Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it is time for the people of the U.S. Congress to be sure we are listening to what our constituents, the American people, are telling us. If it was unclear before, the Massachusetts Senate race should put to rest any doubts about what is really frustrating Americans. Americans have had it with the soaring level of spending and debt. They know that enormous spending and skyrocketing deficits take a bite out of the economy, dragging down our gross domestic product, our standard of living, and making investors and job creators very nervous. They are concerned about the unfathomable amounts of money now being spent. For the first year of the Obama administration, the numbers are eye- popping. Consider, one, a wasteful $1.2 trillion stimulus that was a failure, according to the administration's own yardstick; two, a $410 billion omnibus Federal spending bill that increased nondefense spending by 10 percent; three, a $2.5 trillion government takeover of health care that this Senate passed on Christmas Eve. Hopefully, this will never actually become law. We have had two huge increases in the debt ceiling, with a third being debated now, and a massive budget that doubles the deficit in 5 years and triples it in 10. It is not necessary. It is not inevitable. We can and should prevent it. Remember, we have to borrow most of this money. Americans are very concerned about the amount of money we are borrowing from other nations such as China to help finance the exploding debt. The administration and its defenders are still blaming President Bush for out-of-control deficits and debt, even though the other party has been in control of the Congress now for 3 years and the President has been out of office for over a year. Here are some important facts. President Bush's deficits ran an average of 3.2 percent of GDP, while President Obama's spending plans call for deficits that will average 4.2 percent of GDP over the next decade--in other words, an entire percentage point higher. From the day President Obama took office until the last day of fiscal year 2010, debt held by the public will grow by $2.3 trillion, according to the Office of Management and Budget. You can't blame that on President Bush. President Bush added less than that--about $3 trillion--to the debt during the entire 8 years he was in office. So in just 20 months, President Obama will add as much debt as President Bush ran up in 8 years. This administration needs to take responsibility for its actions, start listening to what Americans are saying, and stop talking about the mess they inherited. Americans want Congress and the administration to stop their grand spending plans and focus on what is really needed for an economic recovery. December saw another 85,000 jobs lost. Unemployment has not gone down; it is holding steady at about 10 percent. In my State, it is over 11 percent. Mort Zuckerman wrote Friday in the Wall Street Journal: The problem in the job market going forward is not so much layoffs in the private sector, which are abating, but a lack of hiring. That brings me to concerns over tax policy. Americans look ahead and they see new taxes on the horizon. Unless Congress takes action this year, taxes are set to go up by $2 trillion over the next decade, starting in 2011. The child tax credit would be cut in half. Marginal tax rates will go up. Dividends and capital gains taxes will increase. It is no wonder that businesses are timid about hiring and investing and consumers are more cautious than ever about their own spending. Even if economists say we are technically out of the recession, dollars have not begun to flow because people and businesses are uncertain about what their burden will be in the coming years. They are very nervous that it will be higher. We can eliminate some of that uncertainty and instill some much needed confidence in the economy by extending current tax law. Again, unless Congress acts, taxes will increase automatically. If the President is looking for a job stimulator, I suggest this is where to start. If he were to announce on Wednesday night that he is calling on Congress to keep taxes right where they are--in fact, if we can cut them in some areas, that would be even better--I think he would see businesses react immediately and positively to the news. But instead of increasing taxes, we need, as Zuckerman says, to draw up credible plans to bring down bloated deficits without triggering another downturn. Let's keep something in mind about the American people: They know you can't spend what you don't have. The message this Congress and the administration have been sending to Americans is that even though they are bound by limits, Washington is not. As I said, it is time to start listening to our constituents and then act on their instructions. Stop spending, keep taxes where they are, reduce them where we can, and stop running up deficits. I yield the floor.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).

Mr. KYL

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

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I wish to talk a little bit this afternoon about the amendment which Senators Conrad and Gregg have proposed and which we will be voting on next week. Both of these Senators are very well versed, as the chairman and ranking member of the Budget Committee, in fiscal policy and in the types of reforms everyone is looking for to get a handle on the deficit and the debt this country is facing. So it is with some trepidation that I oppose an amendment the two of them would offer. I hasten to say that both are respected Members of this body who approach problems with principle in mind, and in this particular case, having talked to Senator Gregg, I know the idea that only by working across the aisle with each other and compromising can we hope to deal with the most vexing problem that seems to face this body; that is, how to deal with the problem of deficit and debt. Having acknowledged their good will, however, I have to respectfully disagree with the approach they take in their commission. I do it for basically three reasons. First, I have never found either the House or the Senate in a position where they were anxious to cut spending and thereby save taxpayer money. I have, on the other hand, seen an effort to raise taxes every time we seem to get into a deficit situation. It seems it is always easier to gather in more taxpayer money than it is to stop spending money they have already sent us. The problem with that is, it is no longer money they have sent us, it is money we have borrowed from other people such as China, for example. That borrowing has costs, foreign policy costs as well as interest costs. We eventually have to pay it back. Because we have borrowed so much, the Chinese are saying we better be careful about how much we have borrowed, and they will have to increase interest rates. There is a point at which you cannot be a great nation by being in debt to all the folks around the world. It is not as if we haven't collected enough taxes. We are now at something akin to 23 or 24 percent of our gross domestic product on Federal spending. It used to be 18.5 percent or so. It is clear, therefore, it is not tax revenues that are the problem. It is spending that has gotten out of control. We know that from all these statistics a lot of us have been talking about relative to the budget last year and the debt ceiling that needs to be raised presumably next week. We wouldn't have to raise the debt ceiling by almost $2 trillion if we had been more restrained in our spending. To put it in perspective, before I move on to the next point, the President's budget last year called for more debt in the 5-year period of that budget than all the debt that had been accumulated by every President of the United States from George Washington through George Bush. Think about that for a moment. In 220 years of history, take all the debt, including World War I, World War II, the Civil War, pile it all up, and this one budget included more debt than that. We double the debt in 5 years, triple it in 10 years. That is not responsible. And it is not for a lack of Federal revenues. It is not because we are not taxing the American people enough. It is because we are spending too much. The American people believe that. They understand it. I think it is one of the messages from the Massachusetts election. When you have a commission that can make recommendations to the Congress that we have to, in effect, abide by, that permit either an increase in taxes or a reduction in spending to solve the problem, it is pretty clear to me which direction we will end up going. We don't have the courage to reduce spending so we increase taxes. Second, our rules are premised on a fallacy. Unfortunately, I believe it will drive the commission because of this fallacy. The fallacy is, all the money in the country belongs to the U.S. Government and, therefore, if we reduce taxes somewhere, we have to make up that reduction in tax revenues somewhere else, either by raising taxes somewhere else or cutting spending. Of course, we never cut spending. So the idea is you have to raise taxes somewhere. If I want to give the American people a tax break by reducing their taxes, I should have the right to do that. Congress should be making the rules. We should have the right to say: We are going to reduce your tax burden. But under existing rules, unless you have 60 votes for a permanent change such as that--and even then it is difficult because of our scoring rules--any revenue that is lost because of an action we take in reducing taxes has to be made up somewhere else in some other way. It has to be offset. What that generally means is, since we don't find ways to cut spending around here very often, you raise taxes over here to make up for the tax revenue lost over here. If I want to reduce the capital gains tax by 5 percent, for example, or to give a real-life example, I want to reduce the estate tax--and Senator Lincoln and I want to do that--I can't do that without ``paying for it.'' We just want to reduce the estate tax so that people when they die, their heirs will not have to pay as much estate tax. No, you can't do it. You have to make up the revenue that you would lose. It is one of the reasons why we don't cut taxes around here very much. Because it is hard to find offsetting revenue that is acceptable to people. To carry this a little further, Senator Lincoln and I would simply like to repeal the estate tax. That is not going to happen. So we have agreed to a compromise in which we would have a $5 million unified credit; that is to say, that is the amount that is exempt from the tax and that is per spouse in a family. It would be indexed for inflation and then anything that remains above that in the estate would be taxed at the rate of 35 percent. That costs a certain amount of money, according to the budget scorers. I am not sure how much. Let's say $80 billion. We have to figure out a way to pay for that. So the question is, Is there some other place where we can raise revenue? Ordinarily, raising revenue means raising taxes. We don't want to do