Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague for his cogent remarks because my friend from North Dakota is absolutely right. The American people are not buying this, nor are they going to buy this misuse of reconciliation. Even with large majorities in the Senate and the House, the White House, and most of the mainstream media, Washington liberals have not been able to convince the American people this is the right way to go. The American people oppose this bill. They want us to start over, and they want us to adopt step-by-step, commonsense reforms. We could do that, but Washington liberals instead are determined to find some way to get their way. The latest procedural gambit, which has been raised by my colleague, is called reconciliation. Before talking about what reconciliation is, I have to emphasize what it is not. Reconciliation is not simply an alternative to the Senate's regular process for handling legislation. Instead, reconciliation is an exception to that process. While the House is about action, the Senate is about deliberation, and the rules in each body reflect its role. For more than 200 years, Senate rules have allowed smaller groups of Senators to slow down or stop legislation. The House is a simple majority vote body, but the Senate is not. This creates checks and speed bumps to legislation, but passing legislation is not supposed to be easy, especially something that affects one-sixth of the American economy. Reconciliation is the exception to that because it limits debate and amendments and requires only a simple majority. It allows for only 20 hours of debate. It actually weakens the role the Senate plays in the legislative branch and, therefore, this exception to our regular order was created to handle a small category of legislation related to the budget. While thousands of public laws have been enacted since the reconciliation process was created, that process, as the distinguished Senator from South Dakota said, has been used only 19 times to enact legislation of any kind into law. Not only is reconciliation a rare exception to our regular legislative process, but using reconciliation to pass sweeping social legislation, as opposed to budget or tax legislation, is even more rare. Reconciliation has been used only three times to pass such major social legislation. Welfare reform passed in 1996 with 78 votes, child health insurance passed in 1997 with 85 votes, and a college tuition bill passed in 2007 with 79 votes. In each case, dozens of Senators in the minority party supported the legislation. The health care legislation before us is not the kind of budget or tax legislation that has been the primary focus of the reconciliation process in the past. It is much more like the welfare reform or child health insurance bills, except for one very important thing: The health care legislation is a completely, 100-percent, partisan bill--100 percent. The reconciliation process, which from the start is a rare exception to our regular process, has never been used for such sweeping, major social legislation that did not have wide bipartisan support--never. It was never supposed to be used for that. You can criticize the three times social legislation was passed, and your criticism might be considered valid by some, but the fact is, those bills were bipartisan. Washington liberals obviously know this because their latest talking point is, reconciliation will not be used to pass the large health care bill only to change the big health care bill. My friends, that is a distinction without a difference. The bill Washington liberals want is the combination of the big Senate bill and the smaller fixer bill. In fact, they cannot stomach the one without the other. The bill they want, whether passed in one piece or two, cannot pass Congress through the regular legislative process. The health care bill that Washington liberals want, if it can be passed at all, can only be passed through an illegitimate use of this extraordinary process called reconciliation. By the way, I would like to remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that the reconciliation process has been used only twice to pass a purely partisan bill on any subject, even those that reconciliation may have been designed for. In both cases--1993, when Democrats were in charge, and 2005, when Republicans were in charge-- the American people in the next election threw the majority party out and gave the other party a chance to run the Senate. Just as Washington liberals cannot convince the American people to support the substance of this legislation, they cannot make the case that reconciliation is a legitimate way to pass it. Let me also say, there are those in the House who want to distort this reconciliation process even further by devising a way so that House Members do not have to actually vote directly on the Senate- passed bill. They want to create a rule that would deem the Senate bill as passed. Talk about distorting the process. Talk about the lack of guts to stand and vote for what they claim is so good. Talk about deceiving the American people. They have already distorted the reconciliation rules, but that would be a bridge too far. I ask my friend from South Dakota, Senator Thune, whether he has seen, as I have, the spin and misdirection that have been employed to give the impression that this is a legitimate process to pass this unpopular legislation.

Mr. HATCH. My friend from South Dakota hit the nail on the head. I appreciate his remarks. If this legislation were sound policy, if it incorporated consensus ideas, if it had any level of real support among the American people, Washington liberals would not need to use the gimmicks they are using. They wouldn't have to use the tricks that are being used. They wouldn't have to use the spin that the Senator from South Dakota so accurately described. I mentioned earlier that the reconciliation process has never been used to enact sweeping social legislation that did not have wide bipartisan support.

Mr. HATCH. I am happy to yield for a question because I do want to finish my remarks.

Mr. HATCH. OK.

Mr. HATCH. Sixty partisan votes.

Mr. HATCH. Right.

Mr. HATCH. Well, I have already said that it is the combination of these bills that Washington liberals want and that combination cannot pass without reconciliation. First of all, we know the House doesn't like the bill that passed in the Senate. If they had the votes to pass it over in the House, it would already be passed. So what they have done is come up with some cockamamie misuse of reconciliation to do a smaller bill.

Mr. HATCH. Let me finish--doing a smaller bill that, assuming they can pass the large bill, would then come over here. I submit to you--and I know it is absolutely true--they can't pass the larger bill. I have also indicated that they may abuse the rules further by getting a special rule over there that would would have to deem the Senate bill as having been passed by the House even though there never was a vote on it. So the key vote would be the vote on the rule to deem the Senate bill as passed. That is a really, really mixed up and messed up version of the reconciliation process. There is only one reason they are doing that, and that is because it is the only way they can possibly get the health care reform they want.

Mr. HATCH. Well, I wish to finish my remarks.

Mr. HATCH. I am happy to do it. I wish to finish my remarks, but the real problem is that the House is having difficulty passing the Senate bill because an awful lot of liberals don't like it, and an awful lot of conservative Democrats don't like it--if there are any conservative Democrats in that body; there may be a few, although there aren't any over here in this body. The only way they can get the bill back over here with their small reconciliation package that they talked about-- the only way they can do that is by abusing the rules. Frankly, if they had the votes to pass it, it would have been passed by now. The Senator from West Virginia and I both know they don't have the votes. Let me just continue on with my remarks. I mentioned earlier that the reconciliation process has never been used to enact sweeping social legislation that did not have wide bipartisan support, but I also wish to emphasize that such major legislation has had wide bipartisan support even when passed through the regular legislative process. That is the best way to achieve such significant change that can impact so much of our economy and virtually every American family. The Senate, for example, passed the Social Security Act in August 1935 by a voice vote. The legislation creating the Medicare Program in July 1965 received 70 votes, a bipartisan vote. Legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, in which I played a significant role, passed in 1990 by a vote of 94 to 6, and a revision in 2008 passed the Senate and the House unanimously. That is the best way to enact sweeping social legislation with wide bipartisan support and the deep consensus of the American people. If you look at the meeting down at the White House of Republicans and Democrats and the President, I think it was shocking to many who had been blaming Republicans for not coming up with a bill, knowing that there was no chance it would even be considered, to see that Republicans had a lot of ideas and were willing to work with Democrats, would have worked together. We could have started by doing the things we can agree on and then go from there and see what we can do to bring about a bipartisan consensus. But, no, that wasn't good enough. So whether our regular legislative process is used or the exception to that process called reconciliation is used, major social legislation has had wide bipartisan support. This one does not. Legislation with much less impact on the health care bills before us had to have wide bipartisan support. But rather than compromise or deviate in any way from their big government, federally controlled, one-size-fits-all approach, Washington liberals have insisted that they know better than the American people, and the American people have caught on to them. These liberals are determined to have their way by any means necessary, even by the illegitimate use of an extraordinary process such as reconciliation. I ask unanimous consent that a column by this body's former majority leader, Dr. Bill Frist, appearing in the February 25 edition of the Wall Street Journal be placed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, Senator Frist cogently argues that using reconciliation for this health care legislation would be a historic and dangerous mistake. There is still time to turn back from this path. There is still time to do what nearly three-quarters of Americans want us to do and that is start over and work together. I hope we do. I told the President 3 days after the inauguration, when I was down there at their request, that I would be happy to work with him, and I know a lot of other Republicans would be happy to. We were never even called on it. I wish to thank my distinguished colleague from South Dakota, Senator Thune, for his leadership in this body and his articulate arguments here today. I have appreciated them. He does a great job leading our policy committee and is a real advocate for sound ideas and conservative principles. I hope he feels as I do, as we have outlined today, that on both substance and process the Senate is heading in the wrong direction on health care reform. We need to pull back and do it right.

