the country, and it does not belong anywhere near the health care bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to honor one of the most distinguished and recognized organizations for young people in the United States, the Boy Scouts of America. Specifically, I want to recognize its tremendous efforts to uphold the principle of service to others. Today, the Boy Scouts of America is the largest youth service organization with nearly 3 million members. Its teachings of citizenship, character development, and self-reliance are those which all Americans should strive to emulate in their daily lives. The programs give participants the opportunity to engage in a wide range of outdoor activities, education programs, and career-oriented programs in partnership with many community organizations. Boy Scouts of America celebrates 100 years of service on February 8, 2010, with the theme ``Celebrating the Adventure, Continuing the Journey.'' This motto will serve its members as they continue teaching the necessary skills to many more generations to come. I want to recognize the efforts of the Jayhawk Area Council in northeast Kansas. These members are planning for the next 100 years of Scouting through their ``Building Tomorrow's Leaders'' project. This is just one of many projects that will honor the spirit of service in communities of Scouts across the Nation. Boy Scouts of America recognizes that young leaders are developed over time, and has expanded its programs to help young men and women up to 20 years of age through Venturing Crews, Explorer Posts, and the Learning for Life groups. These programs have been shown to be meaningful and to improve a Scout's likelihood for success as an adult and enhance the quality of life in the community where he resides. Boy Scouts of America has kept up with the evolving and changing needs of our Nation, by adding programs in areas such as environmental ethics and responsibility. President Dwight Eisenhower recognized the contributions of the Boy Scouts 56 years ago when he praised the organization, as it ``yearly enriches our Nation, and contributes generously to the economic, physical and spiritual resources of the country.'' Mr. President, the Boy Scouts of America have helped shape young people of America for the past 100 years. This achievement is one to be celebrated, and I hope many of my colleges will join me in wishing this organization the best for the next 100 years.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use 5 minutes of Senator McConnell's time--the Republican leader's time.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for this opportunity to address the Lautenberg amendment and speak in favor of the Lautenberg amendment. I oppose the base bill. I oppose the bill overall. I have spoken a number of times in opposition to the overall bill. It is way too expensive, it cuts Medicare, raises taxes, and inserts the funding of abortion, which is something we haven't looked at in 30 years. The Hyde language has not allowed funding of abortion, and instead this does and puts it in, and I think it will result in poorer health care for a number of Americans. But the issue I rise on today is on the Lautenberg amendment, and in support of the Lautenberg amendment. This is an amendment we have seen in this body four times previously over the last 10 years. Each time the Lautenberg amendment has passed overwhelmingly, and that is because of the safety concerns for drugs coming into the United States. I would note that Secretary Sebelius, Secretary of HHS--Health and Human Services--who before being named to this position was the Governor of the State of Kansas for 6 years, with whom I worked over the years, through her office has stated they cannot basically certify the safety of these drugs. There is a letter that has been gone over in some depth and length from the Food and Drug Commissioner saying that it is going to be very difficult for them to certify the safety of these drugs. Yet what the Lautenberg amendment does is it says: OK, if you can certify safety, and this is going to reduce the price, then they can be admitted. That seems to make sense. That is why 4 times over the last 10 years this body has passed the Lautenberg amendment, or an equivalent, and I think that is appropriate. I would also note there is a huge industry in the United States--the pharmaceutical industry--that is quite concerned about the safety and efficacy of what this bill would do in not allowing the safety of the drugs if you don't pass a Lautenberg amendment. They are very concerned about that. And toward that regard, I will read pieces of a letter sent to me by Kansas Bio. It is the Kansas Biosciences Organization. They sent this letter to me saying: On behalf of the members of Kansas Bio, please accept this letter in opposition to Senator Dorgan's drug importation amendment to the health care reform legislation which may be voted on by the Senate. We believe that the promotion of drug importation is an extremely risky endeavor which threatens the livelihood of one of Kansas' fastest growing bioscience industry sectors--the service providers to our Nation's and our world's drug development and delivery companies. KansasBio is an industry organization representing over 150 bioscience companies, academic institutions, State affiliates, and related economic development organizations in the State of Kansas, throughout the Kansas