that. So we are relegated to the kind of political games, such as maybe phasing it in over time, because it doesn't cost as much if you bring the rates down over time, where you gradually increase the unified credit over time. That is how we got to the crazy situation we are at today, where we had the rate go down over a period of 9 years and then this year it went to zero. But next year it goes right back up to 55 percent. So the rules we have around here create crazy policy. Yet we are stuck with it. I am afraid a commission that has the ability to both make tax revenue increase recommendations as well as spending reductions will not only focus a lot on the taxing side, because it is very hard for Congress to reduce spending, but also will be bound by the same rules so we will never get tax cuts anymore. Because every time you want to decrease a particular tax over here, you will have to raise taxes over here. I think we should start from the premise that the money in the country belongs to the people. It is their property. The government should not take it unless it needs to and unless the people acquiesce through their representatives. If Congress decides it wants to take less money from the people, for example, so they will have more money to invest in small businesses to create jobs and put America back to work again, we ought to be able to do that without saying: We are going to give you a tax break here, but we are going to have to raise your taxes over here by an equivalent amount. If the money belongs to the people, we wouldn't have a rule such as that. I think it is very elitist and very wrong to essentially start with the proposition that the money belongs to Washington so you can never give it back to the people without recouping it in some other way. That is the second reason why I think this is not a good idea. Third, we should be focusing on spending reductions. Everyone talks about not spending as much. Yet we have increased spending dramatically over the years. One of the reasons why is because our constituents want lots of things. If a particular special interest asks for some spending, there tends to be political support for that. The opposition to it being spread over all the people, in effect being everyone's problem, is no one's problem. So you have in spending bills here Members who put earmarks in bills or request certain spending, and there is a constituency for that. By the way, when I talk about special interests, I am not necessarily talking about bad people. Every family in America is represented by some special interest. You have veterans in the family, and you have the veterans groups supporting them. Does anybody think those are bad special interests? If you have farmers, they belong to the Farm Bureau. That is not a bad special interest, but they may be coming to Washington asking for something specific. I was visited today by the head of the police department and fire department in my city of Phoenix. Both of them are represented by groups in Washington. They are not bad special interests. There are a lot of special interests in the country. Because the government is so big and so powerful, a lot of what they do consists of persuading Washington it should engage in one policy or another because that is where all the power is, that is where the money is, and so they have to hire lobbyists to come back here. We listen to those special interests. Who pays the bill? Our constituents, the taxpayers, who don't have many representatives back here. There are groups, such as the National Taxpayers Union, for example, that keep track of how much money we spend around here. They rate Senators based on how much they spend. Citizens Against Government Waste is another one. But they are pretty general, and they are not specific such as a lot of the special interests. What you end up with is a big push to spend money and not much of a push to save it. When colleagues of mine, such as my friend Tom Coburn or my colleague from Arizona, John McCain, come to the floor and criticize earmarks in bills, spending they don't think is necessary, they are criticized. Why don't you play the game? Why are you creating such a stir? Senator Coburn has an amendment we will be taking up next week that says let's at least get rid of a whole group of programs that a commission in the United States has decided are duplicative and not necessary. I have forgotten how many child nutrition programs we have or special education programs or job training programs. Probably many more than can efficiently spend taxpayer money to do the good things they are set up to do. But we never seem to get around to putting more efficiency into the system. I think it was Ronald Reagan who said the closest thing to immortality in the United States is a government program. They are easy to create but hard to get rid of. When you make deals that if you will just say we will solve the deficit problem, we will save money over here if you will raise taxes over here--I mentioned Ronald Reagan; I will mention him again. That was the deal he cut with Tip O'Neill and the Congress at the time. We got the tax increases, but we didn't get the savings. One of the things Ronald Reagan always said he regretted was being so naive as to make a deal assuming that if he agreed to raise taxes over here, Congress would agree to make savings over here. It is hard to do. Congress very rarely does it. Another problem is, raising taxes for the purpose of raising revenue has two problems with it. No. 1, we don't end up saving money. We just end up spending it on new things. No. 2, it affects behavior from taxpayers in a negative way. If you raise taxes on businesses, for example, they will not hire as many people. They will not be able to invest as much money in their business. They will probably not make as much money. If they don't make as much money, what happens to their tax liability to the government? It goes down, not up. On the other hand, frequently--and this has been demonstrated especially with taxes that have a direct relationship to revenues such as the capital gains tax--if you reduce the tax, business activity increases, producing more revenue for the government to tax, and Federal revenues actually go up. This is not true with all taxes, but it is true with some taxes. I mentioned capital gains. If you have a high capital gains rate today and businesses are told the rate is going to go down next year, do you think you are going to see a lot of assets sold this year? You will have hardly any economic activity unless it is absolutely necessary. But on January 1 of next year, when the rate goes down, you will see all kinds of activity because the rate at which that activity is taxed is reduced. By the same token, if you have a rate that is low today and you say it is going to go up tomorrow, you will see a lot of activity today but not much tomorrow. That economic activity is what produces revenue, which is what the government taxes. As I said, ironically or paradoxically, a lower rate generates more revenue to the Treasury. That is what happens when you reduce the capital gains rate. I believe if the President were to announce tomorrow he is asking Congress to pass legislation to send to him that would fix the marginal income tax rates, the dividends rate, the capital gains rate at exactly where they are right now, for, let's say, a period of 5 years, the certainty that would create--even though some of those rates are too high, in my opinion; let that go--the certainty that would create because the rates would be known for a period of 5 years--and these, by the way, would be the so-called Bush tax cut rates so they would be much lower than they would be if they were allowed to go back up again--if the President were to do that, I think he would see the stock market skyrocket the next day. He would see job creation that would be incredible because businesses would know their taxes are not going up, that they could afford to hire people, and they would do so. On the other hand, when you leave the tax rates in question or hint they are going to go up or, in fact, ensure they are going to go up--as they did under the health care bill, for example--it is no wonder businesses do not create jobs. In the health care bill, we actually have a couple payroll tax increases. All tax increases hurt business and hurt their ability to invest more and to hire more people, but a payroll tax is a direct tax on jobs. It says: The more people you hire, the more taxes you are going to pay; the more people you keep on your payroll, the higher your tax liability is going to be. There is one provision that says, if one of your employees leaves and gets a subsidy for the insurance exchange, you have to pay an 8- to 10- percent payroll tax on all the rest of your employees. That is a job killer. Another tax raises, by just under 1 percent, the Medicare payroll tax. That is a job killer. So there is a relationship between job creation and taxes, economic activity and, therefore, revenues to the Federal Treasury and tax rates. Tax rates and taxes are not the same thing. You can reduce tax rates and actually collect more taxes. Again, it sounds paradoxical, but it is true. Think of this analogy: When you go to the store just before Christmas and they slash their prices by 40 percent, they are not doing that to go out of business. They are still making money. They make more money on the volume that increases because a lot more people come into the store--even though they have reduced the cost of each of the items-- than they would if they increased the cost of the items. I guarantee you, if they raised their prices just before Christmas, their competitors would be reducing their prices, not so they would make less money but so they would get more people in, they would have more volume, and they would end up making more. That is what happens when you reduce certain tax rates when you are the Federal Government. You actually increase your revenue. So I am very reluctant to support a commission which I believe will undertake to reduce our deficit by raising tax rates. It is not good for job creation. It is not good for the economy. It is not good for families, of course. Ironically, I do not even think it is good for the Federal Government, but I mostly do not think it is because, at the end of the day, we always have the courage to talk big about cutting spending, but we do not do it. I will close with this. The last budget increased the funding for the departments of government dramatically at a time when we are in a deep recession. Families are having to cut their budgets. Yet you go to the Department of Agriculture, and I think it was a 23-percent increase or 26-percent increase, about the same for the Department of State and so on. I think the average was over 12 percent. Only the Defense Department took a hit. I think that says something else we need to be very careful of. It is one thing for a commission that is not elected by the people to have the specific goal of reducing the deficit. It is quite another to have the perspective of all the matters Members of Congress have to pay attention to in making decisions that offset each