Mr. HATCH. I am happy to yield.

Mr. HATCH. I appreciate the Senator's remarks. Make no bones about it, they know they cannot pass the bill that has been sent over there, so they are going to attempt this extraordinary rules gimmick. Frankly, it really disturbs me that on something this important, something that affects one-sixth of the American economy, they are willing to play games with this in order to get their will when a vast majority of the American people are against what they are doing. Only about 24 percent are for it. Frankly, they want their way no matter what. If they pull this off, and I question whether they can, but if they do, I believe they are going to pay a tremendous price. It is not the way we should be legislating, especially since a number of us have been willing to work with them on issues we agree on first-- and there is a lot we could agree on first--and then go from there and battle it out on the issues on which we cannot agree. That is a pretty good offer, and it has been on the table from the inauguration on. There is something more to this. It is a question of power. If they get control of the health care system of this country and they move it more and more into the Federal Government and more and more people become dependent on the Federal Government, then it is a question of power. I want to make fewer and fewer people dependent on the Federal Government. I would like to have people have freedoms. This is going to take away freedoms. Not only that, in order to arrive at this $2.5 trillion bill, they have had to use accounting gimmicks like imposing taxes first and then 4 years later implementing other parts of the bill. Some of it will not be implemented until 2018, long after President Obama, assuming he is elected to two terms, is gone. That is to accommodate their union friends, knowing that otherwise they will never have the guts to enact that part of the bill. This bill is going to cost a lot more. We are already spending $2.4 trillion on our health care system in this country. They want to add another $2.5 trillion to it. They say it is $1 trillion, but they use gimmicks for the first several years. Can you imagine $5 trillion for health care? And they still do not cover everybody in our society. There is a real issue of whether they are covering a lot of people the American taxpayers are going to have to pay for who should not be covered. To use this process to slip such a bill through, it is abysmal. They should be ashamed of themselves. They act as if the American people are so doggone stupid, they cannot figure it out. They have already figured it out. They know it is not a good thing.

Mr. HATCH. Yes, I yield.

