S6038 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 10, 2012 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid 

upon the table. The President will be 

immediately notified of the Senate’s 

action. 

f 

LEGISLATIVE SESSION 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will resume legislative session. 

f 

VETERANS JOBS CORPS ACT OF 

2012—MOTION TO PROCEED—Continued 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan. 

THE FARM BILL

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, 

as we come back into session this 

evening and into September, as Chair 

of the Agriculture Committee I have 

one message for colleagues in the 

House of Representatives—for the 

Speaker, for the Republican leadership—and that is, we need a farm bill 

now. 

We have 20 days until the farm bill 

expires—only 20 days. If that happens, 

if the Republican leadership does not 

work with us to pass a 5-year farm bill, 

they are going to reset the clock for 

rural America all the way back to 1949. 

Because if the farm bill expires, we go 

back to Depression-era policies that include government planting restrictions 

and expensive price supports—absolutely unacceptable. 

Some of those policies even reference 

prices from before World War I. This 

would be terrible for our family farmers and ranchers. It would throw the 

markets into complete disarray. There 

is no reason this should be allowed to 

happen. The full Senate has worked together and passed a bipartisan farm 

bill. The House Agriculture Committee 

worked together and passed a bipartisan farm bill. It is time for the House 

to complete its work. The House Republican leadership has refused to let 

the bipartisan bill come up for a vote. 

Despite our best efforts in speaking 

with colleagues and working together 

over the August break to try to come 

up with a way to get this done, we find 

ourselves in a position now where our 

only opportunity is for the House to 

take up the bill that was passed by 

their committee and get this done. I 

have never seen a situation where a 

farm bill—this is my fourth one I have 

been involved with—comes out of committee on a bipartisan basis, and then 

the House will not take it up, which is 

exactly where we are. 

Instead, they sent us a so-called disaster relief bill that, unfortunately, 

only helps some livestock producers 

with the drought this year. It does 

nothing for the rest of the Nation’s 

farmers who have been hurt so badly 

this year by frost and freezes. Our farm 

bill does that. In fact, our farm bill is 

better for livestock. It is a permanent 

livestock disaster assistance program 

with a better structure and support 

than that which was sent by the House 

of Representatives. 

A full 5-year farm bill gives much 

more comprehensive disaster assistance to livestock producers and to 

other farmers who have been hit. Other 

farmers who have watched as their 

crops withered under the unforgiving 

Sun want to know that not only will 

we have a 5-year policy in place, but 

that we are going to strengthen crop 

insurance, which is really the backbone 

of supporting farmers in these kinds of 

situations. 

We strengthen crop insurance and expand it so more farmers can have access to risk management tools on their 

farms. That was the No. 1 issue that we 

heard in all of our hearings, to 

strengthen crop insurance. And that is 

what we did. That is one of the reasons 

we need to get a 5-year farm bill done. 

I am looking at my colleague from 

Iowa, the distinguished Senator who 

chaired the committee before me. I 

know he shares the same feeling that I 

do, that we need to get this bill done in 

the House of Representatives. 

We know our farm bill also fixes 

dairy support so dairies do not go 

through what they went through in 

2009, when thousands of farms went 

bankrupt. Frankly, not changing the 

policy for dairy is a disaster waiting to 

happen. So we need to get the farm bill 

done. 

We also reform programs. We know 

we have ended direct payments and altogether four different subsidies, saving $15 billion while strengthening crop 

insurance. We streamline and address 

duplication, crack down on waste, 

fraud, and abuse. In the end, our bill 

saves $23 billion for taxpayers—$23 billion to pay down the debt. The only 

real deficit reform we passed in the 

Senate was our farm bill, which we 

worked on together. 

Unbelievably, the House Republican 

leadership still stands in the way of 

passing our bipartisan bill or their own 

committee’s bipartisan bill. On 

Wednesday we are going to see thousands of farmers around the country 

coming to Washington with a simple 

message: We need a farm bill now. 

Members are going to have visits from 

farmers and ranchers from their 

States. House Members will be hearing 

from members in their districts. They 

have one simple message. Those farmers knew when there is work to be done 

you do not put it off to another day. 

Not if you are going to be successful as 

a farmer. And we shouldn’t be kicking 

the can down the road either. They 

can’t say: I don’t want to harvest my 

crops right now. I think I will do it in 

a few months or next year or tell the 

banker to wait until later so I can figure out what I have to make decisions 

on for next year. They know that when 

the crops need to be harvested, the 

work needs to get done now. 

Well, we have 19 days left. This is day 

20. We are going to count it down every 

day because we have to get this done in 

the House of Representatives. We did 

our job in the Senate on a bipartisan 

basis. I was very proud to join with our 

colleague Senator ROBERTS and all of 

our committee who worked so well together and worked so hard, and I again 

thank the leadership on both sides of 

the aisle for giving us the time to get 

it done. We got it done, and we did it in 

enough time to give the House time to 

do it in July before the August break. 

But that didn’t happen. Now it is time 

to get it done. The House Agriculture 

Committee did its job. It is time for 

the House Republican leadership to 

schedule a vote to get this done, to 

support rural America—our farmers 

and ranchers and families who are 

counting on the safest, most affordable 

food system in the world to be able to 

continue. We don’t need to kick this 

can down the road and create another 

crisis for farm country. 

Madam President, I wish to thank 

my colleagues who are waiting to talk 

about another very important subject. 

I appreciate their giving me the time 

for a few words. 

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, 

would the Senator yield for a question? 

Ms. STABENOW. I would be happy to 

yield. 

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I 

would like to compliment the Senator 

from Michigan for her great leadership 

on agriculture policy, food policy. A 

big part of this bill is making sure that 

our kids in America get adequate nutrition, that our elderly get good nutrition. Our summer and afterschool feeding programs and feeding programs for 

our seniors are all wrapped up in this 

bill too. 

I was in Iowa in August and met with 

a lot of farmers, and they were a little 

perplexed. 

They said: Wait a minute. You passed 

a bill in the Senate? 

I said: Yes. 

So I ask the Senator from Michigan, 

did not that bill have the support of all 

the major farm organizations? 

Ms. STABENOW. Absolutely. We had 

the support of farm groups and conservation groups all across the country. 

Mr. HARKIN. I ask the Senator from 

Michigan, did not her bill, the bill she 

engineered and got through here, have 

the support of consumer groups and 

parent groups? 

Ms. STABENOW. Absolutely. 

Mr. HARKIN. It had all that support? 

Ms. STABENOW. Absolutely. And because of the wonderful work of the Senator from Iowa on our school nutrition 

efforts and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, we had the strong support of families, educators, and schools 

across the country. 

Mr. HARKIN. Conservation groups 

supported the bill? 

Ms. STABENOW. Absolutely. 

Mr. HARKIN. Well, what farmers 

asked me was this: If you had a bill 

that passed the Senate, a bipartisan 

bill supported by all the major farm 

groups, supported by consumer and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 10, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6039 

conservation groups, why didn’t the 

House just pick it up and pass it? 

I didn’t have an answer. Does the 

Senator from Michigan have an answer? Because I don’t understand why 

the House can’t take a bill that is so 

widely supported and is such a bipartisan bill and just pass it. 

Ms. STABENOW. Well, the distinguished Senator is absolutely right. 

One would think this would be the time 

to just pass it. And frankly, if not, because we know the House committee 

has a little different view on commodities, we offered to sit down all through 

August to work that out so we could 

come back now and come up with 

something that was a compromise. But 

the House committee wasn’t able to do 

that because they do not have the support of the leadership to get that done. 

So here is where we are. What I know 

is that we have to have movement. We 

have to have the House act or we are 

not going to be able to get this done. 

Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from 

Michigan, my leader on agricultural 

policy, she knows there is enough anxiety in farm country now because of 

the terrible droughts we are having 

around the country, the shortages that 

are looming, that now is not the time 

to add more anxiety to farmers and to 

farm families and our rural communities across America. So I thank the 

Senator for her great leadership and 

for pointing out that as well as acting. 

Our committee has acted, the Senate 

has acted, and what the House is doing 

I just can’t figure out. 

Again, I compliment the chairwoman 

of our committee for pointing out that 

we have 20 days left and we are counting down. I am hopeful the House will 

hear the voices of our farm country 

and the bipartisan voices here in the 

Senate and get a bill passed—or agree 

to the bill passed in the Senate. I 

thank the Senator from Michigan. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California. 