other or that take into account the needs across the entire spectrum of government. It would be very bad, indeed, if we were not able to factor into our decisions, for example, the need to increase Defense spending next year. Because it got hit last year, it is going to have to be increased. I daresay, I hope and I almost predict the administration will find a way to increase in its budget this year Defense spending because it cannot be sustained at the level it is. Yet if we were having to cut spending across the board, that would be difficult to do. That is what we are elected to do as Members of the House and the Senate. As hard as that job is, we should be doing it to adequately represent our constituents. I understand the argument we need some help sometimes, and, frankly, I support some alternatives to what I am talking about. Senator Sessions and Senator McCaskill, for example, have an amendment which I support because it focuses on spending. It starts with the 2010 budget, which is more than I would like to start with, but at least it says spending has to be constrained relative to that budget. I think there will be another amendment that relates to spending which focuses on other ways to save money. Senator Brownback, for example, similar to Senator Coburn, has talked about trying to end duplicate programs or Departments or agencies or programs or commissions whose job is finished and we do not need them anymore, for example. Those are the kinds of things I think we need to look at, and we can save big money if we do. The final point I wish to make is, some say: Well, isn't this a little bit like the health care commission that would reduce Medicare spending? The answer is, there is a similarity at least in concept. The idea in the health care commission, though, is to reduce spending primarily by reducing what we pay doctors and hospitals and other health care providers. That is a tough way to reduce Medicare spending and still provide the services our senor citizens deserve. The way it should be done is to find the so-called waste, fraud, and abuse--and that is easier said than done. No one denies it is there. But we have had decades to get to the problem, and if we could, we would be doing it right now. I have no doubt if President Obama knew he could save $100 billion by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, he would have gotten about the job by now, and he would not be waiting to see what kind of provisions we put in a health care bill before starting the job. The private sector cannot afford to waste that much money. Federal bureaucrats, as hard as they work, do not have the responsibility. It is somebody else's money. It is everybody else's problem. It is not my problem. In the private sector, they cannot afford to do that. It is one reason the insurance companies get criticized, because they have people making sure they do not pay claims that should not be paid, and sometimes they are criticized for that kind of activity. Their administrative costs are a little bit higher than the government's because of that. They hire people to make sure they do not have a lot of waste, fraud, and abuse. So the amount of waste, fraud, and abuse against the insurance companies is pretty low, and they are able to stay in business as a result. With the Federal Government, you have the sort of ``Did you ever wash a rental car?'' syndrome, where it is somebody else's money, you do not have to be as careful about protecting it, and, as a result, there is a huge amount of money lost in government programs, such as the Medicare Program, for example. The amendments Senators Sessions and McCaskill are presenting and, I believe, Senator Brownback and some others will be presenting are going to focus on how we can actually save money in the way I am talking about, rather than cutting services, because that is the wrong way to save money, if they are essential services, as the Medicare services are. That is the distinction between those two items that I think is important to draw. So the bottom line: The people who are proposing this commission idea are very well motivated and I respect their position. Reasonable people can differ about the wisdom of what they are proposing. I would prefer to, first, focus on whether we could actually reduce spending with a little help from a commission or some other kind of group, depending upon which of the amendments you want to adopt that actually identifies where we can save the money and force us to act upon that. I would rather do that first than to start out with the proposition that we can do it through tax increases because that is a sure way to hurt economic recovery, prevent job creation, take more property and freedom from the American people and, potentially, in the long run, provide for less revenue to the Federal Government. A friend of mine always likes to say: There is a rate. Well, there are two rates, he says, at which the government collects exactly no revenue: zero and 100. It is true. If you set a very high tax rate, you are going to get very little of whatever it is you are taxing. If you want economic activity that represents economic growth in this country and a high standard of living and a lot of job creation, you cannot achieve that by imposing a lot of taxes, even if you were not worried about the deficit. The way to solve that problem is to stop spending money rather than trying to take more money from the American people. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will have something to say about the amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota at a later time, but I wanted an opportunity to be sure to speak to the Thune amendment, which has also been pending and which I understand we may be voting on as early as this afternoon. I wish to make it clear I am in very strong support of the amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota. The amendment of the Senator from South Dakota would immediately end the Treasury's authority to spend unobligated TARP funds; that is, those funds that have either been repaid or were never spent in the first place as part of the so-called TARP. The amendment would also use repaid TARP funds to lower the deficit, bring down the debt ceiling-- which is, of course, the amount of legal U.S. debt--and is the ultimate issue we are going to be voting on at the end of our exercise, presumably sometime next week. I initially supported both tranches of the TARP stabilization money because I was told by the Secretary of the Treasury and others, and I believed, that the money would be used to shore up banking, thus stabilizing the financial system in the United States, and that would permit lending to resume. My State of Arizona was hit particularly hard by the collapse of the housing bubble, so we needed more lending--for small businesses as well as for commercial lending and other things such as auto finance, real estate lending, and so on. Unfortunately, the promised flow of capital has not materialized. Today people in my State still struggle to refinance their homes and businesses, and businesses in particular are struggling to make payments on their property, rollover commitments that they already have, and even pay for things as basic as their inventories or their payroll. You have to ask how did this happen with all of this TARP money out there. Partly it is because TARP was perverted into a tool for increasing the scope of government. It has been used for purposes for which it was never intended. Some of the money has been used to bail out political interests such as auto companies and parts suppliers. That was never intended. I would never have supported the second tranche of TARP funding had I believed that was how the money would have been spent. Now it is becoming a piggy bank for the second stimulus bill recently passed by the House of Representatives, a bill that would cost taxpayers $260 billion more in deficit spending. By deficit spending, of course, I am referring to the fact that this is all borrowed money. This is not money that we have and are deciding to spend in a certain way. We have to go out and borrow the money in order to give it to these people. By law, the returned TARP funds are supposed to be used for deficit reduction. That is the way it was written into the bill. The Thune amendment would make sure this happens. Again, this is important because this is not money that we already had that the taxpayers had sent to Washington and we were just waiting to spend on something. We had to go out and borrow this money from folks such as the Chinese, and we have to pay them interest on the money. When we have to go out and borrow the money in order to provide it for one of these purposes, we have to recognize that when we pay it back, we ought not immediately spend it again. We ought to pay the money back to the government so the money then can repay the lender and get that obligation off our books. Returning the money to the Treasury is equivalent to paying the money back to our lenders. That, in turn, allows us to reduce our Federal debt. This also has the effect of reducing government borrowing so that the private sector is more able and more easily able to borrow money. That way, businesses can begin to invest more, and we can begin job creation. Frankly, that is why groups such as the National Federation of Independent Businesses support the Thune amendment. The whole idea is to repay the money that the Federal Government has borrowed so there is less pressure on the sources of lending so the private sector will be able to more easily borrow for their purpose. Here is what the NFIB said in a recent letter: Small business believes it is time to end TARP by passing the Thune amendment. We appreciate Senator Thune's efforts to create an exit strategy for the unprecedented level of government ownership in American businesses. The full $700 billion that was originally allocated for TARP is no longer needed and should not be used as a bucket of money for the Treasury Department to create new Federal programs. I would add, or for the House of Representatives to create new Federal programs to the tune of $260 billion more. I think the American people could not be more clear in the message they have been sending in election after election: Stop spending so much money so we don't have to borrow so much money so it will be easier for our own families and businesses to borrow money. They have had it with massive spending and the culture of massive debt that has seized Washington. They are watching very closely because it is their money, after all, that will have to be used to pay the interest on the debt when we borrow this money from people such as the Chinese. Instead of turning right around and deciding we have some great idea on which to spend this money again when it is retired, let's retire the debt instead, thus reducing the amount we have to increase in the debt ceiling. I think this is what our constituents want us to do. It begins with ending TARP, and the Thune amendment puts us on the path to doing exactly that. I urge its passage. I suggest the absence a quorum.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).