Mr. HATCH. I know the distinguished Senator knows as well as I know that there are 1,700 provisions in this bill that turn the power over to make decisions on our health care matters to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. I don't care whether the Secretary is a Democrat or a Republican. Naturally, I prefer a Republican, but I don't care whether they are either. That kind of power should not be turned over to the bureaucracy. I think Republicans are willing to stand up and have the guts to do it. My gosh, there has not been a hand extended to us at all during this process. They just said: Take it or leave it. I was in the Gang of 7 on the Finance Committee. I thought that the chairman was trying his best but was not given enough power to really come up with a health care bill, except within the parameters they had already decided. He was so restricted. I decided that I could no longer continue in those talks. The bill turned out as I thought it would. They took the HELP Committee bill and then they took aspects of the Finance bill and in one office, with even very few Democrats--no Republicans--they came up with this monstrosity of a bill on which the House now does not want to vote. They are going to do anything they can to avoid that vote, even gimmicking up the whole process. That is disgraceful, in my eyes. I do not need to go on any further. I think we ought to start over. We ought to do it right. We ought to work together and start with the issues on which we can agree. I think there would be a number of considerable issues we can agree on, starting with people who have preexisting conditions. They ought to be able to get health insurance. We all agree on that. There are a number of other things on which we can agree. I thank my dear colleague from South Dakota. I thank him for the excellent remarks he made on the floor. I appreciate him answering some of the questions I had. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 25, 2010] A Historic and Dangerous Senate Mistake: Using `Reconciliation' To Ram Through Health Reform Would Only Deepen Partisan Passions (By Bill Frist) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has announced that while Democrats have a number of options to complete health-care legislation, he may use the budget reconciliation process to do so. This would be an unprecedented, dangerous and historic mistake. Budget reconciliation is an arcane Senate procedure whereby legislation can be passed using a lowered threshold of requisite votes (a simple majority) under fast-track rules that limit debate. This process was intended for incremental changes to the budget--not sweeping social legislation. Using the budget reconciliation procedure to pass health- care reform would be unprecedented because Congress has never used it to adopt major, substantive policy change. The Senate's health bill is without question such a change: It would fundamentally alter one-fifth of our economy. The first use of this special procedure was in the fall of 1980, as the Democratic majority in Congress moved to reduce entitlement programs in response to candidate Ronald Reagan's focus on the growing deficit. Throughout the 1980s and '90s, reconciliation was used to reduce deficit projections and to enact budget enforcement mechanisms. In early 2001, with projected surpluses well into the future, it was used to return a portion of that surplus to the public by changing tax rates. Senators of both parties have assiduously avoided using budget reconciliation as a mechanism to pass expansive social legislation that lacks bipartisan support. In 1993, Democratic leaders--including the dean of Senate procedure and an author of the original Budget Act, Robert C. Byrd-- appropriately prevailed on the Clinton administration not to use reconciliation to adopt its health-care agenda. It was used to pass welfare reform in 1996, an entitlement program, but the changes had substantial bipartisan support. In 2003, while I was serving as majority leader, Republicans used the reconciliation process to enact tax cuts. I was approached by members of my own caucus to use reconciliation to extend prescription drug coverage to millions of Medicare recipients. I resisted. The Congress considered the legislation under regular order, and the Medicare Modernization Act passed through the normal legislative procedure in 2003. The same concerns I expressed about using this procedure to fast-track prescription drug expansions with a simple majority vote were similarly expressed by Majority Leader Reid, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, and others last year when they chose not to use the procedure to enact their health-care legislation. Over the past several months, an additional 15 Democratic senators have expressed opposition to using this tool. The concerns about using reconciliation to bypass Senate rules which do not limit debate reflect the late New York Democratic Sen. Pat Moynihan's admonishment--that significant policy changes impacting almost all Americans should be adopted with bipartisan support if the legislation is to survive and be supported in the public arena. Applying the reconciliation process is dangerous because it would likely destroy its true purpose, which is to help enact fiscal policy consistent with an agreed-upon congressional budget blueprint. Worse, using reconciliation to amend a bill before it has become law in order to avoid the normal House and Senate conference procedure is a total affront to the legislative process. Finally, enacting sweeping health-care reform through reconciliation is a mistake because of rapidly diminishing public support for the strictly partisan Senate and House health bills. The American people disdain the backroom deals that have been cut with the hospital and pharmaceutical industries, the unions, the public display of the ``cornhusker kickback,'' etc. The public will likely--and in my opinion, rightly--rebel against the use of a procedural tactic to lower the standard threshold for passage because of a lack of sufficient support in the Senate. Americans want bipartisan solutions for major social and economic issues; they don't want legislative gimmicks that force unpopular legislation through the Senate. Thomas Jefferson once referred to the Senate as ``the cooling saucer'' of the legislative process. Using budget reconciliation in this way would dramatically alter the founders' intent for the Senate, and transform it from cooling saucer to a boiling teapot of partisanship. Mr. Reid was right to rule out this option when this saga began last year. He would be wise to abandon it today.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Thorium Energy Security Act of 2010 with my good friend and colleague Senator Harry Reid as an original cosponsor. Our legislation would establish a regulatory framework and a development program to facilitate the introduction of thorium-based nuclear fuel in existing and future nuclear power plants in the U.S. The U.S. is dependent on foreign sources for about 90 percent of its uranium fuel needs. However, the most recent U.S. Geological Survey Thorium Mineral Commodity Survey confirms that the U.S. has the largest thorium deposits in the world. I have been a longtime supporter of our Nation's nuclear power industry, and I expect to see a long future for nuclear power in this nation. I believe that future is enhanced with the possibility of thorium nuclear power as new source of nuclear power in the future. Thorium-based nuclear fuel will remain in the reactor about three times as long as conventional nuclear fuel, thereby cutting the volume of spent nuclear fuel coming out of reactors by as much as two-thirds. Thorium nuclear fuel could also significantly reduce the possibility that weapons grade material would result from the process. Finally, a thorium fuel cycle can be used as a very effective and efficient means for disposing of existing plutonium stockpiles. For these reasons, a number of governments throughout the world are aggressively seeking to establish thorium nuclear power as an element of their power supply. These governments want the benefits of nuclear power, without the difficulties associated with large volumes of waste, much of which can be turned to weapons grade material. Our aim with this legislation is to ensure that the U.S. does not fall behind the movement. I hope my colleagues will take a look at the potential for thorium-based nuclear power.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Thorium Energy Security Act of 2010 with my good friend and colleague Senator Harry Reid as an original cosponsor. Our legislation would establish a regulatory framework and a development program to facilitate the introduction of thorium-based nuclear fuel in existing and future nuclear power plants in the U.S. The U.S. is dependent on foreign sources for about 90 percent of its uranium fuel needs. However, the most recent U.S. Geological Survey Thorium Mineral Commodity Survey confirms that the U.S. has the largest thorium deposits in the world. I have been a longtime supporter of our Nation's nuclear power industry, and I expect to see a long future for nuclear power in this nation. I believe that future is enhanced with the possibility of thorium nuclear power as new source of nuclear power in the future. Thorium-based nuclear fuel will remain in the reactor about three times as long as conventional nuclear fuel, thereby cutting the volume of spent nuclear fuel coming out of reactors by as much as two-thirds. Thorium nuclear fuel could also significantly reduce the possibility that weapons grade material would result from the process. Finally, a thorium fuel cycle can be used as a very effective and efficient means for disposing of existing plutonium stockpiles. For these reasons, a number of governments throughout the world are aggressively seeking to establish thorium nuclear power as an element of their power supply. These governments want the benefits of nuclear power, without the difficulties associated with large volumes of waste, much of which can be turned to weapons grade material. Our aim with this legislation is to ensure that the U.S. does not fall behind the movement. I hope my colleagues will take a look at the potential for thorium-based nuclear power.