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask 

unanimous consent that when I have 

completed my statement, Senator HARKIN be permitted to take the floor at 

that time. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

THE RYAN BUDGET

Mrs. BOXER. I wish to thank Senator 

HARKIN because he and I were spending 

a little time together in the great 

State of our Presiding Officer, and he 

and I agreed that one of the issues that 

ought to be talked about a little bit 

more involves the stark choice we are 

facing in November in large part due to 

the budget of PAUL RYAN, who is now 

the Vice Presidential nominee for the 

Republicans. And Governor Romney 

has endorsed and embraced the Ryan 

budget. 

I think it was Senator HARKIN’s idea 

that we ought to explain that Ryan 

budget, so I am going to do my best to 

talk about it as the chairman of the 

Environment and Public Works Committee, which has the jurisdiction of 

highways, bridges, transportation systems, and the environment, and I will 

also make a couple of comments about 

Medicare. I know Senator HARKIN is 

going to go into that in great depth. 

I want to make sure everybody understands that what I am talking about 

comes straight from the budget. So if 

you look at page 78 of the report accompanying the Ryan budget resolution, Mr. RYAN makes it clear he wants 

to make devastating cuts to transportation. What do I mean when I say 

that? I mean devastating. I mean a 50- 

percent cut, which means about 1 million jobs would be lost if the Ryan 

budget were to go into effect. We are 

talking about construction jobs—an 

area that has been hit so hard. We still 

haven’t come back from this recession. 

And if there is one thing we learned 

when we were in the Presiding Officer’s 

great State at that convention, it was 

the depth of this recession—the worst 

since the Great Depression. What a 

time PAUL RYAN picks to bring devastating cuts to the construction industry. I am talking about businesses 

and jobs mostly in the private sector, 

not the public sector. 

We have to think about the fact that 

70,000 of our bridges are deficient and 50 

percent of our roads are not in good 

condition. We know bridges fail. We 

have seen it happen. We are not only 

talking about devastating cuts to the 

construction industry and its workers 

but a devastating situation for people 

who use our bridges—the 70,000 of 

which are structurally deficient—and 

our roads, which need help. So no country can lead the world if we can’t move 

people and goods, and we cannot be a 

world power when it comes to transportation. 

The Ryan budget is a jobs killer. I 

am talking about 1 million jobs that 

would be lost—in the private sector 

mostly—and it would put our families 

at risk by neglecting our bridges, our 

highways and our transit systems. 

Now, President Obama, on the other 

hand—and, frankly, a lot of us here on 

both sides of the aisle—reject the notion that we can walk away from rebuilding our infrastructure. So this is a 

very key issue. 

I said I wanted to speak as the chairman of the Environment and Public 

Works Committee, and I have talked a 

little bit about public works, but what 

does the Ryan budget do to the environment? What he does is he undermines the public health protections 

provided by the Clean Air Act, the 

Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking 

Water Act, and other landmark laws. 

If we look at pages 13 to page 15 of 

his budget, we can see he cuts $62 billion for activities such as protecting 

our drinking water, protecting our air, 

and preserving our public lands. Let’s 

face it: When kids get asthma, when 

people are too sick to go to work, when 

children are too sick to go to school, 

and when people die prematurely from 

heart attacks because of the air quality, there are no real savings. He says 

he is cutting $62 billion from the budget. Let me just say that for every dollar we spend on clean air protections, 

we know we get $30 worth of benefits. 

In 2010 alone, the Clean Air Act prevented 160,000 premature deaths. Ask a 

family who stands to lose the breadwinner in that family: Did we save 

money? No. 

Let me cite some numbers: 1.7 million asthma attacks, 130,000 heart attacks, 86,000 emergency room visits, 13 

million lost workdays, and 3.2 million 

lost schooldays. In 2010 the Clean Air 

Act prevented all that. 

So what is the point, Mr. RYAN? What 

is the point? It will cost the American 

public dearly out of their pockets and 

out of their lives if they suffer more 

asthma attacks, emergency room visits, lost workdays, lost schooldays, and 

they have more heart attacks and premature deaths. That is shortsighted. 

The American Lung Association—and 

they are not Republican or Democratic—says that 40 percent of our population lives in areas with unhealthy 

levels of smog or toxic soot. 

So let’s remember that when we look 

at a budget, there is a set of values 

that accompany the numbers. And I 

don’t think it is an American value to 

say to our people that we don’t care if 

they get sick, they miss work, or they 

go to the emergency room. 

Finally, I want to set the stage for 

Senator HARKIN’s very in-depth discussion about health care. I am just going 

to talk about Medicare and Medicaid as 

someone who is privileged to represent, 

along with Senator FEINSTEIN, the 

largest State in the Union, with the 

most senior citizens. We have almost 38 

million people. So whenever I talk 

about this Ryan budget and how many 

people get hurt, believe me, I speak 

from the heart when I say we can’t let 

it happen. 

The American people know Medicare, 

they like it, and they do not want to 

change it. Now, the Republicans tell us 

their plan saves Medicare. But just ask 

someone. Ask someone who is going to 

be the victim of the PAUL RYAN plan if 

we don’t stop it. That person will find 

they are getting a voucher; they are 

not getting Medicare. Medicare will be 

gone. They will get a voucher, and experts tell us and the studies show that 

voucher will be almost $6,000 a year 

short. Imagine an older person who 

really is struggling for a quality of life 

having to have the added worry of not 

knowing whether he or she will be able 

to find health insurance. 

Look, putting Republicans in charge 

of Medicare is like putting the Cookie 

Monster in charge of your favorite bakery. And I am not overstating it. No 

one would put the Cookie Monster in 

charge of their favorite bakery. Well, 

we can’t put the Republicans in charge 

of Medicare, and I will prove why. This 

isn’t just rhetoric. Listen. In 1995 Newt 

Gingrich said he thought Medicare, in 

his words, should wither on the vine. In 

his 1996 Presidential campaign, Senate 

majority leader Bob Dole bragged: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6040 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 10, 2012 

I was there fighting the fight, voting 

against Medicare, because we knew it 

wouldn’t work in 1965. 

Really? Really. Medicare works. Why 

would we end it? We are not going to 

end it. But if PAUL RYAN gets into 

power, he will have a good chance of 

ending it with his friend and Presidential candidate Mitt Romney who 

has endorsed the Ryan budget. 

Listen to what Michael Steele, the 

head of the Republican National Committee, said in 2009: 

I mean, the reality of it is this single-payer 

program known as Medicare is a good example of what we should not have happen. 

The Ryan budget at page 53 shreds 

Medicare. As if he hasn’t slammed 

Medicare enough, look what he does to 

Medicaid. He cuts it by more than $800 

billion. Where are low-income families 

going to go? 

Senator HARKIN is the expert, but I 

can tell you this. So many of our elderly rely on Medicaid for nursing home 

costs. It is a disaster. We know that in 

addition to all these terrible cuts—and 

by the way, when PAUL RYAN attacks 

President Obama for cutting money 

from Medicare, what he isn’t telling us 

is the President has found savings from 

overpayments to providers. Do you 

know what he does with the money? He 

puts it right back into Medicare, extends the life of the program for 8 

years, closes the doughnut hole to help 

seniors, and gives senior citizens preventive health care, well checkups, and 

the like. 

To quote President Clinton, that 

‘‘takes a lot of brass.’’ Because the fact 

is, President Obama has strengthened 

Medicare and has extended the life of 

Medicare. What PAUL RYAN does is he 

takes those cuts and he gives tax 

breaks to millionaires and billionaires. 

I yield to my friend. 

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for 

yielding, and I thank the Senator for 

her keen eye on the Ryan budget and 

what it does. 

I listened to the Senator’s explanation of President Obama’s goal to 

cut down overpayments, fraud and 

abuse, and to put that money back into 

helping beneficiaries. I ask the Senator, isn’t it true that both Ryan budgets incorporate those very same cuts 

President Obama wants to do? 

Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely. Both his 

budgets take the same amount. But instead of putting it back into Medicare, 

he robs Medicare, and Medicare will go 

broke—my understanding—in 2016 

under the Ryan plan; whereas, President Obama puts the money back into 

Medicare, extends the life 8 years, and 

gives more benefits. 