Mr. KYL

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

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I further ask that I may be permitted to speak for as much time as I consume.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it was exactly 1 year ago that Barack Obama was sworn in as President of the United States. He began by promising to launch a new era of responsibility, bipartisanship, and transparency at home and to improve America's standing abroad. That message appealed to the American people. The President came into office with high approval ratings, widespread support, and plenty of bipartisan good will in this Chamber. Taking stock now a year later, it is apparent the President has not delivered the change he promised. The President's approach to spending, debt, and big government has surprised and frustrated the American people. It is not what they bargained for. Much of the legislation introduced by the majority has passed on party-line votes and without the transparency he promised. On this 1-year anniversary, I want to talk specifically about the conflict between President Obama's campaign promises and the policies he has promoted during his first year in office. Despite his pledge to embrace fiscal responsibility, President Obama's domestic agenda has reflected a belief that big government and massive spending are the keys to promoting economic growth. From car company bailouts, to cash for clunkers, to a wasteful $1.2 trillion stimulus bill that failed to keep unemployment from topping 8 percent, as the administration claimed it would, Federal spending has soared. So has the national debt. President Obama said earlier this year that we cannot keep on borrowing from China, and that is true. So why does the President continue to advocate spending money that we do not have and will have to borrow? What ever happened to his campaign promise of a net spending reduction? Government spending grew by $705 billion in fiscal year 2009, an increase of 24 percent from 2008, and appropriations legislation enacted this year will increase spending by 8 percent more in 2010. America's 2009 Federal deficit, which is the gap between total outlays and total revenue, made history--and not in a good way. It exceeded $1.4 trillion, which is the highest amount in history and more than three times as large as the biggest annual deficit during the previous administration. The recordbreaking budget President Obama submitted to Congress doubles the deficit in 5 years and triples it in 10. It also creates more debt than the combined debt of every President from George Washington all the way through George Bush. There is no way to blame President Bush for this situation. The total debt has reached an almost unimaginable sum--almost $12 trillion. This week, the Senate will take up an increase in the debt ceiling, which is the total amount of legal U.S. debt. That increase will come on the heels of a $290 billion increase in the debt ceiling that was passed late last year and another increase that was passed early in 2009 to accommodate the stimulus bill. Interest payments on this debt are expected to reach $800 billion--just interest alone--$800 billion per year by 2019. Clearly, we have not entered a new era of fiscal responsibility but, rather, quite the opposite. Of course, the most expensive piece of legislation passed last year was the health care bill. The $2 trillion-plus bill, the most consequential domestic legislation in a generation, was hardly a work of fiscal responsibility or bipartisanship. It passed both bodies of Congress on a partisan vote. The legislation will create a massive new entitlement at a time when America cannot afford its existing entitlement programs. The bill is filled with deals for special interests that President Obama said would be banned from doing business with his administration. Last week, for example, the White House reached a deal with labor union leaders to exempt, until 2018, union health care plans from a tax that will hit many other Americans. The bill also violates several key pledges President Obama made about health care reform--first, the pledge that it would be deficit neutral. Richard Foster, who is the Chief Actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, estimates that under the reform legislation, national health spending will rise by $222 billion over the next 10 years, and the Congressional Budget Office tells us that the Senate bill double-counts the savings from certain Medicare reforms. It uses certain funds to extend the solvency of Medicare by 9 years while simultaneously using those exact same funds to offset the cost of the bill. According to the Congressional Budget Office: To describe the full amount . . . as both improving the Government's ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement of the government's fiscal position. In short, this bill is not deficit neutral. The President also pledged that middle-income families would not see their taxes raised. This is the second broken pledge. As Republicans have explained repeatedly, this bill is packed with taxes that will hit many middle-income Americans, including seniors and the chronically ill. In fact, the Senate version contains a total of 12 new taxes. The third broken pledge relates to costs. President Obama said his health care bill would reduce costs. It does not. Costs for many families will actually increase thanks to a litany of new Federal requirements and mandates. This whole process has also shown that the President's professed commitment to transparency was nothing more than a campaign slogan. He promised at least seven times that the health care negotiations would be aired on C-SPAN, as he put it, ``so the American people can see what the choices are.'' But that didn't happen. As Speaker Pelosi reminded us, the President promised a lot of things on the campaign trail. Those who were not invited to the Democrats' secret negotiations did not know the details of the respective health care bills until just before each of them came out for a vote, and we are talking about bills that are more than 2,000 pages long and contain hundreds of hidden provisions. Even before the health care legislation is concluded, the President is proposing yet another spending bill, a second stimulus package. The stimulus bill--they call it a jobs bill now--that recently passed the House of Representatives would cost taxpayers $260 billion more in deficit spending. I do not believe the way to create jobs is to expand the size and expenditures of the Federal Government. I believe we must encourage growth in the private sector, not by taking money out but by putting money back in. It is understandable and unfortunate that job creators may be nervous about economic conditions. The economy is still shaky and new taxes loom on the horizon. After seeing the dismal employment report in December, a month in which the economy lost another 85,000 jobs, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a former chief economist of the U.S. Labor Department, advised the administration to ``press the reset button on economic policy.'' More specifically, she urged the President not to raise taxes, scale back Federal spending, focus on deficit reduction, and reject the new environmental regulations that will drive U.S. jobs overseas. I hope in the coming year President Obama will consider more sensible domestic policies so that we can rein in the out-of-control spending that has characterized his first year. This would truly be change we can believe in. I would also like to discuss the tension between rhetoric and reality in the President's foreign and national security policies. Throughout the campaign, President Obama pledged he would improve America's reputation abroad and repair supposedly damaged alliances. In September 2007, Candidate Obama said: America's standing has suffered. Our diplomacy has been compromised by a refusal to talk to people we don't like. Our alliances have been compromised by bluster. Our credibility has been compromised. So what has been the President's strategy for boosting America's standing? He has gone on an apology tour of sorts, a fundamental consequence of which, in the words of Charles Krauthammer, has been ``to effectively undermine any claim America might have to world leadership.'' The President has devoted much energy to improving relations with our adversaries. Not only have these efforts failed to yield positive results, but they have also led the administration to mistreat several key U.S. partners. The administration's approach to Iran has been regrettable, to say the least. President Obama came into office hoping to negotiate a ``grand bargain'' over the Iranian nuclear program. He embraced a policy of engagement with the radical Iranian theocracy. So far, this policy has done nothing to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons and brutalizing its own people. But it did prevent the Obama administration from offering robust support to the pro-democracy demonstrators who flooded the streets last summer to protest a stolen election. Rather than embrace the protestors, who were standing up for liberty and human rights, President Obama initially said that he did not want ``to be seen as meddling in Iranian elections. Those protestors, by the way, are still out in the streets, waging a courageous struggle for democracy. Despite all these U.S. efforts to engage the Iranian government, the negotiations over Iran's nuclear program have gone nowhere, and the Iranian president recently declared that Iran ``will continue resisting'' international demands until the United States abolishes its own nuclear arsenal. We must remember that Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, a government that murders peaceful student democracy activists. The events of the past year have shown that the Iranian regime is not a good-faith negotiator. Now is the time to maximize leverage over Iran through targeted sanctions. Meanwhile, we must not take any options off the table if we hope to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon. The President's Iran strategy was based on the idea that U.S. engagement would produce real concessions. That did not work with Tehran, and it has not worked with Moscow either. Despite U.S. diplomatic efforts, the Russian government continues to withhold support for strong U.N. sanctions against Iran, it continues to bully its democratic neighbors, such as Georgia and Poland, and it continues to practice authoritarian domestic policies. America's allies in Eastern Europe and Near Asia are getting nervous. President Obama's cancellation of a planned missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, and the manner in which it was executed, gave the impression that the U.S. had caved to Russian pressure. There are few regions in the world as volatile as the Middle East. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has alienated our closest Middle Eastern ally, Israel, by stubbornly pushing it to adopt a comprehensive ``settlement freeze.'' As Elliott Abrams, a former deputy national-security adviser, has written in National Review, the administration has managed to damage the U.S.