City region. . . . Senator Dorgan's amendment opens up the risk of allowing foreign drugs that do not have FDA approval into the United States and thereby posing significant health and safety risks to the patients. It is signed by the president and CEO, Angela Kreps, of KansasBio. I am ranking member on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and the Food and Drug Administration, so I am keenly interested in the committee structure in this issue. In addition, the University of Kansas in my State, in addition to having the top-ranked basketball team in the country, has the top- ranked pharmaceutical school in the country. They are a part of KansasBio and concerned about the Dorgan amendment in place. That is why they support things like the Lautenberg amendment which assure two things: that you have safety and that any value in this proposal is passed along to the consumer. The FDA has been tasked with the responsibility of safeguarding this country's prescription drug supply and has executed that responsibility, I believe, quite well. It would be unwise for this body, then, to not value their opinions in regard to this matter. The Lautenberg amendment counts on the FDA expertise and proven track record and permits legal importation of prescription drugs into the United States only if Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary Sebelius in this administration, as head of the FDA, can certify to Congress that prescription drug importation will do two things: No. 1, pose no additional risk to the public health and safety; and, No. 2, result in a significant reduction in the cost of covered products to the American consumer. The safety and cost savings certification amendment would restore this language. The Lautenberg amendment does that. This Congress must require a safety and cost savings certification from the Secretary of HHS before opening the floodgates of drug importation. Requiring this certification is the responsible way to ensure that American citizens will be protected from potentially life-threatening counterfeit, contaminated, or diluted prescription drugs. As I mentioned, the Senate has voted on this previously four times, each time overwhelmingly adopting something like the Lautenberg amendment. As many of my colleagues may remember, the safety and cost savings certification was first signed into law when the Senate passed the Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act of 2000. During that debate, concerns were raised by many in this body that drug importation would expose Americans to counterfeit and polluted prescription drugs. To alleviate these well-documented fears, the Senate passed this second- degree amendment then unanimously. To date, as noted earlier, no HHS Secretary has been able to certify that drug importation will not pose a significant health and safety threat. For those reasons, I support the Lautenberg amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Before my colleague leaves the floor, I wish to ask him a question or two if he wouldn't mind. He has been involved in most of the major health issues that have passed this body in the last 15 years. What was the vote margin in the Senate on some of those bills, on the Hatch-Kennedy, Hatch-Waxman bills? How many votes, roughly? I am not asking you to pull that up from memory, and it may not be fair to do. As I recall, a number of people on both sides of the aisle ended up supporting those bills.

Mr. BROWNBACK. In the Finance Committee?

Mr. BROWNBACK. And Hatch-Waxman? It is longer back.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I believe you did a major health care bill with Senator Dodd from Connecticut.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Do you recall the split?

Mr. BROWNBACK. If I could respond to my colleague, I do not know of any. I don't know of any who were even asked. I know of some who were told you can join this bill, or asked that--OK, can you join our bill but you don't have any input.

Mr. BROWNBACK. None. I know of none.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I haven't seen any at all, and particularly when we tried to work in a bipartisan fashion to add Hyde language into the bill that was defeated, not accepted. My point is something I have seen the Senator say in a quote, that a good health care bill should have 70 votes because it is major legislation that affects everybody in the United States. It has huge costs associated with it. So it is not something you do on a single- party basis, it is something you work extensively on over a long period of time. I ask my colleague again, over how many years he worked with Senator Kennedy on getting the Hatch-Kennedy bill, or Waxman--my guess is those are lengthy pieces of negotiations that take a period of time to get something that has bipartisan support.

Mr. BROWNBACK. If I could ask one more question before my colleague leaves--and also a comment that I like the Senator's tie, nice bright colors on a Saturday session.

Mr. BROWNBACK. What does the Senator think of getting--how many total votes could you get for a bipartisan health care bill along the lines of which a number of people on our side have discussed, where you expand access, you try to bend the cost curve down, you try to get more access to low-income individuals? Does the Senator think he could craft a bipartisan bill that could get well over 60 votes on health care reform?