I am going to finish up and just say 

this. However you look at this, this 

Ryan budget is a roadmap for disaster 

for the American people. He cuts the 

heart out of things the American people like. The American people want 

clean air, they want safe drinking 

water, they want Medicare, they want 

to make sure our seniors can be safe in 

nursing homes. The American people 

want transportation—and they don’t 

want to be worried if a car is on a 

bridge that is going to fall down into 

the water below. It has happened. 

Here is the deal. If we were to say to 

Mr. RYAN: Are you cutting all this so 

you could balance the budget today, he 

would say: Oh, no; that is 25 years from 

now. 

What is he doing with the ‘‘savings’’? 

He is giving these huge tax breaks. I 

will close with this. People earning 

more than $1 million a year are going 

to receive $400,000 more in tax breaks 

every year. So he cuts everything to 

give these tax breaks to the people who 

already have millions and billions, but 

it is still not enough. As President 

Obama has pointed out, he will then 

have to go after the middle class and 

take away middle-class tax deductions, 

such as the home mortgage deduction, 

because he doesn’t even get enough 

money from these Draconian cuts. He 

has to go ahead and raise taxes on the 

middle class. 

I watched Presidential nominee Romney be asked this question: What are 

you going to cut? He said: Well, we will 

discuss it later. Mr. RYAN, the Republican Vice Presidential nominee, said: 

We will work with Congress on it. 

Right. 

Listen, they know they have to make 

Draconian tax increases on the middle 

class and the working poor. They have 

to cut the things America wants in 

order to pay for their tax cuts. No wonder Mr. Romney picked Mr. RYAN. Mr. 

Romney will be in the 1-percent tax 

bracket—that is what the experts say— 

can you imagine?—while his secretaries and everybody else pay through 

the nose. 

These next 60 days or so is an important time for us. I wish to thank my 

friend from Iowa because I was very interested in laying out some of these 

issues and he encouraged me to do so. 

I am very delighted to be here with 

him. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa. 

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, let 

me thank my colleague Senator BOXER

for always being on point and for always being very eloquent in her focus 

and explanation of the fallacies of the 

Ryan-Romney budget and how it is 

going to affect our middle-class families in the future. 

Since we recessed around the 1st of 

August and have been out of session, 

Congressman PAUL RYAN—our colleague in the House—has become the 

Vice Presidential nominee of the Republican Party, and, of course, Mr. 

Romney has accepted the nomination 

to be President. Congressman RYAN is 

not an unknown quantity. He has been 

here quite a few years, and as the head 

of the Budget Committee he has put 

forward a couple budgets. Budgets are 

blueprints. If one is going to build a 

building or a house, they need a blueprint. If you are going to try to move 

the country in a certain direction, you 

need a blueprint, and that blueprint is 

a budget. A budget sort of tells us 

where it is that the proponent of that 

budget wants to take us as a country— 

a Federal budget. If it was a State 

budget, we would say that is where 

they want to take the State. 

So we on this side intend, over the 

next several days, couple weeks—however long we are in session—to let the 

American people know what is in the 

Ryan budget and where it would take 

America: What is the blueprint they 

have for America? 

Our Nation faces an absolutely fundamental choice in November: Are we 

going to rescue, restore, and rebuild 

the struggling middle class in this 

country or are we going to continue to 

shift even more wealth and advantage 

to those at the top at the expense of 

the middle class? Republicans have 

made it very clear where they stand on 

this critical choice. They did so when 

nearly every Republican in Congress 

voted in favor of the Ryan budget plan, 

and Governor Romney embraced that 

plan as marvelous—not exactly a word 

most average Americans would use to 

describe something they like. But if 

you are having tea at the Ritz, I guess 

‘‘marvelous’’ kind of fits for some people. Anyway, he embraced the plan as 

marvelous. 

The very centerpiece of the Ryan 

budget is a dramatic shift of even more 

wealth to those at the top, huge new 

tax cuts for the richest 2 percent. As 

the Senator from California pointed 

out, if we take the Bush tax cuts and 

extend those—which Mr. Romney 

would do and Mr. RYAN’s budget does— 

then add on to it the tax cuts in the 

Ryan budget—which Mr. Romney supports, so I can call it the Romney-Ryan 

budget or the Ryan-Romney budget. If 

we do that and you make over $1 million a year, you are going to get nearly 

$400,000 a year in new tax cuts. Think 

about it. It takes your breath away— 

$129,000 in the Bush tax cuts would be 

extended, plus an additional $265,000 

that would be in the Ryan budget. 

We hear a lot about entitlements; we 

are going to cut entitlements. But this 

is an entitlement. Think about it. If 

someone makes over $1 million a year, 

they are entitled to that. They don’t 

have to do anything else. They don’t 

have to jump through any hoops. They 

don’t have to show any hurt or anything else. Just if someone makes over 

$1 million, they are entitled to it. How 

about this entitlement? Republicans 

always want to make it seem as though 

entitlements only go to poor people or 

the elderly or children. They talk 

about Medicaid as an entitlement. 

What about this? This is an entitlement to those who are rich. 

How do the Republicans pay for this? 

They don’t want to say how, but all we 

have to do is look at the Ryan budget 

and that will tell us how they pay for 

it. They pay for it by massive Draconian cuts to programs that undergird 

the middle class and essential to the 

quality of life in this country, such as 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 10, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6041 

education cuts, student grants and 

loan cuts, law enforcement, clean air 

and clean water, food safety, medical 

research, highways, bridges and other 

infrastructure that was focused on by 

the Senator from California—all those 

would be cut. 

The Republican plan would end Medicare, period. It would turn it into 

voucher care. So now we have a new 

word, not Medicare but voucher care, 

that would force seniors to pay nearly 

$6,000 more per year out of pocket for 

their health care in future years. We 

don’t get Medicare; we get a voucher. 

That plan would strip tens of millions 

of Americans of their health care coverage and cut millions of poor kids 

from nutrition programs. Their plan 

would leave America with a less-skilled 

workforce, a deteriorating infrastructure, making us less competitive in the 

global marketplace. 

Lastly, Republicans offset these big 

new tax cuts by actually raising taxes 

on the middle class. That is a dirty little secret you won’t find unless you dig 

into the Ryan budget. It is true. Here is 

why: Under the Republican plan, under 

the Ryan-Romney budget, middle-class 

families are net losers, paying significantly higher taxes. The wealthy are 

huge net winners. The nonpartisan Tax 

Policy Center estimates that under the 

Romney-Ryan budget, middle-class 

families with children would see their 

taxes go up, on average, by more than 

$2,000 a year. 

The bottom line is that the RomneyRyan budget does not reduce the deficit. I hear Congressman RYAN and Mr. 

Romney out there talking on the 

stump about the budget and the deficit, 

and they go on and on. Why don’t they 

own up to it? The Ryan budget keeps 

us in a deficit for 28 more years. Yes, 

you heard me right. The Ryan budget 

keeps us in the red for 28 more years. 

When President Clinton was inaugurated in January of 1993 and we put 

through the Clinton budget—which, I 

might point out, not one Republican 

supported—it turned those deficits 

right around, and within 5 or 6 years 

we were in a surplus. It doesn’t take 28 

years. It only took a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress passing the legislation in 1993 to end the 

slide into deficits and turn it into a 

surplus in only 5 or 6 years. The Ryan 

budget keeps us in a deficit for 28 

years. Again, the savings they gain by 

slashing spending and raising taxes on 

the middle class go to partially offsetting the $4.5 trillion in new tax cuts, 

most of which goes to the wealthiest 

Americans. 

The truth is Representative RYAN is 

not interested in balancing the budget. 

That is not his interest. Even under his 

most rosy assumptions, the budget 

would not balance until 2040. The reality is the Ryan budget’s overriding 

goal is not to balance the budget but to 

reduce taxes on those at the top. Congressman RYAN has turned out to be a 

true acolyte of former Vice President 

Cheney, who famously said in an unguarded moment: ‘‘Deficits don’t matter.’’ Do you remember that? Vice 

President Cheney, ‘‘Deficits don’t matter.’’ I guess they didn’t to him and 

President George W. Bush because look 

at the deficits they plunged us into. 