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the so-called jobs legislation that is before the Senate this afternoon and to express my grave concerns with the direction this bill has taken over the past few weeks. Several of my Finance Committee colleagues on both sides of the aisle put a lot of time and effort into creating a compromise jobs bill that Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley were trying to move forward. Indeed, I had high hopes that we might help thaw the partisan freeze that has gridlocked this chamber for far too long. Unfortunately, our efforts and hopes have been dashed by the majority leader's inexplicable decision to gut our bill and replace it with a piece of legislation that replaces cooperation with contention. Further exacerbating matters, the Democratic leadership has filled the amendment tree, thus preventing anyone from being able to offer amendments that would improve the underlying bill. So much for compromise. As a longtime public servant of this great deliberative body, I can't recall a decision that exhibited as much raw political gamesmanship as this one does. The Democratic leadership is stifling the first genuine attempt at cooperation on a major issue--a move that bodes ill for bipartisanship for the remainder of this Congress. Given what is happening with this jobs bill, how can we in the minority have faith that we won't be excluded from debate on future legislation such as health care and energy legislation? It is easy to label the Republicans as the ``Party of No'' when you completely exclude them from the legislative process. Unfortunately, the majority leaves us with little other option than to say ``no.'' But what puzzles me the most is what the majority has to gain from this partisan maneuver. In my experience, the Senate operates best when there is trust that agreements will be honored, but regrettably now even that is in question. Just a few weeks ago, I sat in the House Chamber while the President gave his State of the Union Address in which he raised the importance of bipartisan cooperation, especially in the area of job creation. The fact that the President hit a nerve with this plea is evident by the effort to build such a bipartisan bill in the Finance Committee in the weeks that followed. However, it is obvious that many on the other side cannot stand the thought of working with our side when there might be political points to be scored by trying to embarrass us. Here are a few of the things the President said about the need for bipartisanship in his State of the Union Address: And what the American people hope--what they deserve--is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences. [Americans] are tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. These aren't Republican values or Democratic values that they're living by; business values or labor values. They're American values. The President went on to address the need to promote job growth by saying: Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America's businesses. We should start where most new jobs do--in small businesses, companies that begin when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or a worker decides it's time she became her own boss. And finally: [We should] Provide a tax incentive for all large businesses and all small businesses to invest in new plants and equipment. While these challenges and standards were set by the President, the leader of the Democratic Party, I believe most Republicans would agree with him. The American people are suffering. Our unemployment rate is near double digits. We owe it to the unemployed and underemployed to put aside partisan politics so that we can create jobs and make our economy stronger. Soon after President Obama addressed the Nation, Senate Democratic and Republican leaders went to work on a bipartisan solution to create a jobs-growth bill. I worked with Senator Schumer to come up with a payroll tax holiday for companies that hired more employees. Under this incentive, the sooner a company hired an unemployed worker the more tax incentive the company would receive. I believe that this initiative is a perfect example of the kind of bipartisanship the President talked about during his State of the Union Address. In addition, Senators Baucus and Grassley joined in this effort by including several other provisions aimed at job growth and to address the symptoms of a failing economy. This was a compromise that included an extension of unemployment insurance, Build America Bonds, and expired tax provisions. Let me be clear. There is no doubt in my mind and in the mind of many of my colleagues that passing a jobs bill is crucial. We have seen our unemployment rate remain at about 10 percent since September. The American people sent us here to do a job, and it is way past time we did it. This is why it was so disheartening on February 11, when the Senate majority leader announced that he would scrap the compromise proposal only hours after its unveiling and proceed instead with a stripped-down bill that would not extend any of the expiring tax proposals that are so vitally important to job growth. This decision not only pulled the rug out from Republicans, but it floored those Democrats who had been working for weeks on a bipartisan solution. Regrettably, because of this decision, it looks as though President Obama's hope for a bipartisan solution to job creation only lasted 2 weeks. What a shame! To illustrate the abruptness of and surprise caused by the majority leader's unexpected action, just look at the next-day's headlines: ``Key Dem: Reid scrapped jobs bill because he did not trust Republicans''--The Hill ``Reid kills Baucus-Grassley jobs bill''--The Politico ``Senate leader slashes jobs bill; Despite new support''-- LA Times But it doesn't end there. The majority leader sent a pretty strong message when he said that he--and I quote--``dared Republicans to vote against his bill.'' Many Democratic Senators were quick to stand behind the majority leader's reversal, just seconds after supporting the bipartisan jobs bill. Some even stated that we Republicans were not interested in a bipartisan deal because we were more inclined to ``play rope-a-dope again.'' They went on to characterize the tax extenders as only ``going to people who are making money, and they generally keep it.'' They even went so far as to say that what the Democratic Caucus is taking to the floor is something that is more focused on job creation than on tax breaks. What most surprised me is just how quickly many Democratic Senators were to abandon these tax extenders, even though most of them support extending these very expiring tax provisions. In fact, the Democratic leadership has erroneously labeled the tax extenders as solely a Republican-supported initiative. This is hardly the case, considering the Democratic-led House has already passed nearly all of these tax extenders and the President called for them to be passed in his speech before Congress. There is an array of expiring tax provisions contained in the tax extenders package. Here are a few that are included: Also, many Democrats, including the majority leader, are cosponsors of legislation that would extend many of the expiring tax provisions. Look at the bill to extend the research tax credit, or the alternative fuels vehicle credit, or even the new markets tax credit. These are by no means solely Republican initiatives. In fact, there are many business tax incentives included in the tax extenders package that are primarily supported by some of the Senators who have been the most vocal against including the expired provisions in the jobs bill. These Democratic-supported business incentives include a mine rescue team training credit and special expensing rules for certain film and television productions. Therefore, to label the support of extending these expiring tax provisions as part of a solely Republican agenda is misleading, unfair, and unwarranted. I believe that these statements were made only to support the majority leader, who appeared to have made a hasty and ill- considered decision. Some have questioned how extending these expired tax provisions relate to job creation. It is a fair question, but one with easy answers. The extension of these expired tax provisions would support proven growth of companies that are slowly beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Conversely, government funding would only provide a false sense of job growth because once the government funding is gone so will the jobs. If we need proof that government spending isn't as effective as tax relief, we only have to look to what the Congressional Budget Office said last year about the effects of the year-old economic stimulus package: The legislation would increase employment by 0.8 million to 2.3 million by the fourth quarter of 2009, by 1.2 million to 3.6 million by the fourth quarter of 2010, by 0.6 million to 1.9 million by the fourth quarter of 2011, and by declining numbers in later years. The reason for this drop in employment is because government spending does not create permanent jobs; only the private sector can. In contrast to government spending, tax incentives would give the private sector a much-needed boost. If we had included more tax incentives for businesses in last year's stimulus bill, we would have created jobs that will last far longer than the ones government spending has created. Originally projected to cost $787 billion, the stimulus bill is now expected to total $862 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. This does not include interest owed, which would put the total cost in the trillions of dollars. Thus far, only a third of the $862 billion stimulus package has been spent. Another third is expected to be spent in 2010, and the remaining third after this year. Whatever happened to spending money on projects deemed to be ``shovel ready?'' The administration has claimed the stimulus bill is responsible for creating or saving 1 million jobs--a very misleading claim. For example, it was reported that a construction company in Nevada created 20 jobs on a project that has yet to receive money. A school district reported saving 665 jobs, even though it only employs roughly 600 people. A town in Oregon reported creating eight jobs on a contract for ``rattlesnake stewardship.'' In January 2009, President Obama's economic advisors predicted in a report that with an $800 billion stimulus, the unemployment rate would never go above 8 percent. As I stated previously, unemployment has been near 10 percent since last September. Moreover, the stimulus package was sold to the American people as an immediate fix--a ``jolt'' to the economy. The President's chief economic advisor, Larry Summers, said: ``You'll see effects immediately.'' Christina Romer, the President's chair of Economic Advisers, said: ``We'll start adding jobs rather than losing them.'' And House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said, ``This will begin creating jobs immediately.'' When pitching the stimulus bill, then-President-elect Obama said ``90 percent of these jobs will be created in the private sector--the remaining 10 percent are mainly public sector jobs.'' However, the Wall Street Journal reported in a February 17 article that government data indicate most jobs supported by stimulus dollars belonged to government employees at the State and local level. In fact, only 2 percent of the entire stimulus bill was dedicated toward tax relief for businesses. We need to provide a foundation to allow the private sector to nourish and create better paying jobs. That is why many support including these tax extenders in a jobs bill. For instance, it is estimated that that approximately 70 percent or more of the research tax credit benefits are attributable to salaries of performing U.S.-based research. How can some Senators disregard the effectiveness of some of these tax extenders on job growth? And keep in mind that the research credit has traditionally received more Democratic than Republican support in this body. In fact, there is a bill to extend the expiring research tax credit. Of the 18 cosponsors of this bill, 11 are Democrats. Furthermore, this bill was introduced by the Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. As I stated earlier, the President set the tone at the beginning of the year by calling on Congress to put forth a bipartisan solution to create jobs. In response, both Democrats and Republicans brought innovative ideas to the table. Then, in a sudden change of events, many Republican ideas were excluded from the jobs bill the majority leader has brought to the floor. Finally, the majority leader is not allowing our side to offer any amendments. If this is not an arrogance of power, then I do not know what is. I only hope the majority leader heeds President Obama's plea for a bipartisan solution. I think one Democrat, learning of the majority leader's action, said it best: Most Americans don't honestly believe that a single political party has all the good ideas. I hope the majority leader will reconsider.''