Mr. BROWNBACK. I said I would only ask the Senator one more question, but I have one more. My question is you didn't do those bills on the fly where you were amending them, saying OK, we can't quite find 60, let's go back to a closed room and let's rebuild the bill. You built them over a long period of time. You did a good job of working the problems out together, and then you built it as it went along. You didn't say OK, let's do it on the fly, let's change this, let's change that. You build a solid piece of legislation and move it forward, not changing it at the 11th hour as we are seeing take place now.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank my colleague from Utah for that explanation and also for the years of service he has given, and particularly a lot of focus on health care issues. I haven't always agreed with my colleague from Utah. I have always found him, though, very sound in his thinking, very knowledgeable in his ways, in knowing how you do this, and particularly when you are talking about health care these are bipartisan issues in and of themselves and they need to be in this body. He also talked about the principles of federalism, which I think we have deviated from in what we see from this bill. I wish to read from the Constitution, article I, section 8. That is the piece I wish to focus on here for a minute about the constitutional question involved in this health care bill. Article I, section 8 reads simply this way, that the Congress shall have--and then it lists a series of enumerated powers: power to ``regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.'' That is our ability to regulate commerce, with the foreign nations, among the several States, and with the Indian tribes. There are a number of people raising the question about whether you can constitutionally require everybody in the United States, by virtue of their citizenship or status in the United States, to have health insurance. I think it is highly questionable. It appears to me from several legal scholars that this is unconstitutional for us to do. It is a major plank in the health care legislation that has been brought forward by the Democratic majority and I do not believe it is going to stand constitutional challenge. I want to develop that for my colleagues here today. The Congressional Budget Office said this about the constitutional question here. They said forcing individuals to buy insurance would be `` . . . an unprecedented form of federal action.'' Those are big words in a time when we are seeing a lot of what I think are unprecedented Federal actions. Then going on to say, ``The Government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.'' You would be requiring, as a condition for lawful residence in the United States, the purchasing of a good or a service--in this case health insurance. As laudable as some people may look at that or say that is, that would be what is being required. The Congressional Budget Office does not know of any time where a person in the United States has been required to buy any good or service as a condition simply of lawful residence in the United States. I think it raises significant constitutional questions. You have to remember, as everybody does, but I think we have to remind ourselves because too often we act as if we don't remember that the Federal Government is a constitutional government of limited powers. From James Madison in the Federalist Papers, quoted often but it bears repeating because it is a foundational issue: [I]n the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects. Which is what I just read from in article I, section 8. Chief Justice John Marshall, in the famous Marbury v. Madison case, stated: The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. We can't violate that. The Federal Government is limited to enumerated powers granted by the Constitution. The Founding Fathers who drafted and ratified the Constitution were unwavering in their desire to restrict the powers of States and limit the powers of Congress. To achieve their goal they created a system that splits State and Federal authority so that one government, Federal or State, does not maintain too much power over the liberty of the American people. Therefore, the Framers created a system with a legislature of limited and enumerated powers, the Congress, to enact laws which shall be necessary and proper for the execution of powers. One of those is the commerce clause I just read which grants Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, interstate commerce, and with Indian tribes. Many have used the commerce clause to justify the implementation of this unconstitutional mandate. Those individuals often cite the case of Wicker v. Filburn, a 1942 case. The U.S. Supreme Court decision found that a law prohibiting a commercial farmer growing an additional acre of wheat to feed chickens beyond the limits imposed on wheat production mandated by the Federal Government was constitutional and fell under the enumerated powers granted by the commerce clause. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine to the government for being too productive. The Supreme Court, interpreting the Constitution's commerce clause, decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market and affected interstate commerce and, thus, could be regulated by the Federal Government. However, that Supreme Court decision, agree with it or not, still does not expand the powers of this body under the commerce clause to impose a monetary fine or penalty upon a citizen who fails to purchase or enter into a private contract for health insurance. That doesn't expand our authority under the commerce clause. It doesn't change the commerce clause. For us to require somebody to do something simply as a status of citizenship, the Congressional Research Service says: Despite the breadth of powers exercised under the Commerce Clause, it is unclear whether the clause would provide a solid constitutional foundation for legislation containing a requirement to have health insurance. Whether such a requirement would be constitutional under the Commerce Clause is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or a service. To think that the Federal Government can compel any individual to purchase a commodity because that individual is alive and breathing is unconstitutional and is at least a novel issue that this $2.5 trillion proposal is built around. Should we be doing this major change in health care, $2.5 trillion in spending, \1/2\ trillion in reduction in Medicare, \1/2\ trillion raising in taxes off of a novel constitutional question involved in the inherent piece of it, that being the requirement for everybody to have health insurance? I think not. Along with all the other problems with it, I think it has an enormous constitutional question right in the middle of it. And what if you pull that out and the Supreme Court says, ultimately, you can't require that. Then you have done $2.5 trillion, $\1/2\ trillion in Medicare cuts, $\1/2\ trillion in tax increases, and your core piece is pulled out; it is unconstitutional. Then the whole house of cards falls apart. Another popular argument for forcing citizens to purchase health insurance under penalty of law is that States require people to buy car insurance. This argument is not only constitutionally flawed but also an underwhelming argument that in many respects hardly deserves comment and adds little to the debate. It is recognized that States maintain inherent police powers to regulate behavior and enforce order within their borders to promote public welfare, security, health, and safety. This is a fundamental difference between the power of States and the enumerated powers of the national government, such as commerce between States and Indian tribes. This is a much broader granting of jurisdiction to the States. State vehicle insurance laws are exactly that, laws implemented by States, and are generally derived from State constitutions and not the Federal Constitution under which this body operates. Furthermore, these laws require an individual who voluntarily participates in the use of an automobile to insure that vehicle. It is not a right of citizenship as a Kansan that you have to buy auto insurance. But if you want to operate a car on our roads, you have to have auto insurance. It isn't a requirement of citizenship. We are requiring this as an article of citizenship. You have to have health insurance, a novel and enormously expansive role of the Federal Government. The Federal mandate for the purchase of health insurance forces individuals to purchase a commodity not because they choose to participate in an economic or commercial activity such as what one would think would be covered under the commerce clause but forces an individual to purchase a product simply because that person exists. This mandate is an abuse of the power granted to this Congress by the Constitution. Last night I spent some time developing another thought that I think is an important one for us to consider. It is one this body has spent some time over the last decade dealing with; that is, the removal of the marriage penalty from our Tax Code, which we haven't gotten very far in doing, but getting the marriage penalty out, the thought being that marriage is a good institution. It is a fabulous institution for the formation of family. It is something that has an enormous role in our culture and society and should be rewarded and should not be taxed. The fundamental principle exists, if you want less of something, tax it; if you want more of something, subsidize it. In the Democratic health care bill there are marriage penalties on both low-income and upper income individuals that will reduce the incidence of marriage in this society, under the principle that if you are going to tax something, you will get less of it. This bill has marriage penalty taxes in it. I want to go through a series of these, starting with the high cost plan tax, the Cadillac insurance plan. Married couples under this bill are hit hardest by the high cost plans tax. The number of single and married tax filers is equal, but married taxpayers pay more than twice as much as singles as a percent of new tax revenue in this bill. So if you are married filing jointly, you will pay 62 percent--single filers, 25 percent--in this bill. Is that something we want to do? Do we want to say, if you are married, you will pay more of the tax? Most people would say: We want to encourage marriage and the formation of family around marriage. We should have these at least equal or maybe do a higher tax on the other end. But most would say let's have these be equal. Instead, in this we have a huge increase in the amount of money married filers will have to pay as compared to taxes paid by single filers. Consequently, you encourage people to say: Let's not get married because we don't want to pay the increase in taxes. The high cost plans tax, the Cadillac plans tax, will hit married couples' households far more severely than single filers. Even though the number of married filers and single filers is roughly equal, the high cost plans tax will impact the total tax bill of married couples much more severely: 25 percent of the revenue will be from single filers, 62 percent of the bill will go to married filers. One thing is certain, 62 percent of married couples' households don't make more than $250,000. So not only is this unfair to married households, it is a direct contradiction of the President's promise that you wouldn't pay more taxes if you were making below $250,000. In this case you do under the Cadillac insurance plan proposal or piece in this proposal. I want to look at another chart on this subject. If we wanted to talk about factors that impact an individual's decision to enter the