Now Congressman RYAN is basically, 

with his budget—he will not say it publicly, but with his budget he is saying 

the same thing: Deficits just don’t 

matter. What matters are tax cuts for 

the wealthy. 

Never in our history have we seen a 

deficit proposal so radical and extreme. 

I was here. I was in the House and then 

later in the Senate when President 

Reagan was President. He was conservative, but he was not radical and as extreme as this budget. When I tell people back in Iowa about the Ryan budget, they say: Come on. That approach 

is so extreme and unbalanced you must 

be making it up. 

The Romney-Ryan plan is extreme 

and unbalanced, and I am not making 

it up. Don’t take my word for it. Listen 

to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. He criticized the Ryan budget. He 

called it ‘‘rightwing social engineering.’’ All I can say is, Newt, you got 

that one right. 

Representative RYAN believes in radically shrinking the size of government 

to what it was over a half century ago. 

His aim is to use the deficit crisis as a 

pretext for degrading and dismantling 

everything from Medicare and Medicaid to education, environmental protection, workplace safety, medical and 

scientific research, and on and on. It 

doubles down, as President Clinton 

said—it doubles down on the theory 

that if we just give more and more of 

our national wealth to those at the top, 

it will magically trickle down. 

We have tried that before. It sure 

does not work. 

I would like to focus some more of 

my remarks this evening on the devastating impact of the Romney-Ryan 

budget on Medicare and Medicaid, but 

health care more generally. Since he 

first arrived in Congress, Representative RYAN has consistently pushed a 

very radical health care program—to 

end Medicare. End Medicare, as we say, 

‘‘as we know it’’ but to go to voucher 

care. Give everybody a voucher. Under 

his proposal, seniors would no longer 

have the guaranteed medical benefits 

they have enjoyed for decades. Instead, 

they would get a voucher from the Federal Government and they can go out 

and buy individual private insurance or 

Medicare. 

That is the catchy little thing. We 

will hear Mr. RYAN and Mr. Romney 

say they can buy Medicare if they 

would like to or they can buy private 

insurance. Let’s look at that. 

They say this is a tough-minded solution to our debt problem, but it is just 

a scheme, a scheme to shift costs onto 

America’s seniors rather than making 

debt reduction a shared sacrifice for all 

of us. 

Again, let’s look at this voucher system. They would get a voucher program. A senior could buy traditional 

Medicare or health insurance. So what 

is the catch? The voucher will not be 

enough to cover health care costs. So 

seniors’ out-of-pocket health care costs 

will steadily increase. The nonpartisan 

Congressional Budget Office has projected that the Ryan budget proposal 

could increase annual out-of-pocket 

costs for seniors by more than $1,200 in 

2030 and $6,000 in 2050. 

What this chart shows is the increase 

in health care costs in today’s dollars, 

constant dollars, that elderly persons 

will have to pay for during their expected lifetime, their average life expectancy from the time they retire. In 

2023 the average senior living an average lifespan would pay $59,500 more. 

Senator BOXER rounded that off and 

said $60,000 more. But look what happens when we get to 2030. The average 

senior will pay $124,600 more over their 

expected lifespan; in 2040, $216,000 more. 

By 2050, $331,000 more for their retirement years they would have to pay in 

health care costs. That is in constant 

2012 dollars. 

They say: But a senior can go out and 

buy traditional Medicare or private 

health insurance. Here is the catch on 

that. What they do is put Medicare in 

a death spiral. Here is how. 

If a person is a very healthy senior 

they can go out in the private insurance market and probably get a pretty 

good deal. If they have no preexisting 

conditions, if they have never had cancer, no one in their family has had it, 

if they are very healthy, they have 

never smoked, they are just in great 

physical shape, they can probably go 

out and get a private, cheap private insurance policy with their voucher. 

So who stays in Medicare then? The 

oldest and the sickest, and therefore 

the costs of Medicare spiral up and spiral up and it becomes untenable. It is a 

death spiral. That is Mr. RYAN’s way of 

killing Medicare. 

Yes, he says people will get a voucher, and they can buy Medicare or they 

can buy private insurance, but it puts 

Medicare into a death spiral. The Ryan 

budget turns this successful, reliable, 

comprehensive source of health care 

that seniors have relied on for decades—and have paid into, I might add, 

during their years of hard work—into 

some unproven, unpredictable, rightwing, conservative experiment. I do not 

want to experiment with the elderly. I 

want them to have good health care 

they can afford, that is universal, and 

that they can count on. 

President Obama has fought to 

strengthen Medicare, and he believes, 

as we do, it is a sacred contract. He has 

made a commitment to strengthen 

Medicare in the Affordable Care Act. 

For example, by eliminating the gaps 

in coverage, closing the doughnut 

hole—which we have already started to 

do—elderly Iowans, I think, received 

over $600 back this year just from closing the doughnut hole. 

Reducing the cost of prescription 

drugs. According to Medicare’s own actuaries, the Affordable Care Act, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6042 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 10, 2012 

ObamaCare, extends the program solvency from 2016 to 2024. Again, how? As 

the Senator from California said, by 

fighting waste, fraud, abuse and by getting rid of wasteful subsidies to insurance companies. Our plan for Medicare 

is basically summed up: Mend it but 

don’t end it. 

I was taken a little aback yesterday. 

Over the weekend Governor Romney 

stated he would keep some of the popular provisions of the Affordable Care 

Act. Like what? Well, like kids staying 

on their parents’ insurance plans until 

they are 26 and ensuring coverage for 

folks with preexisting conditions. 

I said: Wait a second. I thought he 

said on the first day he was going to repeal ObamaCare? But now he says he 

wants to keep those. I was a little confused, but my confusion was short-lived 

because his campaign then came out 

with a clarifying statement. They 

clarified what Governor Romney said, 

and this is the quote: 

Governor Romney will ensure that discrimination against individuals with preexisting conditions who maintain continuous 

coverage is prohibited. 

The Washington Post reports that 89 

million Americans would be left out of 

Romney’s preexisting condition plan. 

Why? They were working and they had 

a health plan. They were out of work 

for a month or two—maybe went someplace else to work and got a different 

plan: Sorry, you didn’t have continuous coverage. You don’t get covered. 

These are the little games that Governor Romney and Congressman RYAN

are playing with the American people. 

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from 

Iowa yield for a question? 

Mr. HARKIN. I am delighted to yield 

to my friend from Illinois. 

Mr. DURBIN. I was trying to understand this Republican position. It used 

to be crystal clear. In 23 debates we 

heard Republican candidates say, one 

after another after another: First day 

in office ObamaCare is gone. But I 

heard the same thing the Senator did, 

and I have tried to understand it. 

I do give Governor Romney some credence in this regard. I have said, when 

asked, he is the baby daddy of 

ObamaCare because it was Governor 

Romney who created the first version 

of ObamaCare in the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts, and he understood—I 

hope the Senator from Iowa can help 

me to understand, and those listening—he understood the concept of insurance. If everyone who bought an insurance policy wrecked their car or got 

sick the next day, insurance would not 

work. The only way it works is most 

people are safe drivers. They buy insurance and a small percentage use it. So 

there is a pool of money collected from 

premiums creating a reserve for accidents. 

Here we have a situation where Governor Romney has agreed with us—I 

commend him—that people with preexisting conditions when it comes to 

health care should not be discriminated against. But the Senator from 

Iowa, as chair of the committee that 

dealt with ObamaCare, knows what adverse selection means. It means if people wait until they are sick to buy 

health insurance the whole system 

falls apart. So in Massachusetts they 

required everybody to buy health insurance. 

Mr. HARKIN. I think that is called 

an individual mandate? 

Mr. DURBIN. An individual mandate, 

some critics might say. Some of us call 

it individual responsibility. And we did 

the same, when it came to health care 

reform, keeping in mind if people currently have health insurance and like 

their doctor, like their hospital, we are 

not going to change their lives one bit. 

But for those who are out in the marketplace, the availability of health insurance would be there, but everyone 

has the responsibility to buy it. 

We don’t think twice when we have a 

closing on a home. We need fire insurance on this home. My home has never 

burned down, thank goodness, but I 

buy fire insurance. That is individual 

responsibility so there is something to 

pay the mortgage off if the house burns 

down. 