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I oppose invoking cloture on the motion to concur with the House amendment to the Senate amendment to HR 2847, also known as Senator Reid's Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act. Only 2 weeks after President Obama stood in the House of Representatives to deliver his State of the Union address calling for a bipartisan solution to creating job growth, the majority leader has pulled the rug from underneath both Democrats and Republicans. Senators Baucus, Grassley, and others, including myself, had been spearheading an effort to put forth a bipartisan jobs bill. However, the majority leader inexplicably decided to gut our work product. Let me be clear, there is no doubt in my mind and in the mind of many of my colleagues that passing a jobs bill is crucial. We have seen our unemployment rate remain stagnant at around 10 percent since last September. The American people sent us here to do a job, and it is way past time we did it. That is why I worked with Senator Schumer to come up with a payroll tax holiday for those companies that hired more employees. Under this incentive, the sooner a company hired an unemployed worker the more tax incentive the company would receive. Regrettably, because of the majority leader's decision, it looks as though President Obama's hope for a bipartisan solution to job creation only lasted 2 weeks. What a shame. The original package, negotiated by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley, included an array of tax provisions aimed at providing the private sector with the ability to hire more employees and invest in more equipment. The extension of these expired tax provisions only support proven growth of companies that are slowly beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel. The President set the tone at the beginning of the year by calling on Congress to put forth a bipartisan solution to creating jobs in this country. In response, both Democrats and Republicans brought innovative ideas to the table. Then, in a sudden change of events, many Republican ideas have been excluded from the jobs bill the majority leader has brought to the floor. And again, the majority leader has maneuvered this legislation to prevent any amendments from being offered by our side. If this is not an arrogance of power, then I do not know what is. I only hope the majority leader heeds to President Obama's plea for a bipartisan solution. I think it would be a grave injustice to the American people to pass this bill in this way. How is the minority supposed to have faith that the minority will not be excluded from debate of future legislation, such as health care and energy legislation? It is easy to label the Republicans as the party of no when you completely exclude them from the legislative process. No is the only option that remains.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today is the 37th anniversary of a double tragedy for our Nation. On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States twisted the Constitution to create a right to kill babies before they are born. Since then, nearly 50 million babies have lost their lives. That is more than 40 times the number of Americans who died in all of our Nation's wars. Those babies were living human beings, and they were killed by abortion. Less than 25 years earlier, inspired by the experience of World War II, the United Nations unanimously adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The United States voted for it, and it is said to be the most widely translated document in the world. Its very first words declare that ``recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.'' Article 3 of the Declaration states that ``everyone has the right to life.'' I belong to the human family because I am a living human being. So does every Member of the Senate, every citizen of this country, every human being on this planet. Each of us was no less a living human being, no less a member of the human family, before we were born than we are now. The facts did not change, but Roe v. Wade represented a radically different set of values. In January 1983, President Ronald Reagan said that the 10th anniversary of Roe v. Wade was a good time to pause and reflect. He said that the real issue with abortion ``is not when human life begins, but, What is the value of human life?'' That is still the real issue today. Do human beings still have, in the words of the U.N. Declaration, inherent dignity and inalienable rights? Or do we have, as President Reagan described, ``a social ethic where some human lives are valued and others are not''? I will ask to have printed President Reagan's profound essay titled ``Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation'' in the Record following my statement. We have not done enough to address the reasons that many women feel they have no alternative but abortion. I applaud the thousands of selfless women and men who volunteer and give and work to help women choose life. I understand that today there are more pro-life centers than abortion clinics in America. But abortion is right or wrong not because of why it is done, but because of what it is. Abortion is the killing of living human beings. A few years ago, Congress considered bills to ban the killing of horses and to promote humane treatment of farm animals. A House member who supported these bills and co-chaired the Congressional Friends of Animals Caucus said: ``The way a society treats its animals speaks to the core values and priorities of its citizens.'' I believe that the way a society treats babies also speaks to the core values and priorities of its citizens. As President Reagan said, we ``cannot diminish the value of one category of human life--the unborn--without diminishing the value of all human life.'' The result of the Roe v. Wade decision is the first tragedy we should mourn today. The second tragedy is the means the Supreme Court used to achieve that result. The real Constitution, the one that the people established, the one that is the supreme law of the land, the one that protects liberty by limiting government, does not contain a right to abortion. To achieve the result they wanted, the Justices effectively created a different Constitution, and in so doing asserted control over the charter that is supposed to control them. The Justices became masters over the Constitution they had sworn an oath to support and defend. So the result of Roe v. Wade diminished the value of human life. The means of Roe v. Wade diminished the value of liberty. The Supreme Court attempted to impose upon the people a set of values that they still reject. Most Americans still oppose most abortions, and last year more Americans called themselves ``pro-life'' than the alternative label for the time in the 15 years Gallup has asked that question. As President Reagan said in 1983, ``despite the formidable obstacles before us, we must not lose heart.'' Today, we are challenged to reach out and to give of ourselves to help others. I championed the legislation to help make service a national priority. In July 2008, before he was elected President, Senator Obama said that when you serve, ``you are connected to that fundamental American ideal that we want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not just for ourselves but for all Americans. That's why we call it the American dream.'' It might even be called the human dream. Is that still our dream today? What are our core values and priorities? Do we still embrace those universal human values of inherent dignity and inalienable rights for all members of the human family? Today, Roe v. Wade still gives us an opportunity to pause and reflect. That tragic decision, in President Reagan's words, ``has become a continuing prod to the conscience of the nation.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record President Reagan's essay titled ``Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation'' to which I referred.