-Israel alliance, weaken Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, and produce ``a massive policy failure.'' We all want a just and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But demanding unilateral concessions from the Israeli government is no way to achieve it. As for Latin America, it was highly regrettable that the U.S. imposed sanctions on Honduras, since the removal of former Honduran president Manuel Zelaya was a constitutionally justified act of democracy. Despite initially siding with Zelaya, a close ally of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, the Obama administration appears ready to recognize the validity of the recent Honduran elections. The administration should now lift suspension of aid, cease any further contact with Mr. Zelaya, and denounce his extra-constitutional behavior. With regard to Venezuela, the President's policy of engaging Hugo Chavez proved a failure. Writing in The Weekly Standard, Jaime Daremblum, Costa Rica's former ambassador to the United States, says, ``If Obama believed his personal charm and assurances of goodwill would be sufficient to sway Chavez and the Castro brothers, he was mistaken.'' Indeed, Chavez has responded to friendly U.S. overtures by continuing to suffocate Venezuelan democracy, continuing to cooperate with Iran and Russia, and continuing to harass neighboring democracies, such as Colombia, where Chavez has funded vicious narcoterrorists. In an editorial last spring, the Washington Post noted, ``This may be the first time the United States has watched the systematic destruction of a Latin American democracy in silence.'' Meanwhile, pending free-trade agreements with U.S. allies in Colombia, Panama, and South Korea still have not been approved by this Congress. That represents yet another foreign-policy failure for this administration. I sincerely hope the President urges Democratic leaders to take action on these agreements sometime this year, preferably soon. Implementing these three trade deals would provide a boost to the U.S. economy and would also strengthen the U.S. position in two important regions. I also hope the President resists the temptation to support protectionist measures that will hurt our economy and damage our foreign relations. In his first year, the President signed a stimulus package containing a protectionist ``Buy American'' provision, agreed to discontinue a U.S.-Mexican trucking program, and imposed a tariff on Chinese tires. These policies were economically foolish, and they damaged America's credibility as a promoter of trade liberalization. Finally, a word about the administration's antiterror policies, and its decision to increase the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. I am pleased that President Obama has maintained many of the policies that were formulated by President Bush, including the use of military commissions to try suspected terrorists. However, I am disappointed that the President has decided not to use a military commission to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and several of his co- conspirators. Giving these terrorists a civilian trial in New York City will pose significant national security risks; among other things, it will compromise U.S. intelligence-gathering methods. The administration has chosen to prosecute several other terrorists before a military commission. So why not Khalid Sheik Mohammed? Why should the highest- ranking al-Qaida leader captured since 9/11 be given a civilian trial while other al-Qaida members are given military commission trials? The war against al-Qaida is just that, a war. It is not a law enforcement matter. By announcing that Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other senior al-Qaida members will receive a civilian trial, the Obama administration has signaled that terrorists belong in the U.S. criminal-justice system. They do not. These men are enemy combatants waging war on the United States. The terrorists who are scheduled to receive civilian trials in New York City have been held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. When the President took office, he promised that Guantanamo would be closed within a year. It is now a year later, and Gitmo is still open, as it should be. There is a good reason that President Obama has not yet been able to fulfill his pledge: Closing Gitmo is a bad idea. The process of removing those detainees who are still being held at Gitmo will create a series of logistical problems and security threats. Last month, six Gitmo detainees were sent back to their home country of Yemen. Just a few days later, a Nigerian man with links to a Yemen- based terrorist organization attempted to blow up Northwest Airlines flight 253. The flight 253 bombing attempt highlights the deadly threat posed by al-Qaida's Yemen affiliate, known as ``al- in the Arabian Peninsula.'' The administration has wisely halted the transfer of Gitmo detainees to Yemen. But it seems intent to try the flight 253 bomber as a criminal defendant, rather than an enemy combatant. That is deeply misguided, for the reasons I have just listed, as well as the unnecessary difficulties it raises for our intelligence gathering. The most important front in the war on terrorism remains the battle for Afghanistan. Several weeks ago, the President announced that he would be deploying an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to finish the mission. I strongly support that decision, yet I also worry that the President has set an artificial timeline for withdrawing American forces. The President declared that a withdrawal would begin no later than July of next year. I hope that he is willing to embrace a flexible timeline. Military decisions in Afghanistan should be determined by conditions on the ground, not by the political climate in Washington. The U.S. commitment to Afghanistan has been costly, and it will continue to be costly. That brings me to the connection between U.S. policies at home and U.S. strategy abroad. While domestic policy is not written to influence foreign policy, it affects what we can spend on defense and security. President Obama recently acknowledged the relationship between U.S. economic strength and U.S. global leadership, when he said, ``Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy.'' Well, that is absolutely true. Our leadership is contingent on our prosperity--and our ability to pay for a robust national defense. But massive amounts of new spending, new taxes, and European-style government programs will weaken the U.S. economy and make it more difficult for us to exercise global military leadership. Just look at what happened last year: While $1.2 trillion was pumped into the stimulus bill and the majority in this chamber passed a $2.5 trillion government takeover of health care, the defense budget was practically frozen. Missile defense has been cut, and there's been a reduction in the number of interceptors in Alaska that protect us from a North Korean attack. So, there has to be balance in spending scarce resources.There is a tipping point at which excessive social spending chokes economic growth and weakens military power. European nations can get by with relatively low levels of defense spending and high social spending because, for decades, they have enjoyed the protection of America's security umbrella. As Mark Steyn writes in National Review ``Sweden can be Sweden because America is America.'' But if we become more like Europe, if entitlement programs beginto swallow our budget whole, will we still be able to afford the burdens of global military leadership? I submit that military decline is not an option for the United States. As former Secretary of State Madeline Albright put it, we are ``the indispensable nation.'' That is what American exceptionalism means. It means that, because of our unique history, our unique power, and the unique appeal of our founding principles, America plays a special role in global affairs. I fear that many of the policies adopted over the past year will make it harder for America to continue playing this special role. I hope that during the year ahead, the administration will pursue a more sensible and responsible course.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two newspaper articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I listened carefully to what my colleague said, and as a member of the Finance Committee, I can tell him that he is not in error. What he said about premiums going up under this legislation is true. The promise was that premiums would not go up. Well, they continue to go up. In fact, in the case of the individual market, the legislation itself causes them to go up between 10 and 13 percent. My colleague is not in error. If the Reid bill has a motto, it is ``in government we trust.'' With the turn of every page, it is no exaggeration to say the Reid bill creates a Washington takeover of health care, to wit, $2.5 trillion in new government spending; $494 billion in new taxes; $465 billion in Medicare cuts; 70 new government programs; and higher health insurance premiums for individuals, families, and businesses. It is packed with new Federal requirements and mandates that amount to a stunning assault on liberty. Even in the absence of a government-run insurance plan, this bill would give the government virtually total control over health care. The bill itself is the government option. Michael Cannon, a health policy expert at the Cato Institute, warns that the bill's linchpin, the requirement that all individuals buy a government-approved insurance plan, would be ``the most sweeping and dangerous measure in any of the bills before Congress.'' Of course, if Congress mandates that every American purchase health insurance, then Congress gets to define exactly what that health insurance entails. Welcome to the future, where bureaucrats and politicians know what is best for families, small businesses, and seniors. For example, under this legislation the government would set new Federal rating rules. Rating rules dictate how insurers may calculate premiums, which experts estimate would increase premiums by a whopping 72 percent in my home State of Arizona. They would determine the coverage benefits for all plans regardless of consumer preferences or health care needs. The government would limit insurers to offering only four plans. You have to offer two; you can't offer any more than four. They would prohibit individuals over the age of 30 from enrolling in a catastrophic health care plan. And to highlight the magnitude of government interference and micromanagement, the bill even dictates the number of pages--by the way, it is no more than 4--and the font size--no smaller than 12 point--of the summary of benefits. These are just a few examples of the heavyhanded government controls. Indeed, the word ``shall'' appears 3,607 times in the Reid bill. I haven't had a chance yet to count how many more times it appears in the almost 400-page amendment that has been now filed. In my view, however, the most dangerous consequence of the Washington takeover of health care is the inevitable rationing that will result in the delay and denial of care. Ensuring access to the highest quality care and protecting the sacred doctor-patient relationship should be the fundamental goals of any health reform effort. These intangibles are the cornerstones of U.S. health care, the very things Americans value most, that the Reid bill puts in jeopardy. Don't look for the words ``ration'' or ``withhold coverage'' or ``delay access to care'' in the bill. Obviously, they are not there. Instead, contemplate the inevitable result of new Federal rules that aim to reduce health care costs but will inevitably result in delayed or denied tests, treatments, and procedures deemed to be too expensive. For example, the Reid bill would establish a Medicare Commission. This is an unelected body of bureaucrats with the task of