But in this circumstance what I understand Governor Romney to say is we 

don’t think insurance companies 

should discriminate against people 

with preexisting conditions. OK, I am 

with him. But then he goes on to say— 

I think the point the Senator made— 

let’s kind of bear on this for a minute— 

what he goes on to say is so long as 

people have had continuous insurance. 

What if a person was unlucky enough 

to lose a job? Out of luck. Their preexisting conditions just disqualified 

them from health insurance. They are 

stuck, under the Romney approach. 

What if they had any kind of interruption whatsoever in their insurance coverage? They are dead in the water. So 

when we talk about taking uninsured 

people, bringing them into insurance 

that has quality to it, quality coverage 

where they cannot discriminate 

against people, we are saying whatever 

their previous insurance experience we 

are all going to get into this together. 

We are all coming into the tent together and they cannot be discriminated against because they are a 

woman, had a baby—all the different 

things they have used. 

So when we listen closely to it, here 

was Governor Romney basically saying 

he is against the discrimination on preexisting conditions, but then footnoted 

down at the bottom of the page—as 

long as people have had continuous 

coverage. It is an empty promise. It 

doesn’t give people anywhere near the 

protection and insurance that 

ObamaCare gives. That is what I understand to be the difference. 

Is that the way the Senator understands Governor Romney’s clarification of his statement of yesterday? 

Mr. HARKIN. I thoroughly agree 

with my friend from Illinois. Governor 

Romney makes the statement. It is on 

a very popular well-viewed Sunday talk 

show, ‘‘Meet The Press.’’ So the average American says: Oh, Governor Romney, he is for keeping coverage for preexisting conditions. That is good. That 

is nice to know. 

They do not hear the clarification 

that came about later because that was 

not on ‘‘Meet The Press.’’ That was 

sort of under the radar, when they said 

they wanted to clarify what Governor 

Romney meant was he would prevent 

discrimination against individuals 

with preexisting conditions who maintain continuous coverage. As the Washington Post pointed out, there are 89 

million Americans who would be disqualified because they had a plan, they 

lost it because they moved or something like that, and picked up another 

plan. There goes their coverage. Just 

think about that. You are a family. 

Let’s say your spouse has a preexisting 

condition—it could be diabetes, it 

could be cancer, it could be anything— 

but you have been covered under a 

plan. President Obama, with the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, says beginning in 2014, just as we now cover 

children, no plan can discriminate 

against you because of a preexisting 

condition. What Romney is saying with 

his clarification is only if you have always had that plan. What if you are a 

family that moved from one State to 

another due to a job issue? You move 

and your spouse or maybe one of your 

children who is perhaps still on your 

policy and has a preexisting condition 

won’t be covered. They will not cover 

them. Mr. Romney didn’t say that on 

‘‘Meet the Press.’’ 

Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator 

from Iowa that I met so many people in 

my State of Illinois who said, I cannot 

leave my job because I don’t know if I 

can ever find health insurance again. I 

am stuck because I have a child or a 

spouse with a problem. The real world 

of human experience tells us this happens all the time. It makes me wonder 

sometimes. There are 8 or 9 million 

Americans—almost one out of three 

Americans—not covered by this Romney plan. How does this solve any problems? If we are not going to have 

health insurance we can count on when 

we need it, it is worthless. It is a subsidy the insurance company doesn’t 

pay off when the family needs it. 

I didn’t mean to interrupt the Senator from Iowa, but I wanted to make 

that point very strongly. 

Mr. HARKIN. I want to say one other 

thing about this idea of the individual 

mandate then-Governor Romney supported in Massachusetts. We all have it 

within us—I think especially as Americans—that we don’t like to be told anything. We don’t like to have a mandate 

put on us. Well, as the chair of the 

health committee, and someone who is 

very much involved in this process of 

getting the Affordable Care Act 

through, I want to make it very clear, 

you don’t have to buy insurance. There 

is no individual mandate that says you 

have to buy insurance. I want to make 

that clear, and I want to keep making 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 10, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6043 

that point. I have been making that 

point for months now. You don’t have 

to buy insurance. It just says if you 

don’t buy it and you get real sick and 

want to get in line to get health insurance, you pay a penalty. They call it a 

free-rider penalty. 

Have we ever seen that before? How 

about Medicare? We have it in Medicare. When you turn 65, you don’t have 

to get Part B. No one tells you that 

you have to do that. If you wait until 

you are 67, 68, 69, or 70, you pay more. 

You will pay a lot more than if you 

picked it up at 62 or 65 when you retired because it is a free-rider penalty. 

So we have to get rid of this idea that 

this is some kind of individual mandate that you are forced to do something. No, you are not forced to do it. 

But if you are a free rider, and you say 

I will only go when I get sick—like the 

car accident the Senator pointed out— 

yes, you pay a penalty. That is all. You 

don’t have a mandate. You just have to 

pay a penalty. I think when we describe that, I would say that sounds 

fair. If you are not going to be in the 

insurance pool—it is as though I am 

not going to have car insurance, but if 

I have a wreck, I want to call the insurance company and they will insure 

me to the moment right before the 

wreck. That is nonsense. Of course, we 

don’t do that. 

Well, as I said, I intend to take the 

floor today, tomorrow, and for the next 

several days to point out what the 

Ryan plan does overall but basically in 

health care. 

We mentioned Medicare. Let’s talk 

about Medicaid. How about Medicaid? 

What does Medicaid do? Basically, as I 

have said many times, it is there to 

give a decent quality of health care and 

a quality of life to the hopeless, the 

helpless, and the hapless. It is for people who otherwise sort of fall through 

the cracks, people who need health 

care who cannot afford it or who, because of their life situation, have never 

been able to get any kind of health 

care coverage. 

Well, here is what he does. I will get 

into this more. The Medicaid funding, 

which the Senator from California 

mentioned, over 10 years takes over 

$810 billion—that is with a ‘‘b,’’ not 

million—out of Medicare. What does 

that mean? Who does that hurt? Well, 1 

out of every 2 Americans with a disability uses Medicaid. That is who is 

hurt. Services in the Medicaid Program 

allow our citizens with disabilities to 

live with dignity and purpose in their 

homes and in their communities. Three 

million seniors and people with disabilities use the program to avoid having 

to go into a nursing home. 

How about Medicaid for middle-class 

families? We always think that Medicaid is just for people with disabilities 

or just for poor people. How about 

Americans in the middle class? How 

about American middle-class families? 

There are hundreds of thousands of 

American families who have children 

with lifelong disabilities such as 

Down’s syndrome or autism. Medicaid 

gives them a lifeline or middle-class 

families would be paying out of their 

pockets for the health care costs of 

their children for their entire lifetimes. Yes, this is one of the entitlements they want to cut. Medicaid is an 

entitlement. 

Well, how about that tax plan? If you 

are a millionaire—that is all you have 

to be. All you have to do is have an income of over $1 million a year and you 

get huge tax benefits. How about that 

entitlement? No, they don’t touch that 

one. At the center of the Ryan budget 

is his promise to repeal the Affordable 

Care Act, ObamaCare, a commonsense 

health reform that led the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to have one of 

the lowest uninsurance rates in the 

country. ObamaCare—I know the Republicans have been using that as a 

pejorative. I say it proudly. 

I was with President Obama in Iowa 

a couple of weeks ago when he spoke to 

a huge group of students at my alma 

mater, Iowa State University. There 

was a big sign in the back that said 

‘‘ObamaCare.’’ President Obama looked 

at it and said, yes, ObamaCare. Speaking of himself in the third person, he 

said: Yes, Obama does care. He said, I 

care about making sure everyone is 

covered who has a preexisting condition. I want to make sure that kids can 

stay on their parents’ policy while they 

are in college. Yes, I want to make sure 

that the elderly have a good, affordable 

Medicare Program. Yes, I want to 

make sure that people have good preventive health care systems in America. Obama cares, that is what 

ObamaCare is. Obama cares, and he 

cares very deeply that we have a health 

care system for all and not just for a 

few. As was said by President Clinton 

in his speech, an American policy based 

upon ‘‘we’re all in this together is 

much better than the policy of tough 

luck, you’re on your own,’’ which is the 

Ryan budget philosophy. 