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my great concern about the need for the legislation before us, which would increase the Nation's debt limit. It is sad and disturbing that the last vote we will take this year before recessing for the Christmas holiday is one to increase the already almost unimaginably high $12 trillion debt ceiling. What a horrible gift to deliver to the American taxpayer on this Christmas Eve. In a season when most families have cut back their own spending and, in many cases, cut up their own credit cards, the Democratic majority is asking us to increase the Nation's credit card limit so that they can continue to take on more debt to cover their voracious appetite for spending. Up until a few days ago, the Democratic leadership was actually looking for a way to increase the debt limit by more than $1.8 trillion, which would have been more than twice as much as the largest previous increase in the debt limit. They were looking for a virtual blank check to continue their unrestrained deficit spending all the way through next year's election. The fact that the majority party could not come to a consensus among its own ranks on this outrageous plan is evidence enough of the brashness and hubris of the other side. Apparently, even a drunken sailor can be embarrassed enough to show a modicum of restraint if the price tag is high enough. Plain and simple, we need to take control of this out-of-control government spending before we see the hopes and dreams of our children, grandchildren, and all subsequent generations of Americans dashed against the rocks. Federal spending is now taking the largest share of our national income since the early 1950s and the current deficit is as large as it has been since World War II. This is bad enough, Mr. President, but there is no end in sight to the profligacy. Based on current projections, which will probably get much worse, 10 years from now it will be shown that this President and this Democratic majority have left a shameful legacy. The CBO estimates that in 2019, the Federal deficit will still be over $1 trillion for that 1 year and that our total national debt will be over $20 trillion. Most of our new borrowing will be needed just to pay interest on the previous debt. At some nearby place, which we are fast approaching, we will reach a tipping point where we will be in total bondage to this debt. When we get to the time that we are borrowing vast and ever-increasing sums just to pay the interest on previous debt, the hopes of ever escaping from the vortex of financial destruction will fade and we will have consigned the next generations to a permanent substandard of living. The other side keeps making the pathetically lame excuse that they inherited eight years of bad economic policy, which they say is the real culprit of our fiscal problems. What is conveniently forgotten around here is the fact that the final two of those eight years were under a Democratically led Congress. I am the first to admit that Republicans in Congress were too eager to spend and that President Bush should have wielded his veto pen more aggressively. There is some accountability there. But let us face it, our side are rank amateurs compared to the consummate spenders we now have in charge. For proof, we need look no further than the President's budget, the trillion dollar stimulus bill, this $2.5 trillion health care bill, and the recent $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill with its double digit percentage increases over last year's spending. The deficit has grown exponentially this year alone. The numbers themselves tell the story. The Treasury Department's Monthly Treasury Statement for November shows a deficit over the first two months of this new fiscal year alone of nearly $300 billion. This 2-month deficit is greater than the full-year deficits in 2002, 2006, and 2007, which, by the way, are part of the past eight years that were supposed to represent the ultimate in reckless spending. I am scared. All Americans should be frightened as well. We are on an unstable raft in the middle of an increasingly raging river. The currents are swirling around us and we are beginning to lose control of where we are going. Sharp rocks are starting to appear in the river that threaten our destruction. Our alarm grows as we begin to hear a sound off in the distance that slowly gets louder as we head downstream on these increasingly wild rapids. The sound we hear is the cataract that represents our fall from the greatest nation in the history of mankind to that of a second-rate player on the world stage. Can you hear it? Can we find a way to turn this boat around before it is too late to avoid the fall? Many of my fellow Utahns can hear it and they are begging me to find a way to get us off this destructive course and get us back to safe waters. The first step is to reject this debt limit increase. Let us cut up the credit card and stop this frightening spending spree before it takes us to the precipice. It is a good thing we are recessing for a few days. The Members of this Senate need to go home and get a reality check from those who have sent us here. I hope that over the recess each of us will get a message, loud and clear, from our recession and debt-weary constituents that they are sick and tired of this fiscal irresponsibility. They are demanding change, and they will get it, one way or the other. I hope that in the new year, we can consider these messages and find a new resolve to come together, to find the restraint that is simply lacking now, and to reverse this reckless spending so we do not send our country down the river.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to support the constitutional point of order raised against the legislation before us by the distinguished Senator from Nevada. I applaud the senior Senator from Nevada for taking this step so that all Senators can take a position on whether this legislation is constitutional, or whether this legislation is consistent with the Constitution each of us is sworn to protect and defend. The Senator from Nevada serves with me on the Senate Finance Committee, and he will remember that I started raising constitutional questions and objections against this legislation more than 3 months ago during the committee markup, and so has he. This body has spent its time debating the policy of this legislation. This is a terrible piece of legislation that will raise insurance premiums, raise taxes, and limit access to care. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from yesterday's Wall Street Journal, titled ``Change Nobody Believes In,'' be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. HATCH. From the standpoint of policy, Mr. President, we should not pass this bill. Perhaps more importantly, from the standpoint of the Constitution, we may not pass it. Much has changed since the founding of this great country, but one thing has not: The liberty we love requires limits on government. It requires limits on government. It always has and it always will. America's founders knew that and built limits into the system of government they established. Those limits come primarily from a written Constitution that delegates enumerated powers to the Federal Government. We must point to at least one--at least one--of those powers as the basis for any legislation we pass. The Constitution and the limits it imposes do not mean whatever we want them to mean. This legislation brings America into completely uncharted political and legal waters and I will not be at all surprised if there is litigation challenging it on constitutional and other grounds. In the Finance Committee, I offered an amendment to add a procedure for the courts to handle constitutional challenges in an expedited fashion. The Finance Committee chairman ruled that amendment out of order so that it could not even be considered. That was his decision, but that means that any future challenges will be handled the old fashioned way, even if that means an extended, rather than an expedited, process. I ask unanimous consent that a memo prepared by the Conservative Action Project be printed in the Record following my remarks. Its signatories include former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese; former Congressman David McIntosh; Karen Kerrigan, President of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council; and Brian McManus of the Council for Affordable Health Insurance.