finding, and I am quoting here, ``sources of excess cost growth,'' meaning, of course, tests and treatments that are allegedly too expensive or whose coverage would mean too much government spending on seniors. The Commission's decisions will result in the delay and denial of care. Medicare already delays more medical claims than private insurers do, but this bill would redistribute Medicare payments to physicians based on how much they spend treating seniors. It would rely on recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force--the entity, by the way, that recently recommended against mammograms for women under the age of 50--to set preventive health care benefits, and it would authorize the Federal Government to use comparative effectiveness research when making coverage determinations. It is this last issue--comparative effectiveness research--that I wish to discuss in more detail. The Reid bill would create a new entity called the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to conduct comparative effectiveness research. This research, which is already done in the private sector, compares the effectiveness of two or more health care services or treatments, and, of course, it is used to provide doctors with information as to what works best in most cases. The goal is to provide patients and doctors with better information regarding the risks and benefits of a drug, let's say, for example, versus surgery in a particular kind of case. The question before us is not as to the merits of the research but, rather, whether the research should be used by the government to determine the treatments and services covered by insurance. In a recent interview, President Obama said: What I think the government could do effectively is to be an honest broker in assessing and evaluating treatment options. The President believes the government should assess and evaluate health care treatments, and certainly that is how health care works in other countries such as Great Britain. For example, there, they have the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; the acronym is NIHCE. NIHCE routinely uses comparative effectiveness research to make cost-benefit calculations. They don't even attempt to hide it. On its Web site, NIHCE says: With the rapid advancement in modern medicine, most people accept that no publicly funded health care system, including the National Health Service, can possibly pay for every new medical treatment which becomes available. The enormous costs involved mean that choices have to be made. Choices are made, and this is the key: They are made by the government, not by patients and doctors. The National Health Service, which runs Britain's health care system, has issued guidance known as the Liverpool Care Pathway whereby a doctor can withdraw fluids and drugs from a patient if the medical team diagnoses that the patient is close to death. Many are then put on continuous sedation so that they die free of pain. Doctors warn that some patients are being wrongly put on the pathway, which is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy that they would die because sedation often masks the signs of improvement. Also, due to excessively long waiting periods, the National Health Service launched what they call an End Waiting, Change Lives campaign. The goal here was to reduce patients' waiting times to 18 weeks from referral to treatment--18 weeks. That is supposed to be a good thing? That is 4\1/2\ months for an appointment. This is why many Europeans and Canadians visit the United States each year, places such as the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, for access to the treatments that are denied to them in their own countries. These are the dangers of a government-run health care system. The government, not the patients and doctors, makes the health care decisions. The government decides if your health care is an effective use of government resources, and the government inevitably interferes in your ability to access care. That is rationing, and it is wrong. This is not what Americans want or expected from health care reform. Yet it is precisely the path Congress is taking. Perhaps that is why 61 percent of Americans disapprove of this bill. Nothing in the Reid bill would prohibit the Federal Government from using comparative effectiveness research, just as it has done in Britain, as a tool to delay or deny coverage of a health care treatment or service. The bill actually empowers the Secretary of Health and Human Services to use comparative effectiveness research when making coverage determinations. For example, on page 1,684 of the original bill, it says: The Secretary may only use evidence and findings from research conducted under section 1181 to make a determination regarding coverage . . . And so on. As the Washington Examiner notes: Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would be awarded unprecedented new powers under the proposal, including the authority to decide what medical care should be covered by insurers as well as the terms and conditions of coverage and who should receive it. The Reid legislation lists 1,697 times where the Secretary is given the authority to create, determine, or define things in the bill. I know my colleagues will point to language that says: Well, the Secretary can't make these decisions on rationing care solely on the basis of comparative effectiveness research. Whoopee. I am not sure if that is a word we can use on the Senate floor, but big deal. You can't make it solely on that basis, but you can use comparative effectiveness research to ration care. That is wrong, and that is what this bill permits. And despite numerous times to get a simple amendment I offered to say no comparative effectiveness research can be used by a Federal agency to deny care or treatment--simple--the other side says: No, we already have it covered. It is good enough. Our language is fine. You don't need that simple statement that would prevent this research from being used in that fashion. I think it is pretty clear that the attempt here is to be able to do it. During the Finance Committee, I asked the majority counsel why they didn't bar the Federal Government from using comparative effectiveness research as a tool to ration care. The staff replied: The reason why we did not include an express prohibition is we did not want to limit the institute from considering areas of science that have a budgetary impact, if you will. That is, of course, precisely the problem. Americans do not want the Federal Government using this research as a cost-cutting tool. Regina Herzlinger, a professor at Harvard Business School, warns: CER could easily morph into an instrument of health care rationing by the Federal Government without the appropriate safeguards. That is why earlier this year I joined Senator McConnell and Senator Roberts and Senator Crapo in introducing the PATIENTS Act, and it creates this firewall to prevent the use of research for rationing. We filed it as an amendment, but, of course, we are not going to be able to vote on it now that cloture has been invoked. This is the third time this year we have tried to institute this pro-patient firewall, but obviously we are not going to be able to vote on it, as I said. From the very beginning of the health care reform debate, I have believed that any bill should be rooted in a simple yet fundamental principle: that very American should be able to choose the doctor, hospital, and health plan of his or her choice. No Washington bureaucrat should interfere with that right or substitute the government's judgment for that of a physician. There is nothing more important to Americans, other than maybe their freedom, than the health of their family--and that does, by the way, include an element of freedom, obviously, the freedom to do what you think is best for your family. We would all do anything we could to help a loved one. We don't want Washington impeding our ability to do so. Maybe that is why this new Washington Post-ABC poll ``finds the public generally fearful that a revamped system would bring higher costs while worsening the quality of their care.'' Even, they say, those without insurance are evenly divided on the question of whether their care would be better if the system were overhauled. The American people get it. The bill itself is the government option, but in government, they do not trust.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would say to our colleague, as a general rule that is correct. The majority leader has two great powers that no one else in the Senate has. One is the right of first recognition by the Presiding Officer and the other is the power to set the schedule. That power is limited by Senate rules, and it can be altered by unanimous consent. I can go on and explain a little bit to folks who are wondering why we would be in this predicament of voting on Christmas Eve based upon the majority leader's decision. If I can just proceed, I will do that. All of these rather odd times for debates, 1 o'clock in the morning, 7:20 a.m. in the morning, and so on, are as a result of the majority leader's decision to make sure that this bill is completed by Christmas. That is the precipitating cause for everything else that follows because once he says the bill has to be completed by Christmas, then he has to, in effect, count backwards on how long it takes to do the various things the Senate rules say we have to do. If there are three cloture motions filed--which is what the majority leader did; he filed three cloture motions simultaneously--under Senate rules certain timeframes then attach. You have to take the vote with 1 day intervening between the filing of the cloture motion and the vote. If cloture is invoked, then 30 hours for debate is permitted after which there can be additional action by the Senate. So when the majority leader takes all that into account, he finds that he has to vote at 1 a.m. in the morning, 7:20 a.m, and so on. He could change that, of course. He could change that by saying we do not actually have to have the whole thing completed by Christmas. That is strictly an arbitrary date he set. There have been some who said: Why don't we have a unanimous consent request to not put us through all of this and try to complete the debate a couple of days earlier? Republicans have said: Now wait a minute. You are telling us on the one hand that the majority leader is saying we have to have this completed by Christmas, but since that is kind of tough on all of us, now you are saying let's move that up a couple of days. Republicans are saying: We have had barely enough time to consider this bill as it is. We are not going to agree to move it up any more than that. We don't like voting on Christmas Eve any more than you do, but the answer to it is not making the time even shorter but, rather, taking our time and doing it right. As the Senator from Maine has pointed out, let's go home for the Christmas recess, stop and listen to what our constituents are telling us they would like to have us do, and then come back and complete it. That could all be done by unanimous consent. My colleague is correct that once the majority leader made the decision that this has to be done by Christmas, then the time is pretty well set by the Senate rules, absent a unanimous consent by the body that would either extend the time or shorten that amount of time. I would like to make another point, off that subject if I could, but if my colleague has another question in that regard I would be happy to try to respond it.