workforce or to invest in a business, an important factor is the marginal tax rate they will face on the next dollar they earn. Basically, it is a question of whether it is worth the effort and risk to work. What is my marginal tax? If I work longer and make another $100, how much do I get to keep? The marginal tax rate. This is an especially important factor for low-income households, people who don't have much marginal income to work off of. They need every dollar they can get. So if you are going to tax their marginal rate, they are looking at this saying: I don't want to get in that category. I need to hold back from getting in that category. We have tried to help the less economically fortunate with various types of support programs: TANF, food stamps, the earned-income tax credit, the additional child tax credit, to name a few. Low-income families already face high marginal tax rates as a result of the phaseout of their benefits and tax rates that mean the loss of benefits they get under TANF, food stamps, the earned-income tax credit, housing assistance, the welfare package we put together for low-income individuals. Low-income families already face high marginal tax rates as a result of the phaseout of their benefits. These phaseouts already impose significant barriers to marriage. In other words, whenever you get a combined income of a low-income couple, you lose more benefits. Consequently, people don't get married because they look and say: I will lose my health benefits if I get married. I will lose my medical benefits, my housing benefits. I may lose food stamps. I will not get married. Yet you look at the chances for children in that situation to get out of poverty, their best chance is to have a stable mom and dad and a stable marriage environment, providing for the comfort and support of those children. Our incentives are disincentives toward marriage in this way, and they are built even more significantly into this health care bill. As an example, let's take two individuals at 150 percent of the poverty level. After the new subsidies proposed in this legislation are taken into account, these two individuals would pay $1,478 for their health insurance. But if they get married, their bill will increase to $2,308, a marriage penalty of $830, if you are at the 150 percent of poverty level or below. If you are at 150 percent of poverty or below, you don't have marginal income to mess around with. You need everything you have just to provide the basics. So if you are looking at this increase in the marriage penalty of $830, you are saying: We can't afford to get married. Is that the signal we want to send from the Federal Government? No. Everybody in this body would say that. Let's take a pair of individuals earning 250 percent of the poverty level. One has no children; the other has two children. Unmarried they will, after subsidies, pay $5,865 for their health coverage. If they decide to marry, they will face a penalty of $2,050. Let's turn to the new Medicare tax that will go into effect in 2013. The tax will apply to wage and salary income as well as certain business income for individuals. The tax will apply to income of that type for above $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for joint filers. The penalty is obvious on its face. Let's take an example. Two unmarried individuals earn $200,000 each, and their total Medicare taxes would be $11,600. But if they get married, the penalty is $750. Or take two individuals, one making $150,000 and the other $200,000. Single, their Medicare taxes total $10,150; if they get married, they will pay an additional $500. This is on top of the marriage penalties that two earners face under current law. The marriage penalty is there. I don't think it is as significant as for the low-income individuals, but it is here as well. My point is, why on Earth would that even be built into the base of the bill, particularly on the low-income couples? Why on Earth would you build in a marriage penalty on people who can't afford it? If combined income is over $250,000, you can afford another $500. I am willing to agree with that. But not this couple that is making at 150 percent of poverty or 250 percent of poverty, one with two kids. They can't afford that. Why on Earth would you build it into this? This is ridiculous that it be placed in the proposal. It makes no sense. Creating and expanding on the penalties for marriage makes zero sense. Families are a critical determinant of the well-being of our society. Family structure also has a significant impact on economic well-being, on education, and the effect on the social fabric of this Nation is positive. It is a fundamental law of economics that when you tax something, you get less of it. Why would we tax marriage, particularly for low-income individuals, when it is the best chance for those children involved with this couple to have a stable environment, if they will form a solid marriage unit? And we are going to tax it and discourage it. That is wrong. That is wrong as a policy matter. There is a number of other problems I have had with this overall bill. This piece of it absolutely makes no sense to me, why we would do something like this. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, to take these sorts of things out, to take them out of the base law. Unfortunately, in the United States today, this is kind of repeating what already takes place in food stamps, what takes place in health benefits for low-income individuals right now. They cannot afford to get married or they lose their benefits. It is ridiculous. We ought to give people bonuses for getting married, not penalties for getting married. Now we are going to add to it by putting it in this health insurance bill. It is wrong and it is bad policy. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am delighted to follow my colleague from Utah. I am pleased he has raised these constitutional issues, which I think are significant to this bill. The idea that we could have a constitutional mandate to buy health insurance, to me, is highly questionable under our rights under the role of the Federal Government and under the Constitution. Senator Hatch has been on the Judiciary Committee for many years and he understands these issues very well. We are now on our sixth iteration of the health care reform bill. This one talks about expanding Medicare, basically as one of the key components of solving the problem. Here is a quote from the Mayo Clinic I found, and others have also been cited. I found this interesting, succinct, and accurate: Any plan to expand Medicare, which is the Government's largest public plan, beyond its current scope does not solve the Nation's health care crisis, but compounds it. It is also clear that an expansion of the price control of the Medicare payment system will not control overall Medicare spending or curb costs. This scenario follows the typical pattern for price control, reduced access, compromised quality, and increasing costs anyway. We need to address these problems, not perpetuate them through health reform legislation. That was the Mayo Clinic. It is clearly not the way to go to solve the crisis or the problems. It probably hastens the day Medicare goes bankrupt, which is set to happen in 2017, 7 years away. I want to talk about the possibility that this health care bill puts this very early piece of economic recovery that we are having at risk. The latest reports on unemployment provide some hope that our battered economy may be showing some tentative signs of economic recovery, as the job loss continues to slow. Most of this is based off of monetary policy. We are seeing some of this taking place. Consumer confidence is still low. Unemployment hovers at 10 percent, and over 7 million jobs were lost since the beginning of the recession. It should be clear that any potential recovery is incredibly fragile. That being the case, Congress and the administration should focus like a laser beam on policies that encourage economic growth and put Americans back to work. That seems to be obvious. Instead, though, the administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress have taken up crucial months with a proposed revamping of our entire health care system that will cost nearly $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years, to be paid for by new taxes and employer mandates, and it will impose a grave risk to a sustained rebound of our Nation's economy. This hurts our economic recovery. Not only that, but the Democratic health care bill includes some positively perverse incentives that would discourage hiring, work, saving, and even marriage. Again, it would discourage hiring, work, savings, and marriage. Higher taxes, more employer mandates, and disincentives to job creation, productivity, and family formation are hardly the prescription for the growth our economy so desperately needs right now. Both the House and the Senate bills would, for instance, increase the already existing penalty on work faced by many low-income families who receive tax and in-kind benefits from government welfare programs. We already heard this. Health insurance subsidies in the legislation for individuals and families in poverty would tack on an additional 12 to 20 percent to marginal tax rates, which already approach 40 to 50 percent for families receiving a variety of benefits for those with low incomes. This would result in marginal tax rates of 50 to 60 percent for most affected families. If working more hours or obtaining better paying jobs results in more than half of those additional earnings being taken away as a result of taxes or a reduction in benefits--if you are a low-income individual, you are working more, you are getting more money coming in, but your benefits from the government are reduced. So if you are taking 50 to 60 percent away in a reduction of benefits or in taxes, the incentive to work harder or to invest in an education is greatly reduced. That is obvious on its face. Yet it is in this bill. This is not the only work disincentive in the bill. It is common for teenagers and college students to obtain jobs so they can have some spending money on their own or to help with their educational expenses. The Senate bill penalizes the families of these younger workers by including their wages in benefit eligibility calculations. For many low-to-moderate income families, the inclusion of their wages could mean a significant increase in their cost of health insurance or even in them losing thousands of dollars of health insurance subsidies altogether. That is in the bill. And more harmful to the economy, potentially, are the incentives directed at employers. Both the House and Senate bills include temporary subsidies to small businesses to encourage them to offer employer-sponsored health insurance. As the number of employees increase or as salaries increase, the amount of the credit provided to the business decreases. The structure of this subsidy not only discourages employers from hiring new employees, but it also discourages them from increasing employees' salaries. We don't want those sorts of disincentives in any bill. Ironically, the incentives in the bill would even work to encourage employers to drop health insurance coverage for individual employees or eliminate insurance coverage altogether. The Senate bill would cap employee contributions to insurance premiums at 9.8 percent of their income. If an employer offered a policy that required employees to pay more than this, the employee would be eligible to purchase insurance through the new ``health care exchanges.'' The employer would have to pay a fine. Since, in many cases, that fine is considerably less than the additional insurance costs the employer would incur if they retained coverage, many businesses concerned about the bottom line would be enticed by the bill to stop providing any health insurance coverage. So they are actually enticed here to drop health insurance coverage-- another thing we don't want to see happen. Furthermore, employers who offer flexible spending accounts or FSAs will be encouraged to stop providing these tax-free medical spending accounts for their employees. Under the Senate Democrats' bill, FSA contributions will be included in the total cost of employees' health insurance benefits for the purpose of calculating the proposed tax on high-cost health plans--the so-called Cadillac health care plans. Adding an FSA contribution could push the total cost of health benefits above the high-cost threshold for many workers, which will result in the employer being liable for a portion of the 40 percent high-cost plan's tax. As more and more plans become subject to the high-cost plan's tax, it will be in the employer's best interest to eliminate FSA offerings altogether. That is another disincentive we don't want to see happening. The proposed legislation would also create new marriage penalties across the income spectrum. We have been working for some years to do away with the marriage penalty. Marriage is a good and solid institution that helps so much in this Nation. Yet it puts in a marriage penalty, penalizes people for getting married; it is built into this legislation. These penalties can be so large that, in some cases, couples would have to forgo marriage in order to avoid thousands of dollars in new taxes. The penalties are significant. Low- and moderate-income families often have limited savings as well. Given the already significant marriage penalties in low-income benefit programs, it seems ironic that the government would create yet another program that penalizes low-income individuals for getting married. Currently, if they are on public assistance and they get married, their combined incomes often move a couple out of the support they receive for their families, whether it is health support, housing, or food support. By getting married, they often lose their benefits. Instead of taking them away, we ought to be helping them form solid families. That sort of disincentive is built into this health insurance plan as well, where you actually put in disincentives for low-income couples to get married. In other words, to be able to get the health insurance subsidy, they may have to forgo marriage. That is not the sort of incentive we want in the system and in the bill. We are trying to take it away in the welfare programs, but to add another piece to low and moderate-income couples is the wrong way for us to go. That the Democratic health care legislation would set the United States on a path to a single-payer government-run health insurance system of the sort found in Europe and Canada is bad enough, but even more troubling is the fact that these proposals would create a series of perverse incentives ultimately harmful to workers, businesses, and the entire economy. The Senate must reject this poorly conceived, ruinously expensive scheme and get back to the business of helping our economy recover. I have talked to many people across the United States and particularly in Kansas, many people who are deeply concerned about this economy and the perverse things coming out of Washington. While they might start considering investing in their small business, putting some income or something out to be able to grow and create jobs, people are holding back and saying: I don't know how many more taxes you will put on us or what the health insurance plan will look like. I don't know what cap and trade will do on raising energy costs. They are holding back. These perverse economic signals, and the discussion of them in Washington, is perversely affecting the economy. It is hurting the economic recovery. If you put these pieces into place statutorily, you are hurting savings, hurting hiring, hurting marriage formation, and you will further hurt an already very tentative recovery from taking place. This is a bad medicine for the economy. The idea that you would expand Medicare to take care of that is a terrible idea. You will be hurting a program that already is not financially solvent in the long term and is looking at something like $30 trillion of unfunded obligations already on its books. That alone, if you expand it back to age 55, plus the provider community--the American Medical Association and the American Hospital Association are opposed to this expansion of Medicare. They don't get full reimbursement of costs right now. With the talk about bringing it back to age 55, you will be sweeping a large number of people into Medicare, so you are sweeping in a lot of people who are already in private insurance plans. When they are pulled out of private insurance which pays at the full rate to the provider community, you are taking those resources away from the provider community, from doctors and hospitals. That is why you are seeing the American Medical Association and the American Hospital Association come out against this proposal on Medicare expansion. How on Earth would it ever be paid for, when the program is already not on a stable financial track? The Federation of American Hospitals stated this: The FAH is strongly opposed to this proposal. A Medicare buy-in would involve Medicare rates, would be controlled by CMS, and would crowd out older workers with private coverage and may choose early retirement as a result. Such a policy will further negatively impact hospitals. In my rural State, in particular, it would have a huge negative impact on a number of the hospitals in my State. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. How much time do I have allotted? I thought there was an agreement that I had a certain amount of time.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield myself 10 minutes to speak on the Dorgan amendment.