Mr. HATCH. Let me briefly repeat the constitution objections I have been raising for the past few months and which the Senator from Nevada carefully raised this morning. First, the only enumerated power that conceivably can support the mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance is the power to regulate interstate commerce. Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has expanded this to include regulation of activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. But the key word is activities. Congress has never crossed the line between regulating what people choose to do and ordering them to do it. The difference between regulating and requiring is liberty. I agree with the 75 percent of Americans who believe that the insurance mandate is unconstitutional because Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce does not include telling Americans what they must buy. Second, the financial penalty enforcing the insurance mandate is just that, a penalty. It is not a tax and, therefore, it is constitutional only if the insurance mandate it enforces is constitutional. If it is a tax, it is a direct tax on individuals rather than an excise tax on transactions and, therefore, it violates article I, section 9, of the Constitution which requires that direct taxes be apportioned according to population. Third, the excise tax on high-cost insurance plans, which applies differently in some states than in others, is unconstitutional because it is not uniform throughout the United States as required by article I, section 8. The Supreme Court has said that to be uniform as the Constitution requires, an excise tax must have the same force and effect wherever the subject of the tax is found. Not only is this not the case with this tax, which makes it plainly unconstitutional, but that is exactly the design and intention of those who drafted this legislation. Fourth, the legislation orders states to establish health benefit exchanges which will require states to pass legislation and regulations. If they do not, or even if the Secretary of Health and Human Services believes they will not by a certain date, the Secretary will literally step into each state and establish and operate this exchange for them. This is a direct violation of the division between federal and state government power. The Supreme Court could not have been clearer on this point, ruling over and over that Congress may regulate individuals but may not regulate states. Congress has no authority to order states, in their capacity as states to pass legislation. We have encouraged states to pass legislation, we have bribed them, we have even extorted them by threatening to withhold federal funds. But this legislation simply commandeers states and makes them little more than subdivisions of the federal government. In 1997, the Supreme Court held ``state legislatures are not subject to Federal direction'' and reaffirmed ``categorically'' its earlier holding that ``the federal government may not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.'' That should be clear enough for Senators to understand here in this body. I was amazed to learn that when President Franklin D. Roosevelt chose Frances Perkins as his Secretary of Labor, they discussed social policy legislation including health insurance. As Secretary Perkins later described it, they agreed that such legislation would pose ``very severe constitutional problems,'' including fundamentally altering federal-state relationships. That is why the Social Security Act relies on the payroll tax. Even the Roosevelt administration, which oversaw the most dramatic expansion of Federal power in our Nation's history, would not go as far as the legislation before us today would go. Should this legislation become law, there would be nothing that the federal government could not do. Congress would be remaking the Constitution in its image, rather than abiding by the Constitution's limits as liberty requires. There must come a time when we say that the political ends cannot justify the constitutional means, that the Constitution and the liberty it protects are more important than we wonderful Members of Congress are. That time is now, and that is why we will vote to sustain this constitutional point of order. I wish to personally thank and congratulate the distinguished Senator from Nevada for his work on this issue, for his work on the committee, because he was one of the more energetic and more capable people on the committee in raising some of these very important issues such as this constitutional set of issues we have been discussing over this short period of time today. I am grateful for him, I am grateful he has raised it, and I am grateful to be able to be here on the floor to support him in his raising of this constitutional point of order when he chooses to do so. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Wall Street Journal, Dec. 21, 2009] Change Nobody Believes In And tidings of comfort and joy from Harry Reid too. The Senate Majority Leader has decided that the last few days before Christmas are the opportune moment for a narrow majority of Democrats to stuff ObamaCare through the Senate to meet an arbitrary White House deadline. Barring some extraordinary reversal, it now seems as if they have the 60 votes they need to jump off this cliff, with one-seventh of the economy in tow. Mr. Obama promised a new era of transparent good government, yet on Saturday morning Mr. Reid threw out the 2,100-page bill that the world's greatest deliberative body spent just 17 days debating and replaced it with a new ``manager's amendment'' that was stapled together in covert partisan negotiations. Democrats are barely even bothering to pretend to care what's in it, not that any Senator had the chance to digest it in the 38 hours before the first cloture vote at 1 a. m. this morning. After procedural motions that allow for no amendments, the final vote could come at 9 p.m. on December 24. Even in World War I there was a Christmas truce. The rushed, secretive way that a bill this destructive and unpopular is being forced on the country shows that ``reform'' has devolved into the raw exercise of political power for the single purpose of permanently expanding the American entitlement state. An increasing roll of leaders in health care and business are looking on aghast at a bill that is so large and convoluted that no one can truly understand it, as Finance Chairman Max Baucus admitted on the floor last week. The only goal is to ram it into law while the political window is still open, and clean up the mess later. Health costs. From the outset, the White House's core claim was that reform would reduce health costs for individuals and businesses, and they're sticking to that story. ``Anyone who says otherwise simply hasn't read the bills,'' Mr. Obama said over the weekend. This is so utterly disingenuous that we doubt the President really believes it. The best and most rigorous cost analysis was recently released by the insurer WellPoint, which mined its actuarial data in various regional markets to model the Senate bill. WellPoint found that a healthy 25-year-old in Milwaukee buying coverage on the individual market will see his costs rise by 178%. A small business based in Richmond with eight employees in average health will see a 23% increase. Insurance costs for a 40-year-old family, with two kids living in Indianapolis will pay 106% more. And on and on. These increases are solely the result of ObamaCare--above and far beyond the status quo--because its strict restrictions on underwriting and risk-pooling would distort insurance markets. All but a handful of states have rejected regulations like ``community rating'' because they encourage younger and healthier buyers to wait until they need expensive care, increasing costs for everyone. Benefits and pricing will now be determined by politics. As for the White House's line about cutting costs by eliminating supposed ``waste,'' even Victor Fuchs, an eminent economist generally supportive of ObamaCare, warned last week that these political theories are overly simplistic. ``The oft-heard promise `we will find out what works and what does not' scarcely does justice to the complexity of medical practice,'' the Stanford professor wrote. Steep declines in choice and quality. This is all of a piece with the hubris of an Administration that thinks it can substitute government planning for market forces in determining where the $33 trillion the U.S. will spend on medicine over the next decade should go. This centralized system means above all fewer choices; what works for the political class must work for everyone. With formerly private insurers converted into public utilities, for instance, they'll inevitably be banned from selling products like health savings accounts that encourage more cost-conscious decisions. Unnoticed by the press corps, the Congressional Budget Office argued recently that the Senate bill would so ``substantially reduce flexibility in terms of the types, prices, and number of private sellers of health insurance'' that companies like WellPoint might need to ``be considered part of the federal budget.'' With so large a chunk of the economy and medical practice itself in Washington's hands, quality will decline. Ultimately, ``our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all,'' as Harvard Medical School Dean Jeffrey Flier recently wrote in our pages. Take the $2 billion annual tax--rising to $3 billion in 2018--that will be leveled against medical device makers, among the most innovative U.S. industries. Democrats believe that more advanced health technologies like MRI machines and drug- coated stents are driving costs too high, though patients and their physicians might disagree. ``The Senate isn't hearing those of us who are closest to the patient and work in the system every day,'' Brent Eastman, the chairman of the American College of Surgeons, said in a statement for his organization and 18 other speciality societies opposing ObamaCare. For no other reason than ideological animus, doctor-owned hospitals will face harsh new limits on their growth and who they're allowed to treat. Physician Hospitals of America says that ObamaCare will ``destroy over 200 of America's best and safest hospitals.'' Blowing up the federal fisc. Even though Medicare's unfunded liabilities are already about 2.6 times larger than the entire U.S. economy in 2008, Democrats are crowing that ObamaCare will cost ``only'' $871 billion over the next decade while fantastically reducing the deficit by $132 billion, according to CBO. Yet some 98% of the total cost comes after 2014--remind us why there must absolutely be a vote this week--and most of the taxes start in 2010. That includes the payroll tax increase for individuals earning more than $200,000 that rose to 0.9 from 0.5 percentage points in Mr. Reid's final machinations. Job creation, here we come. Other deceptions include a new entitlement for long-term care that starts collecting premiums tomorrow but doesn't start paying benefits until late in the decade. But the worst is not accounting for a