Mr. KYL. I talked to the Senator from Wyoming. Of course, Arizona is a State that has a lot of Medicare patients. Our State is hurt as much as any by the cuts to Medicare and particularly the Medicare Advantage cuts. We do not have the benefit that was extended to residents of other States, primarily the State of Florida, by a special provision that was inserted into the bill. As a result, our constituents are going to suffer more than those of some other States. But the more we read this bill--and one of the reasons Republicans have not been willing to truncate this debate is that the more we read it the more we find in it that is troublesome. We found yesterday that the Congressional Budget Office--actually the Congressional Budget Office brought to our attention the fact that they had made a little mistake. I think it was a quarter of 1 percent in one of their calculations. That quarter of 1 percent amounted to $600 billion. So a small error by the Congressional Budget Office can make a huge difference to the people of America. That is $600 billion. We also saw there were special provisions in the bill for residents of one particular State, and that has gotten quite a bit of attention lately. There has also been a dental/vision clinic in a State that has benefited. I am still not sure we have figured out exactly what that State is, but I understand one of the Senators from Connecticut has taken credit for it. I don't know if that is true. It is hearsay. If that is incorrect, I can be corrected. But the more we see about it, the more we realize that support for it was garnered, not on the merits but on the basis of special favors done to certain Members. My staff has indicated there is yet another one of these in the bill, and it has to do with so-called specialty hospitals or, as they are referred to in the legislation, physician self-referral hospitals, that have physician ownership. Just a little bit of background on this. The Hospital Association that is primarily representative of the community hospitals has been pleading for a long time that they are not adequately reimbursed, and we need to try to help them. I have been an advocate for that. I have tried to help them, for example, for reimbursement in the care provided to illegal immigrants, and we were successful in that. But one area I departed from that is when they concluded the best way to help themselves was to hurt their competition. At that point I said no. Their competition is the physician-owned, self-referral hospitals. These are generally specialty hospitals in a community that provide very good care. While they do in one sense provide competition to the community hospitals, they are all in the same boat in terms of the kind of reimbursement that Congress provides. What I have said is you should not solve your problem by hurting your competition but having Congress solve the problems that affect you both. I have been willing to try to help on that. In this legislation what they have done, they struck a deal with the Hospital Association to stop the competitors, the physician self- referred hospitals, from building any more hospitals. You have to be under construction by a certain date under the bill--it is February 10, 2010. You have to have a provider agreement in operation--that is the technical term--or else you cannot go any further with your new physician self-referred hospital. That is going to hurt a lot of communities. It turns out that some of the communities hurt were in a particular State, the State of Nebraska. Again, I have an affinity for Nebraska because I was born there, and I know a lot of people there. The Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Johanns, a little bit earlier today said he didn't think the special deals that were created for the State of Nebraska were appreciated by Nebraskans who stand more on principle and have the view that if something is bad for Nebraskans and it is bad for the folks in other States, therefore it ought to be solved for all of the States, not just for the State of Nebraska. It turns out that is the case with this particular provision on page 332 of the Reid so-called managers' amendment, which would extend the date on which a hospital may have physician investment and a provider agreement in place for the purpose of being grandfathered. That date was extended until August 1, 2010. It turns out that helps, at least according to staff, at least three hospitals in the State of Nebraska--one in Omaha, one in Kearney, and one in Bellevue. In fact, I will just quote briefly from an article that Robert Pear of the New York Times did on this. The Senate health bill, would impose tough restrictions like the one passed by the House last month, would impose tough new restrictions on referrals of Medicare patients by doctors to hospitals in which the doctors have financial interests. The package assembled by Mr. Reid would provide exemptions to a small number of such hospitals, including one in Nebraska. He goes on to describe this and then quotes Molly Sandvig, executive director of Physician Hospitals of America, which represents doctor- owned hospitals, who said the change would benefit Bellevue Medical Center, scheduled to open next year in Bellevue, NE. Under the proposal Ms. Sandvig said, ``doctor-owners can continue to refer Medicare patients to the hospital'' in eastern Nebraska. ``Senator Nelson has always been a friend to our industry,'' she said. ``But doctor-owned hospitals in other states were not so fortunate. They would not meet the August 1 deadline.'' I would like to help all the physician-owned hospitals. I agree that all of them should have the same kind of support that was gained by the Senator from Nebraska for three specific hospitals in Nebraska. I understand, by the way, that three or four hospitals in Arizona would also benefit from that. I think that is a great thing. But instead of just benefiting the hospitals in a few States by moving the date back to where you catch the ones in the State of Nebraska, we ought to eliminate this requirement altogether because what you are going to do is prevent more competition from very high- quality hospitals in communities that can provide a real service to constituents in all of our States, not just one State. It is just one more example, I say to my friend from Tennessee, that the more we read the bill and learn what is in it, the more we find that the 60 votes for it were obtained less by persuasion and on the merits of the bill than by special provisions that were inserted to assist folks in particular States. As I said, I think if something is good for one State, it ought to be good for all States. If it is not good for one State, it ought not be a requirement on the other States as well.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments my colleague from Montana made. I think the point my colleague earlier was trying to make was that we just got the bill yesterday and have not gotten a full CBO or final CBO score; that the correction simply revealed the fact there is a lot there to digest, and we ought to have more time to understand exactly how the interrelated pieces of the bill work, how all the CBO scoring relates, and so on. When CBO can make about a $600 billion error, as I understand, that is a big error. So there is probably more and a lot we don't understand. It would be helpful if we had more time to understand this and how it all works, and that was the point my colleague was making, I believe. But I do appreciate my colleague pointing out it is better we work in good faith and, for the most part, I certainly recall the long conversations the ranking Republican, Senator Grassley, and the chairman of the committee had. I know they worked in good faith, and it would be best if we did that. It is to that end I wish to speak to some comments a colleague made earlier today. I don't know whether it is frustration or maybe just the lens through which partisans view things and their opponents, unfortunately, that spawned the remarks earlier today from one of our Democratic colleagues, but in either event, his characterization of his Republican colleagues, I think, requires response. He began by talking about the malignant and vindictive passions that have descended on the Senate. Here is what he said, and I am quoting: . . . too many colleagues are embarked on a desperate, ``no holds barred'' mission of propaganda, obstruction and fear. History cautions us of the excesses to which these malignant, vindictive passions can ultimately lead. Tumbrils have rolled through taunting crowds, broken glass has sparkled in darkened streets, strange fruit has hung from southern trees. I couldn't believe my ears, these references to Kristallnacht, one of the first and most vicious attacks on the Jews by the Nazis, and hanging of Blacks. The majority leader's remarks last week, comparing the Republicans' position on health care to the proslavery movement, remain largely ignored as the clumsy, offhand remarks of a partisan, but the references earlier today appeared not to be off-the-cuff mistakes but prepared text, deliberately delivered by one of the brighter minds of the Senate. Our colleague went on to acknowledge, and I quote again: . . . that in the heat of those vindictive passions, some people earnestly believed they were justified. Such is the human capacity for intoxication by those malignant and vindictive political passions. Well, yes, Republican Senators do believe our position is justified-- in fact, correct. There are honorable people on both sides of the aisle who obviously have to agree to disagree. But our colleague attributes no good motive to Republicans, whose passions are simply ``malignant and vindictive.'' He adduces evidence to support his claim. First, an unnamed editor of the Manchester Inquirer who wrote that the GOP ``has gone crazy'' and an unnamed economist who believes our party has been taken over by the ``irrational right.'' A Philadelphia columnist talked about ``lunacy on the Republican right.'' Further quoting now: `` . . . it has gone crazy, is more and more dominated by the lunatic fringe and has poisoned itself with hate.'' I wonder if my colleagues believe our position is animated by hatred. Why else would we oppose this legislation? Well, he answers that question too. It is because, he says, first of all: . . . to break the momentum of our new young President. They are desperate to break this President. They have ardent supporters who are nearly hysterical at the very election of President Barack Obama--the birthers, the fanatics, the people running around in right-wing militias and Aryan support groups. It is unbearable to them that President Barack Obama should exist. That is one powerful reason. It is not the only one. Well, talk about vindictive passions. Does my colleague believe that is why I oppose the legislation--or my colleague John McCain? I hate to disappoint some folks, but I don't care about the political fortunes of the President, at least not right now. I may about 3 years from now. I don't like this bill. That is why I oppose it. My colleague says there is another reason. He says it is the ``insurance industry,'' which he proceeded to demonize. I am not one to defend the insurance industry, but it is strange to see it so demonized by my colleague, whose party brags of getting another 30 million people insured by what? The insurance industry. Why subject these folks to such awful torture? But the real irony is, the legislation which we oppose, the insurance industry supported. It made a deal with the Obama administration and key Senate Democrats: You mandate that every American has to buy one of our policies, and we will support your bill. There was a deal all right, but it was between the insurance industry and key Democrats. The insurance industry obviously didn't dictate the Republican position, which largely opposes the individual mandate. Well, finally, our colleague also accused Republicans of engaging in something else. He said we were engaged in a: . . . campaign of falsehood about death panels and cuts to Medicare benefits and benefits for illegal aliens and bureaucrats to be parachuted in between you and your doctor. He went on to state: Our colleagues terrify the public with this parade of imagined horrors. They whip up concerns and anxiety . . . then they tell us the public is concerned about the bill. So the reason the public is opposed to the bill is because of the power of Republican Senators to terrify our constituents