When we get past the political theater and look at what the Ryan budget 

actually means, it is not a very pretty 

picture. The Ryan budget would repeal 

the prescription drug doughnut hole 

closure we are doing. It would allow insurance companies to charge as much 

as $300 for preventive services. One of 

the key elements we put in 

ObamaCare: 86 million Americans received at least one free preventive 

service last year, and more this year. 

Almost 1 million Iowans received one 

free preventive service in 2011. That 

means they got preventive care so they 

don’t get sicker and cost us more 

money. Again, the Ryan budget would 

allow people to deny you coverage or 

increase your premiums if you have a 

preexisting condition. 

This protection means a lot to this 

person right here. This is Eleanor 

Pierce from Cedar Falls, IA. I spoke 

about her before. She was denied 

health insurance when she lost her job 

because of her preexisting condition of 

high blood pressure. Without coverage 

she racked up $60,000 in medical debt. 

The Ryan budget would repeal 

ObamaCare. They would tell people 

like Eleanor Pierce: Tough luck, you 

are on your own. We are not all in this 

together. You mean you are not worth 

$1 million? Tough luck, you are on 

your own. 

Repeal will allow insurance companies to put limits on the coverage of 

more than 100 million Americans, stopping benefits right when they get sick. 

Repeal would kick more than 3 million 

young people off their parents’ policy. 

This is Emily Schlichting who testified before the committee. She is an elegant young woman going to college in 

Omaha. She said young people are the 

future of this country and we are the 

most affected by reform. We are the 

generation that is most uninsured. We 

need the Affordable Care Act because it 

is literally an investment in the future 

of this country. She suffers from a rare 

autoimmune disorder that would totally make her uninsurable in the old 

days and under the Ryan budget, which 

brings back those old days. Thanks to 

the Affordable Care Act, she can stay 

on her parents’ policy until she is 26. 

By 2014, regardless of her preexisting 

condition, she will get affordable 

health insurance coverage. 

Repeal under the Ryan budget would 

allow insurance companies to spend 

America’s premium dollars on CEO bonuses, marketing, and fancy buildings 

rather than actual health care. Under 

the health reform medical loss ratio requirement, policyholders nationwide 

will receive more than $1 billion in rebates from insurers this year. That is 

$1 billion in rebates this year that goes 

back to policyholders and families; 

otherwise, that $1 billion would be 

going into CEO bonuses, marketing, 

private jets, company planes, fancy 

buildings, and things such as that. 

These are just a few of the ways the 

Romney-Ryan budget would repeal 

ObamaCare and drag America back to 

the bad old days. 

Again, I will repeat that over the last 

few weeks Representative RYAN has 

been telling everyone how the President’s health reform plan robs Medicare. That is totally fallacious. First, 

the nonpartisan economists have certified that ObamaCare strengthens the 

Medicare Program and extends its solvency by 8 years. What President 

Obama did—as the Senator from California previously pointed out—was 

make the program more efficient and 

save money on wasteful overpayments 

to private insurance companies and 

cracking down on fraud. 

What Mr. RYAN won’t tell us is that 

the very reforms President Obama has 

in our Affordable Care Act are the 

same he has in his Ryan budget plan. 

What he doesn’t tell us is that while 

President Obama takes those savings 

and puts them back into Medicare, Mr. 

RYAN takes those savings—yes, you 

guessed it—and puts them into more 

tax breaks for the wealthy. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6044 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 10, 2012 

By repealing the Affordable Care Act, 

the Ryan plan would again put Americans at the mercy of insurance companies and deprive more than 30 million 

people of affordable coverage. 

I was just going to get the chart for 

my own State of Iowa. I had one here 

on Iowa I wanted to point out, because 

I am obviously very interested in my 

seniors in Iowa. This chart shows that 

the Ryan plan means almost 440,000 

Iowa seniors would be forced onto 

vouchers when they retire. We have to 

get those vouchers, right? Sixty thousand Iowa seniors would be forced back 

into the prescription drug doughnut 

hole. The doughnut hole would open 

again. Four hundred thousand Iowa 

seniors would pay more for preventive 

services this year. 

I can tell my colleagues our seniors 

in Iowa are flocking to get their preventive health care services. They 

know an ounce of prevention is worth a 

pound of cure. But before those preventive services cost money. Now they get 

them free. It is going to make their 

lives better and save us a lot of money. 

ObamaCare decreases the deficit by 

almost $110 billion over the first 10 

years and more than $1 trillion in the 

next decade. Mr. Romney and Mr. RYAN

won’t tell us that, but it is true. It reduces the deficit. It insures more than 

94 percent of all Americans. Over 94 

percent of all Americans will have that 

coverage. 

The bottom line is very simple, and I 

will be talking about this in the days 

ahead. President Obama will protect 

Medicare, will protect health care not 

only for our seniors but for young people, for middle-class Americans and, 

yes, for those at the bottom rung of the 

ladder who need Medicaid to sustain 

them and to give them quality health 

care. The Ryan budget rolls back all of 

this. So, again, we are faced with this 

choice: the Ryan budget or what President Obama has come forward with in 

his budget and with his ObamaCare to 

make sure America remains a good 

middle-class country where people on 

the bottom, at the lowest rung of the 

ladder, can get into that middle class; 

where the middle class knows they can 

leave a job and go to another job and 

not lose their health care plan; where 

someone can start a small business and 

know they will have health care coverage for themselves and the one or 

two or three or four or five workers 

who work for them or small businesses 

now can become more competitive with 

the big businesses in America. 

I think it is safe to say that if only 

the American people will study the 

Ryan budget, the blueprint, they will 

find that this is where they want to 

take you and me and all of America— 

back to an America that our parents 

moved beyond; where our parents said, 

no, we are going to move forward; 

where we have buttressed ourselves in 

our own lifetimes, in moving America 

forward to a country where we truly 

are all in this together; where we are 

not just a lottery country in which if a 

person wins the lottery, they are OK, 

they have it made; if a person doesn’t 

win, then tough luck, sucker, they are 

on their own. That is not the America 

our parents fought for in World War II 

or Korea or Vietnam; it is not the kind 

of America Martin Luther King, Jr., 

marched for and died for. It is not the 

kind of America we want to see for our 

kids and our grandkids. 

We have a choice. The choice is clear. 

Let’s move forward. 

I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

MERKLEY). The clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant bill clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, most 

commissions appointed in Washington—at least in my experience— 

hardly make a ripple, people hardly notice them. After a lot of hard work, a 

report is published and that is about it. 

Some historian at a later date may 

look at the work they have done and 

the research they have done and that is 

about it, that is the extent of it. 

There are a few exceptions. I was fortunate enough almost 2 years ago to be 

appointed to one of those exceptions 

and that was President Obama’s deficit 

reduction commission, the SimpsonBowles Commission. I was appointed 

because I am a member of the Appropriations Committee and Senator REID

said we should have someone from Finance, Appropriations, and Budget. I 

took the assignment of one of the three 

Democratic Senators. There were three 

Republican Senators, three Republican 

House Members, three Democratic 

House Members, and an additional six 

public members. The public members 

consisted of a number of people, including Alice Rivlin, respected in Washington, as well as a number of business 

and community leaders. 

We met for about a year and considered the budget deficit and all of the 

Federal spending and came to know 

one another a little bit during that period of time. One of the members of 

that commission was PAUL RYAN, a 

Congressman from Janesville, WI, just 

over the border from my State of Illinois. I knew Paul before and got to 

know him a little better during the 

course of that commission. He is a very 

bright person. We have some common 

friends in the Janesville area, and I 

know he worked with Senator Feingold, a Democrat from Wisconsin, on 

some issues before. 

What surprised me at the end of the 

day was despite his obvious training 

and knowledge on the budget deficit, 

when it came time for a vote on this bipartisan deficit commission report, all 

three House Republican Members, including Congressman PAUL RYAN, 

voted no. I voted yes. Two out of the 

three Democratic Senators voted yes. I 

was surprised, in a way, because I 

thought that although the SimpsonBowles plan had its shortcomings— 

things I disagreed with and said so—it 

was a dramatic step forward to try to 

deal with our deficit in a fair fashion. 

JEB HENSARLING of Texas was another Republican Congressman, along 

with DAVE CAMP of Michigan, the chair 

of the House Finance Committee, and 

Congressman PAUL RYAN, who all voted 

no. 