formula that automatically slashes Medicare payments to doctors by 21.5% next year and deeper after that. Everyone knows the payment cuts won't happen but they remain in the bill to make the cost look lower. The American Medical Association's priority was eliminating this ``sustainable growth rate'' but all they got in return for their year of ObamaCare cheerleading was a two-month patch snuck into the defense bill that passed over the weekend. The truth is that no one really knows how much ObamaCare will cost because its assumptions on paper are so unrealistic. To hide the cost increases created by other parts of the bill and transfer them onto the federal balance sheet, the Senate sets up government-run ``exchanges'' that will subsidize insurance for those earning up to 400% of the poverty level, or $96,000 for a family of four in 2016. Supposedly they would only be offered to those whose employers don't provide insurance or work for small businesses. As Eugene Steuerle of the left-leaning Urban Institute points out, this system would treat two workers with the same total compensation--whatever the mix of cash wages and benefits--very differently. Under the Senate bill, someone who earned $42,000 would get $5,749 from the current tax exclusion for employer-sponsored coverage but $12,750 in the exchange. A worker making $60,000 would get $8,310 in the exchanges but only $3,758 in the current system. For this reason Mr. Steuerle concludes that the Senate bill is not just a new health system but also ``a new welfare and tax system'' that will warp the labor market. Given the incentives of these two-tier subsidies, employers with large numbers of lower-wage workers like Wal-Mart may well convert them into ``contractors'' or do more outsourcing. As more and more people flood into ``free'' health care, taxpayer costs will explode. Political intimidation. The experts who have pointed out such complications have been ignored or dismissed as ``ideologues'' by the White House. Those parts of the health- care industry that couldn't be bribed outright, like Big Pharma, were coerced into acceding to this agenda. The White House was able to, er, persuade the likes of the AMA and the hospital lobbies because the Federal government will control 55% of total U.S. health spending under ObamaCare, according to the Administration's own Medicare actuaries. Others got hush money, namely Nebraska's Ben Nelson. Even liberal Governors have been howling for months about ObamaCare's unfunded spending mandates: Other budget priorities like education will be crowded out when about 21% of the U.S. population is on Medicaid, the joint state- federal program intended for the poor. Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman calculates that ObamaCare will result in $2.5 billion in new costs for his state that ``will be passed on to citizens through direct or indirect taxes and fees,'' as he put it in a letter to his state's junior Senator. So in addition to abortion restrictions, Mr. Nelson won the concession that Congress will pay for 100% of Nebraska Medicaid expansions into perpetuity. His capitulation ought to cost him his political career, but more to the point, what about the other states that don't have a Senator who's the 60th vote for ObamaCare? ``After a nearly century-long struggle we are on the cusp of making health-care reform a reality in the United States of America,'' Mr. Obama said on Saturday. He's forced to claim the mandate of ``history'' because he can't claim the mandate of voters. Some 51% of the public is now opposed, according to National Journal's composite of all health polling. The more people know about ObamaCare, the more unpopular it becomes. The tragedy is that Mr. Obama inherited a consensus that the health-care status quo needs serious reform, and a popular President might have crafted a durable compromise that blended the best ideas from both parties. A more honest and more thoughtful approach might have even done some good. But as Mr. Obama suggested, the Democratic old guard sees this plan as the culmination of 20th-century liberalism. So instead we have this vast expansion of federal control. Never in our memory has so unpopular a bill been on the verge of passing Congress, never has social and economic legislation of this magnitude been forced through on a purely partisan vote, and never has a party exhibited more sheer political willfulness that is reckless even for Washington or had more warning about the consequences of its actions. These 60 Democrats are creating a future of epic increases in spending, taxes and command-and-control regulation, in which bureaucracy trumps innovation and transfer payments are more important than private investment and individual decisions. In short, the Obama Democrats have chosen change nobody believes in--outside of themselves--and when it passes America will be paying for it for decades to come. Exhibit 2 Conservative Action Project The Conservative Action Project, chaired by former Attorney General Edwin Meese, is designed to facilitate conservative leaders working together on behalf of common goals. Participation is extended to leaders of groups representing all major elements of the conservative movement--economic, social and national security. Edwin Meese, former Attorney General; Steven G. Calabresi, Professor, Northwestern Law School; Mathew D. Staver, Founder & Chairman, Liberty Counsel; Curt Levey, Executive Director, Committee for Justice; Marion Edwyn Harrison, Past President, Free Congress Foundation; Kenneth Klukowski, Senior Legal Analyst, American Civil Rights Union; Wendy Wright, President, Concerned Women for America; J. Kenneth Blackwell, Visiting Professor, Liberty School of Law; Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform; William Wilson, President, Americans for Limited Government; Matt Kibbe, President, Freedom Works; Jim Martin, President, 60 Plus Association; David McIntosh, former Member of Congress, Indiana; Colin A. Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring; Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council; Brent Bozell, President, Media Research Center; Brian McManus, Council for Affordable Health Insurance; Karen Kerrigan, President, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council; T. Kenneth Cribb, former Counselor to the U.S. Attorney General; Richard Viguerie, Chairman, ConservativeHQ.com; Alfred Regnery, Publisher, American Spectator.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise to speak on my amendment to the Reid health care bill that would add an expedited judicial review provision to the legislation. It would provide a mechanism for the courts expeditiously to handle any future constitutional challenges to this legislation. Make no mistake. I strongly oppose this Federal takeover of our health care system. I do so for a host of important and serious policy reasons. I believe it is bad for our country, but I also oppose it because I believe some of its core provisions are unconstitutional, undermining the Constitution and the liberty that it makes possible. I have argued for months that the constitutional problems with this legislation include the requirement that individuals obtain a certain level of health insurance and the differential State-by-State taxation of high cost insurance plans. Other scholars and commentators have argued that restrictions on the ability of insurance providers to make risk-adjusted decisions about coverage and premiums amount to a taking of private property in violation of the fifth amendment. Others have said that requiring States to pass legislation creating health benefit exchanges exceeds Congress's power in our Federal-State system. I do not necessarily believe that each of these constitutional arguments is as substantive or as persuasive as the next. Some may agree with this one or that one, all of them, or none at all. These and other arguments, however, are real, substantive, and many of them are as yet untested by the courts because this legislation goes so far beyond anything the Federal Government has ever attempted. These and other issues very well may be the basis for litigation against this legislation. Therefore, I think it is in everyone's interest to provide a mechanism for future constitutional challenges to be handled expeditiously by the courts. The supporters of this legislation, those who are so confident that no conceivable constitutional argument has any merit whatsoever, should be the strongest supporters of this amendment. More than anyone, they would want to eliminate as quickly as possible anything that could delay or prevent full implementation of this legislation. Frankly, I am surprised that they are not the ones offering this amendment and I hope they will support it. Madam President, I now wish to speak about my amendment No. 3294. My amendment would ensure that all Americans would be able to keep the health care coverage they already have. My amendment is simple. If adopted, it would ensure that the implementation of the Democrat's health care bill shall be conditioned on the Secretary of Health and Human Services certifying to Congress that this legislation would not cause more than 1,000,000 Americans to see higher premiums as compared to projections under current law. This amendment would ensure that this $2.5 trillion tax-and-spend bill would not go into effect if the Secretary of Health and Human Services finds that it would actually raise health insurance premiums for more than 1 million Americans compared to projections under current law contrary to the promise made by President Obama that health care reform would result in average savings of $2,500 per family. One of the major reasons for enacting health care reform is to ensure that we control rising health care costs that continue to put increasing pressure on American families and small businesses. However, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the premiums under this bill would actually rise for Americans purchasing insurance on their own by as much as 13 percent and will continue to rise at double the rate of inflation for both the small group and large group markets. Spending $2.5 trillion of hard-earned taxpayer dollars on a system that already spends almost $2.2 trillion a year without any impact on controlling health care premiums should be unacceptable to every American. Madam President, I also wish to speak to my amendment No. 3296 to H.R. 3590, the health care reform legislation. This amendment isn't complicated. It would prevent the provisions of the bill from taking effect in the event that it imposes unfunded mandates on the States. As we all know, this legislation imposes significant new burdens on the States and the proposed funding for this program is, in some cases, likely to fall short. Simply put, the Congress should not impose upon the States new Federal policy requirements without ensuring they are adequately reimbursed. In the event that Congress does not provide full funding for these programs, my amendment would ensure that none of the new mandates will be binding on the States. medicaid pharmacy reimbursement