about imagined horrors. Let us look at the examples given. I don't know of any Republican Senator who has characterized the health care rationing as coming from death panels. I heard that phrase in another context. We have tried to discuss the provisions of the bill we believe do result in rationing. The chairman of the committee and I have had a lot of debate on this subject. I wish Senator Roberts and I could offer a couple of the amendments we wanted to offer to make sure there is no rationing in the bill. I think it is a real problem and should be debated on its merits. The benefits for illegal aliens, I suspect he was referring there to the House debate, but it is still the case that there are completely inadequate provisions in the bill to verify eligibility for benefits. You can even apply by telephone, so just about anybody could apply for some of the benefits. Third, the matter of Medicare benefits. I don't think we are terrorizing our constituents about Medicare benefits, unless they understand the facts, and the facts are that Medicare benefits are going to be cut. The Congressional Budget Office says the Medicare Advantage benefits are going to be reduced from a monthly actuarial value of $135 down to $49 a month. That is CBO saying there is going to be reduction in the benefits for those who have the private Medicare Advantage policies. That includes dental, vision, hearing, vision care, fitness, and a variety of other programs. We have had a semantic debate in this Chamber between those who say: Well, the fundamental benefits of the Medicare law are not specifically eliminated or reduced in the legislative language of the bill. That is true. But what is also true is, the additional benefits in Medicare Advantage are being reduced. That is unassailable. It is also true--and CMS, for example, refers to this--that enrollment is going to be reduced because of these reductions in benefits. They talk about the lower benchmarks, and they say when it is fully phased in, enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans would decrease by about 33 percent. So this is not some kind of fantasy. This is taken from the Congressional Budget Office and from the CMS Actuary. Finally, in addition to the Medicare Advantage, the Actuary says simulations by the Office of the Actuary suggest that roughly 20 percent of party providers; that is, hospitals, nursing homes, home health care, would be unprofitable within the 10-year projection period as a result of productivity adjustments. That means they would go out of business. Obviously, senior care is going to be affected by this legislation, and we believe negatively so. That is an honest debate to have, and it is one which we would like to have. But, finally, my colleague turned the world upside down by arguing the only reason we are here the week before Christmas is because of Republican bad behavior; that we ruined the holidays for the professional staff because we followed the procedures of the Senate that require the reading of the bill. It is true that requirement is usually waived, but then we usually have plenty of time to know what is in a bill. Usually, a bill works its way through committee and both parties know what is in it. We both help to write the bill. It is transparent. It is usually printed long before it comes to the Senate floor so we know what is in it. The reason it was read was so our staff would, in fact, have time to read it, to advise us--because we didn't all have time to read it ourselves--and to advise the public, our constituents, of what is in it. Again, we received it yesterday and we are voting on it tonight. That is very little time to know everything that is in there. The more we learn about what is in there, the angrier a lot of people get. The special deals for one State, for example, are simply wrong. That is why you take time to see what is in it. The majority of the public, according to opinion polls, want us to take more time to understand what is in this bill. A final point on this. I have to say, the majority leader dictates the schedule of the Senate. All Senators are pretty much equal, but the majority leader has two things he can do and only he can do. He has the right of first recognition, and he has the right to set the schedule. By the schedule, I mean when he files a cloture motion, which is what brings this bill to the floor or this amendment to the floor. When he files the cloture motion, that is what determines when the vote will be. He determines when to bring the Senate back in session. Under the rules, an hour after he brings us back in session, the cloture motion ripens and we have a vote. He can set that time at any time. He can say tomorrow morning, at 9 a.m., the Senate will come back in session and we will vote at 10 a.m. The leader could do that. That is his right, and he is the only one who has the right to do that. But instead, he says we will come in at 1 minute past midnight tonight. Therefore, the vote will be 1 minute past 1 a.m. tomorrow morning. It is his right to do that. We didn't do that; he did that. He is the only one who has the right to set that schedule. If he wanted to set a schedule that was a little more convenient for all the Members--including our dear friend, the Senator from West Virginia, who is ill and indeed does have to get out of a bed to come in a wheelchair to this Chamber--the majority leader has it within his power to say we will do it at a more convenient time. Why would he do it in this way? Because he has deliberately decided-- and all majority leaders have not done quite this but have done similar things--to set a recess and then work us up against the recess so we will have an incentive to finish. It is usually a pretty good incentive. Certainly, going home for Christmas is a big incentive. So the majority leader figures, if he can schedule this bill and the various votes in such a way that we end up voting on it on Christmas Eve, that maybe then we will hurry up and try to do it because, as one Democratic staffer is quoted as saying: ``We need to hurry up and pass this bill because the longer it hangs around the harder it will be''-- meaning to pass it. That is true. The more the public finds out about it, the less they like it. So the majority leader is trying to get it done as quickly as he can, and ``as quickly as he can'' means scheduling us for a vote 1 hour after we come in. Since there has to be an intervening day--and today is the intervening day--tonight, at 1 minute after midnight, we will reconvene for the next day and then have the vote at 1 a.m. It is purely the majority leader's decision to do it that way. Republicans have nothing to do with it. If I had my way, we would vote at 10 o'clock in the morning. But that is not the way it is going to be. So please don't say it is Republican bad behavior that results in having to vote on this bill late at night. The process is determined by the majority leader. I guess I am going to conclude by saying I don't believe this bill can be sold on its merits, and I think that is another reason why we have to hurry up and do it--before the public figures out what is in it. The public opposes this bill not for the reasons imagined by my colleague but because it will cut Medicare benefits, it will increase insurance premiums--not cause them to go down--it will raise taxes, put the government in charge of too much, it will cost trillions of dollars, and it will result in the delay and denial of care. That is why the majority of Americans want us to start over and address the problems on a step-by-step basis. I was amused by my counterpart, the Democratic whip, saying Republicans have only offered four amendments. I think it was seven but say it is four. Guess who determines how many amendments we get to offer? The majority leader. He sets that schedule as well. He says now it is our turn to offer an amendment. Then it is your turn. The way he managed the schedule, we only got to file either four or seven amendments. We have 200 amendments pending. We would love to get as many of these pending and voted on as possible. Believe me, it is not Republicans who don't want to vote on our amendments. The majority leader, again, has set the schedule. This is why we oppose the bill. It is why we don't like the process. We respect what our constituents are telling us. We believe this bill will be bad for them, and it will be bad for our country. Our Democratic colleagues have a different position. Neither their position nor ours is malignant, nor should they be expressed vindictively.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, a lot of attention has been paid to the position of the senior Senator from Nebraska on this legislation. Page 98 of the amendment provides that the State of Nebraska is carved out from being responsible for paying for additional Medicaid patients added under the bill. It is the only State explicitly carved out from this requirement. I address this as well to the chairman of the committee. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and it be in order to offer an amendment to extend to all States the same benefit that provides 100 percent Federal funding to the State of Nebraska for their expanded Medicaid Program. This would give the same treatment to other States that currently only Nebraska would enjoy under this bill. If the bill is a good thing for all States, then it seems to me it should be applied equally to all States.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg.

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg.

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the argument that the chairman of the Finance Committee made reminds me of a story told in law school of the fellow accused of murdering his parents. He pled for mercy on the court since he was an orphan. I asked the chairman of the committee numerous times this year to address this problem, and the response always was: We are too busy. We are too busy with health care was the usual response. Now we find ourselves at the end of the year, and it is odd that the chairman argues that we have a big emergency on our hands and we have to act. It is not as if we have not known this issue was out there. Nor, as Senator Bingaman just suggested, has it been a big mystery that the rate on the estate tax was going to go to zero next year. That is the 2001 law. We have known that for years. Frankly, people have applauded the fact there is not going to be an estate tax next year. The only problem is if the people on the other side of the aisle intend to repeal that law so we do have an estate tax. I know that is their intention. They are creating the confusion because the law has been known about for 10 years that we are going to have a zero rate. Now all of a sudden they say we cannot let that happen. We are going to have to change it next year. Since we think we may be able to do that, we should extend what we have right now and not let the zero rate take hold. I suspect the great dilemma that is being posed is one most folks would love to have as a problem. The dilemma being proposed is that if the rate goes to zero and the heirs of the property decide to sell the property at some point, they will have to pay a capital gains tax. That is just fine. That is what most people would like to do. Since this income is taxed twice--it is taxed once when you make the income, then it is taxed again if you have any of that left over when you die--that is unfair. What we have always argued is that the estate tax, therefore, should go away and just leave the existing Tax Code where it is, which says: If somebody inherits property and later sells that property, sure, they should pay a capital gains tax on it. I would think most people would think that is a pretty good deal. The capital gains tax is 15 percent; whereas the estate tax under the proposals of my friend from Montana would go to 45 percent. As between paying 45 percent and 15 percent, I think it is pretty clear what most small business folks and farmers would like to do. Of course, the original basis of the property is the basis for paying the tax. Again, if you put that question to small business folks or farmers, they would tell you they would rather pay the capital gains tax than they would an estate tax of 45 percent. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks an editorial from the Wall Street Journal from December 11 called, ``The Tax That Won't Die, Death Blow, Night of the Living Death Tax, Estates of Pain.''