I was surprised that at the Republican convention in Tampa, FL, Congressman RYAN, the Republican Vice 

Presidential nominee, criticized President Obama over the Simpson-Bowles 

Commission report, saying he had 

worked hard to implement. I thought 

that was a curious position for Congressman RYAN to take, because he had 

voted against it. Now he was criticizing 

President Obama for not working hard 

enough on the commission report. But 

I came to understand that a little more 

when I took a closer look at Congressman PAUL RYAN’s budget plan for 

America. 

Before he was chosen to run as Governor Romney’s running mate, 5PAUL

RYAN, the Congressman and chairman 

of the House Budget Committee, issued 

his vision of what America should be 

doing over the next several years. One 

of the most controversial sections relates to Medicare. Medicare, of course, 

is the insurance policy for the elderly 

and many disabled in our country. It is 

a lifeline for 40 million-plus Americans. 

It means even in their old age they will 

have good protection for health insurance because they have paid into it 

during all of their working years. PAUL

RYAN observed that the Medicare Program would come to an end if it 

weren’t changed. We know it has about 

12 years of solvency left and change 

will be needed. His proposal, though, 

would do more than change Medicare; 

it would end it as we know it. The 

RYAN approach would create vouchers—coupons—for senior citizens to 

buy health insurance. It would force 

them to pay more out of pocket for 

Medicare. According to the CBO—the 

Congressional Budget Office—the Romney-Ryan plan would force Medicare 

beneficiaries to pay up to $1,200 more 

by 2030 and almost $6,000 by 2050. That 

is about $500 a month, ultimately. 

Congressman RYAN said seniors could 

choose to stay in traditional Medicare 

or they could basically go into a private health insurance market. A senior 

who is both healthy and wealthy would 

have an option. Those not so healthy or 

wealthy would find the only option traditional Medicare, and more and more 

people with a history of illness would 

be forced into traditional Medicare, 

making it a very expensive insurance 

program and difficult to maintain. 

The PAUL RYAN voucher plan puts 

Medicare in competition with private 

insurance companies and, as I said, 

many seniors would find that the competition wouldn’t want them and they 

would be stuck with traditional Medicare, much different than it is today. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 10, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6045 

Medicare would be taking care of the 

seniors whose care costs more, so Medicare premiums would increase. As they 

go up and seniors begin to leave Medicare, it causes premiums to rise further, which would cripple the program. 

The PAUL RYAN program eliminates 

all the consumer protections in the Affordable Care Act, putting insurance 

companies back in the driver’s seat. I 

don’t think most Americans believes 

that is a good place to be, at the mercy 

of an insurance company, an adjuster 

who will decide what they are covering 

and how much one will pay. 

Young adults would no longer stay on 

their parents’ insurance plan under the 

Romney-Ryan proposal to eliminate 

ObamaCare. People with preexisting 

conditions would be denied coverage— 

going back to the conversation I had 

earlier, my dialog with Senator HARKIN

on the floor. Families would once again 

face lifetime limits on coverage, and 

seniors would be forced back into the 

doughnut hole, meaning paying more 

out-of-pocket expenses for their Medicare prescription drugs. 

I don’t think this is a good plan for 

America and I don’t think Americans, 

once they hear the details, are going to 

like it. 

The ObamaCare program has already 

helped a lot of people. A report today 

said there was a 16-percent increase in 

coverage of younger Americans because 

of ObamaCare. These are younger 

Americans up to the age of 26 who now 

can stay on their family plans. And 1.6 

million Americans have been added 

into coverage under their parents’ plan 

because of this change in the law. 

Now, those who say ‘‘I will repeal 

ObamaCare’’ would repeal that protection, forcing 1.6 million young people, 

without jobs or coverage, out of the 

protection they have today. I cannot 

imagine 125,000 young adults in Illinois 

who have benefited from ObamaCare 

would believe that is a good idea, nor 

would their families. 

Since the Affordable Care Act was 

signed into law, Medicare beneficiaries 

in Illinois have saved over $171 million 

on their prescription drugs. 

There was a discussion earlier about 

the Medicaid Program. Medicaid is an 

important program in Illinois and most 

States. I asked Julie Hamos, who administers our program in Illinois, to 

explain it in a few words. Here is what 

she said: One out of three children in 

Illinois is covered by Medicaid. That is 

their health insurance—one out of 

three. In Illinois, Medicaid pays for 52 

percent of the births; that is, prenatal 

care and the delivery of the child—52 

percent paid for by Medicaid. But those 

two things—child coverage and coverage for new moms and their babies— 

do not even represent half the cost of 

Medicaid in Illinois. 

Sixty percent of the cost of Medicaid 

in Illinois is for the elderly and disabled, many of whom are completely 

out of luck and out of money. They live 

on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They are in nursing homes and 

convalescent centers. They do not have 

anyplace to turn. So Medicaid is a critical insurance program for some of the 

most vulnerable people in America. 

Many seniors and disabled people on 

Medicare also receive State Medicaid. 

The ‘‘dual-eligibles’’ they are called. 

That is 15 percent of Medicaid enrollees, but 39 percent of Medicaid spending—low-income elderly people who 

have no place else to turn. 

So when PAUL RYAN, in his budget, 

suggests he is going to cut back on 

Medicaid payments each year, giving a 

smaller amount of money to States, 

saying: Make do, who is at risk? Children: one out of three in Illinois is on 

Medicaid; moms having babies: over 

half of the moms having babies in our 

State; and the elderly folks who have 

no place to turn. 

Think about what that means. A 

child without basic health insurance, 

Medicaid, in my State or anywhere, is 

less likely to have a doctor, immunizations when needed, and an office visit 

to avoid a trip to an emergency room. 

A mother without prenatal care is, unfortunately, more likely to give birth 

to a child with a problem. And we do 

not want to see that for the sake of the 

child first, certainly for the mom, for 

the family, or for taxpayers, for goodness’ sake. There is no money saved by 

scrimping on Medicare for new moms. 

The Ryan plan would force that kind of 

scrimping. 

The Ryan plan converts Medicaid 

into a block grant and cuts Federal 

funding for the program by 34 percent 

over the next 10 years—34 percent. 

So I would ask Congressman RYAN: 

Which of those groups do you want to 

cut back on in terms of coverage? According to CBO, cuts at the level the 

Ryan plan calls for would mean States 

would have to reduce eligibility for 

Medicaid and children’s health insurance or cover fewer services. 

I might add—I am sure it is true in 

the State of Oregon; it is certainly true 

in Illinois—one of the most critical 

areas of medical need is dental care. I 

talk to doctors every time I go back 

home in emergency rooms at hospitals 

who have people coming in to see them 

in pain because of problems with their 

teeth, and they end up getting pain 

medication but nothing is taken care 

of. 

So when we talk about restricting 

care, as PAUL RYAN has suggested in 

his budget, I have to tell you, I think it 

is extremely shortsighted. A tooth 

ache can turn into a life-threatening 

situation for some people, not to mention the pain and discomfort they are 

going through. So if anything, we 

ought to review basic Medicaid services 

to expand at least into dental care. I 

would support that. I think it is extremely shortsighted for us not to include it. 

This Paul Ryan budget would not expand Medicaid. It would cut it back 

dramatically. States would lower payments to doctors and nurses by onethird. Can you imagine what that 

would do? It would reduce the number 

of providers, which makes it more difficult. 

Just to give you an example, in the 

Quad Cities in Illinois, there is a great 

clinic put together by a friend of mine 

in the Hispanic section of Moline. They 

provide basic, basic primary health 

care. If you need a specialist, you are 

referred, with at least an hour-and-ahalf drive, to Peoria or with an almost 

3-hour drive to Chicago. Remember, 

these are the poorest people living in 

our towns. Do they make it to the specialist? Usually not. The PAUL RYAN

approach, reducing the amount of 

money that is paid to providers, would 

mean even fewer specialists would be 

willing to help those who are poor. 

But the thing that troubles me the 

most about Congressman RYAN is—at 

least in his budget views and his deficit 

views—as he talks a good game about 

reducing the deficit and voted against 

the Simpson-Bowles Commission report, he comes up with a budget that 

he produces in the House and says he 

and Governor Romney are going to protect the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America and increase defense spending. This does not work. It 

does not add up. It does not pass what 

President Clinton called the arithmetic 

test. You cannot increase tax cuts and 

increase spending on defense without, 

as President Clinton said, digging the 

hole deeper and deeper. 

So they sound pretty good when they 

give the speeches about fiscal conservatism and that we have to be serious 

about the deficit, but their proposals 

just do not match. The idea of lowering 

tax rates, as they proposed, even below 

the Bush tax cuts—they said: Well, we 

will use tax reform to get to it. The estimates suggest that the middle-income families will end up losing in 

that. As a result of tax reform as proposed by Romney-Ryan, they think 

middle-income families face a higher 

tax of $2,000 a year to protect tax cuts 

for the wealthiest people. That certainly is not a positive thing in terms 

of deficit reduction or helping a lot of 

working families living paycheck to 

paycheck. 

We have debated Congressman 

RYAN’s plan for 2 years now. The only 

people who seem to like it are some 

Republicans serving in Congress. The 

majority of Americans would oppose 

the Paul Ryan budget plan to end 

Medicare as we know it. The majority 

of Americans certainly oppose his idea 

of raising taxes on middle-income families to pay for tax breaks for the 

wealthiest. Congressman RYAN has had 

his chance to make his case to the 

American people for his view of where 

we are going, and it will not work. I 

wish he had joined us in the bipartisan 

effort of Simpson-Bowles. His vote in 

favor of that would have given him 

more credibility and maybe a better 

understanding of the reality of budget 

deficit reduction. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6046 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 10, 2012 

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I 

rise today to speak about the budget 

proposed by Congressman PAUL RYAN, 

which has been approved twice by the 

House of Representatives. 

The Ryan budget, which is purported 

to be a measure of fiscal responsibility, 

is in fact an attempt to rewrite the social contract in this country while at 

the same time adding to the national 

debt. 

Let me explain. There are four major 

components of the Ryan budget. 

The first is another round of tax cuts 

for the wealthy. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the Ryan 

tax plan would add an additional $4.5 

trillion to the Nation’s debt. That is on 

top of the staggering cost of the Bush 

tax cuts. 

Second, the Ryan budget would virtually eliminate spending on domestic 

programs, imposing debilitating funding cuts for education, air quality, 

roads, bridges, railways, national 

parks, first responder programs and a 

host of other vital national interests. 

Third, this budget ends Medicare as 

we know it and converts Medicaid into 

a block-grant program with capped 

funds. The Ryan budget endangers our 

two most vital sources of health care 

services for seniors, the poor and those 

with disabilities. 

Finally, the budget repeals the 

health reform law, reducing the solvency of Medicare and eliminating 

critical consumer protections. 

The tax proposal in the Ryan budget 

is especially troubling. According to 

the Tax Policy Center, the Ryan budget would mean a tax windfall of $265,000 

a year for millionaires. 

At the same time, the middle class 

and working poor would see few if any 

benefits. 

The Ryan tax plan is very similar to 

that of Mitt Romney. Both plans would 

substantially reduce tax rates on the 

wealthy, and both are supposedly paid 

for by closing unspecified tax loopholes. 

The Tax Policy Center has already 

analyzed Mitt Romney’s plan. In order 

to substantially lower tax rates and remain revenue neutral, the Romney 

plan would have to eliminate so many 

tax credits and deductions that it 

would actually raise taxes on the middle class. 

To make matters worse, the Ryan 

budget does not stand up to scrutiny. 

This is a question of basic arithmetic. 

How do you reduce the national debt 

while at the same time handing massive tax cuts to the wealthy? Congressman RYAN already took one option off 

the table—reducing the Defense Department budget. In fact, his budget 

proposes to spend even more money on 

defense, money the Pentagon does not 

even want. 

That leaves deeper cuts to domestic 

programs and entitlement spending as 

the only remaining options. And it is 

important to note that Congressman 

RYAN refuses to specify what those 

cuts would be—because they would be 

so painful to so many Americans. 

Medicare in particular would be savaged by the Ryan budget. 

Beginning in 2023, his budget ends the 

traditional guaranteed benefits structure of Medicare, instead offering 

vouchers to purchase either a private 

health insurance plan or traditional 

Medicare. 

According to the Congressional Budget Office, that means new Medicare 

beneficiaries would pay $1,200 more out 

of pocket by 2030 and $5,900 more by 

2050. Experts say the Ryan budget 

would also likely lead to reduced access to health care and diminished 

quality of care for beneficiaries. 

Essentially, seniors would be forced 

to purchase more expensive care with 

less. 

Consider that in 2010, half of all 

Medicare beneficiaries had incomes of 

less than $21,000 and you can see why 

this proposal is so dangerous. 

The Center for American Progress estimates that if the Ryan budget were 

to pass, someone who is 54 years old 

today would face increased costs of 

$59,450 during retirement. Someone 

who is 29 years old today would spend 

$331,000 more over the course of their 

retirement. 

I would also note that the Ryan 

budget includes $700 billion in Medicare 

savings the exact same amount that 

was included in the health reform law 

he seeks to repeal. 

The difference is that rather than applying those savings to lower costs and 

increased benefits for seniors, the Ryan 

budget diverts those savings to even 

more tax breaks for millionaires and 

billionaires. 

Speaking of Congressman RYAN’s desire to repeal health reform—his efforts 

to unwind that law, which has been 

upheld by the Supreme Court, would 

add tens of millions of Americans to 

the ranks of the uninsured, it would 

eliminate critical consumer protections, and it would hasten the insolvency of Medicare by 8 years. 

House Republicans want to put insurance companies back in the driver’s 

seat, able to charge higher rates based 

on gender and deny coverage to people 

with preexisting conditions. They 

would remove protections that guarantee children the right to health insurance. 

American families would again be at 

risk for bankruptcy because of costly 

illnesses like cancer. More than 12 million Californians would once again face 

lifetime limits on their health coverage. 

The budget would reopen the prescription drug ‘‘doughnut hole,’’ forcing 5.2 million seniors to once again dip 

into their pockets to cover the full cost 

of prescription drugs. 

In California, 3.4 million seniors 

would be forced to pay more for preventive services, such as cancer screenings 

and mammograms, meaning fewer seniors would have access to these services. 

Let me be clear: the health reform 

law extended the life of Medicare by 8 

years. In addition to forcing seniors to 

pay more for services, the Ryan budget 

would place the Medicare Trust Fund 

on a track for insolvency by 2016. 

Medicaid is another big loss in the 

Ryan budget. He would change Medicaid from a State-Federal match program to a block grant program, including dangerous funding caps. Millions 

more of the most at-risk Americans 

would become uninsured or underinsured because of this budget. 

Medicaid spending would be slashed 

by $810 billion over 10 years, a 22 percent cut. 

This would jeopardize health care for 

nearly 7.3 million Medi-Cal beneficiaries in California, many of whom 

would see reduced eligibility, coverage 

of fewer services and increased out-ofpocket expenses. 

Low-income pregnant women who depend on Medicaid could be dropped 

from the program, a threat to health of 

both mother and baby. 

Let me be candid: The Ryan budget is 

just another salvo in the war against 

the middle class and working poor. 

It would mean more tax cuts for the 

wealthy at the expense of investments 

in our future, it would lead to greater 

numbers of uninsured and it would demolish some of the most vital safety 

net programs in the Nation. 

Let’s set aside the politics and get to 

work on real solutions for the country. 

f 

MORNING BUSINESS 

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the Senate 

proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak 

therein for up to 10 minutes each. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

RECOGNIZING THE CONGRESSIONAL MANAGEMENT FOUNDATION 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I stand before you today to congratulate the 

Congressional Management Foundation 

on its 35th anniversary of service to 

Capitol Hill. Founded in 1977, CMF is a 

non-profit, nonpartisan organization 

dedicated to improving management 

practices within the Halls of Congress, 

as well as facilitating better communication between legislators and their 

constituents. By improving congressional operations, providing institutional research, and educating Americans on how Congress actually works, 

the Congressional Management Foundation has been a valuable contributor 

to building trust and effectiveness in 

Congress. 

The Congressional Management 

Foundation strives to help legislators 

get off on the right foot even before 

they are sworn into office. Within 5 

days after election day, all incoming 

freshmen receive a copy of ‘‘Setting 

Course’’ and ‘‘The 90-Day Road Map’’— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE