S196 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 8, 2009 

A mother in Narragansett, RI, shared 

a story about her 20-year-old son who 

suffers from severe bipolar disorder and 

relies on therapy and expensive medications to remain a valued and productive member of his community. He is 

too old to be covered under her family 

health insurance plan, and his preexisting condition makes buying insurance on the individual market impossible—prohibitively expensive. So what 

did they do? This mother and her family came up with a surprising solution. 

They enrolled her son at the Community College of Rhode Island so he 

could participate in the student health 

insurance plan. He takes the absolute 

minimum course load in order to continue to work, but he remains a student because it is less expensive to pay 

for college tuition than it is to pay for 

individual health insurance. Any parent with a child in college knows what 

a burden this Rhode Island family is 

bearing to ensure that their son gets 

the basic treatment he needs to stay 

healthy. 

I also heard from the proud owner of 

a small bookkeeping and tax preparation business in Warwick, RI. She has 

worked tirelessly to raise five sons, go 

back to college, and finally she has become her own boss. Yet despite all her 

effort and all her success, she wrote me 

to plead for reform. She wrote this: 

I spend over 50 percent of my income just 

to have health insurance for my husband and 

myself. The premiums are over $1,000 per 

month, even with very high deductibles. My 

employees need health insurance also, but I 

am unable to provide them with any benefits 

because of the poor economic conditions. 

Her employees are like family to her, 

as with so many small businesses, and 

it breaks her heart that they are uninsured. Yet she says she simply will not 

be able to keep her doors open if she 

tried to contribute toward their benefits. 

In the midst of this economic downturn, and particularly in Rhode Island 

where the unemployment rate is one of 

the highest in the Nation, this story 

shows all too clearly how closely 

linked are the tasks of reforming our 

health care system and strengthening 

our economy. 

Our health care system manages to 

fail even those who believe themselves 

to be covered. A woman who lives in 

Woonsocket and who has health insurance and was always careful to pay her 

bills on time, assumed she would be 

covered in the event of an emergency. 

Why not? She was current. She paid 

her premiums. She had insurance. But 

not too long ago, she suddenly had to 

have her appendix removed. Despite 

having health insurance, she left that 

hospital with a $10,000 bill. She is currently working for a temp service and 

she has no idea how she can pay off this 

debt. She had recently bought her own 

home, a longtime dream and an accomplishment in which she took great 

pride. Now, because of the fine print of 

that health insurance policy, she risks 

losing the home she worked so long to 

afford. As this Rhode Islander learned 

in the hardest way possible, health insurance often ends up ensuring very 

little. 

It is on behalf of these Rhode Islanders and so many others that I urge my 

colleagues to come together to support 

health care reform that will lower 

costs and improve the quality of care 

for all Americans. We must improve 

the way we deliver health care by promoting quality, implementing health 

information technology, and investing 

in preventing disease. We must, and 

will, protect existing coverage when it 

is good, we must improve it when it is 

not, and we must guarantee health 

care for the 46 million Americans, 9 

million of whom are children who have 

no health insurance at all. 

We see ourselves now in darkening 

and tumultuous economic times. Yet 

looking beyond the immediate economic perils we face, there is a $35 trillion unfunded liability for Medicare 

that is bearing down on us. It is bearing down on us because our population 

is aging, because people get sicker as 

they age, and that makes them more 

expensive. Unless we figure out a way 

in this Chamber to stop time, unless we 

figure out a way in this Chamber to reverse the aging process, unless we figure out a way in this Chamber to make 

elders have healthier lives and bodies 

than younger people, this is inevitable. 

It is coming at us, and we have to prepare. In order to prepare, we have to 

reform the health care delivery system. 

We are committed, as Democrats, to 

making sure every American has 

health insurance coverage, but it is not 

enough just to bring everyone into the 

boat. If you had a boat in the ocean 

and people swimming around it and to 

save them you needed to bring them 

into the boat, you would do that. But if 

the boat itself was sinking, if the boat 

itself was on fire, just bringing everybody into the boat is not an adequate 

discharge of your duties. It is also important that you repair the boat, that 

you get it steaming forward, that you 

make sure it is safe for the people 

whom you bring into it. 

That means reforming our health information technology infrastructure so 

every American can count on an electronic health record, so when you go to 

see your doctor, you don’t have to fill 

out that clipboard one time after another, when at the same time you can 

sign on to Amazon and not only do 

they know who you are, they know 

what you have bought and they have 

suggestions for you based on your buying habits. There is no excuse for our 

health care system being back in the 

1950s as the rest of the economy moves 

forward into the 21st century. It requires improving the quality of health 

care and it requires investing in prevention. 

We dramatically underinvest in prevention and quality. There are market 

failures that cause those things to happen. They are repairable. In addition to 

the cost savings, it is estimated that 

100,000 Americans die every year— 

100,000 Americans die every year—because of avoidable medical errors. It is 

simply not tolerable to allow that to 

continue, particularly when it is a winwin situation, where improved quality 

of care means lower costs. 

Finally, the third leg of the reform, 

in addition to helping infrastructure 

technology and quality and prevention 

reform, is that we have to reform how 

we pay for health care to align the 

price signal that we send by those payments with what we want from health 

care. Until we do that, we will be constantly struggling uphill against our 

own financial message. 

This is all doable. This is all so doable, but it will take time. These are 

complex matters. We will have to make 

adjustments. The adjustments will 

take time. It is a dynamic environment 

which will have to make course corrections along the way. That means we 

need to start now. We do not have the 

luxury of time on our side. If we do not 

get started on a thorough-going health 

care delivery system reform now, then 

the alternative will be times that are 

even darker and more tumultuous than 

we find ourselves in right now. 

I see the very distinguished chairman 

of the Budget Committee on the floor, 

a man who is an eloquent voice on the 

dark and tumultuous times and the 

risks we face from the current fiscal 

situation, so I will gladly yield at this 

point, and I thank the Presiding Officer. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized. 

f 

CBO REPORT 

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, first 

of all, I wish to thank Senator 

WHITEHOUSE for his contributions to 

this Chamber. He has been an outstanding Member. He serves on the 

Budget Committee with me. He has developed a special expertise on health 

care which is so badly needed. 

I wish to comment very briefly on 

the CBO report we received today in 

the Budget Committee hearing on the 

fiscal outlook. It is truly jaw-dropping. 

There is a $1.2 trillion deficit for this 

year, before any economic recovery 

package is passed. Add to the debt even 

higher: $1.6 trillion will be added to the 

debt of the country, and, again, that is 

before any cost of an economic recovery plan. 

If one factors in an economic recovery plan, we could be looking at an increase in the debt of $2 trillion this 

year alone. To put that in context, we 

have a gross debt of the United States 

of $10.6 trillion roughly today. 

So I think it is imperative that while 

we put together an economic recovery 

plan, which we must, we also are cognizant of the very serious long-term 

fiscal condition we face as a nation. 

There is a front-page story in the 

New York Times today indicating that 

the Chinese, the biggest financers of 

our debt, have a reduced appetite for 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
January 8, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S197 

American dollar-denominated debt because they have their own economic 

issues, their own need for the use of 

capital at home. This could have enormous consequences for us going forward in terms of interest rates and 

what it will take to attract foreign 

capital to float this economic boat. 

One final point. Last year, of the new 

debt financing for this country, 68 percent of it came from abroad. Madam 

President, 68 percent of our new debt 

financing came from abroad. The fact 

that the Chinese, who have been the 

most significant contributors to financing that debt, are expressing a reluctance to take on more of our debt, 

do more of our debt financing, should 

send a warning signal to all of us as we 

fashion long-term fiscal and economic 

policy. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island. 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I wish to ask, through the Chair, 

a question of the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee with respect to the $10 trillion debt the country is now carrying. 

At the time the current administration that is leaving office came into office 8 years ago, my understanding is 

the situation in America was rather 

different. It is my understanding that 

at that time we were actually looking 

at surpluses in our country, and the $10 

trillion deficit is largely the responsibility of the policies that have been 

followed over the past 8 years. 

Mr. CONRAD. The Senator is exactly 

right. The debt of the country at the 

beginning of the last administration 

was about $5 trillion. They have approximately doubled the debt of the 

country on their watch, dramatically 

more than doubled foreign holdings of 

U.S. debt. So the current administration, the outgoing administration, has 

left the incoming administration in a 

very deep hole, not to mention the economic difficulties and the extreme 

need for an economic recovery plan to 

give lift to this economy. 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. So through the 

good times, we could have been laying 

money aside so that when this situation came, we would be in a strong economic condition. Instead, by squandering all those years, we have put the 

incoming administration in a very 

challenging position. 

Mr. CONRAD. Yes, not only the incoming administration, the whole 

country because our ability to cope 

with an economic downturn, the flexibility is substantially limited by what 

has already been done to dramatically 

increase the debt, as the Senator described, in good economic times. Unfortunately, that is the reality we now 

confront. 

Today’s news by the Congressional 

Budget Office of not only the $1.2 trillion deficit this year but massive deficits as far as the eye can see should 

sober us all. 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank the very 

distinguished chairman of the Budget 

Committee for being willing to engage 

in this colloquy with me. 

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator 

from Rhode Island and look forward to 

working with him on the Budget Committee as we attempt to come up with 

a plan to deal with these multiple challenges. 

f 

RECESS 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, the Senate will 

stand in recess until 4:45 p.m. 

Thereupon, the Senate, at 3:34 p.m., 

recessed until 4:45 p.m. and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Ms. KLOBUCHAR). 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized. 

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, 

under the rules, have we been in a 

quorum call or in recess? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have 

been in a recess. 

f 

GLOBAL WARMING 

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first 

of all, I appreciate your coming from 

your meeting to preside. As we begin 

the new Congress and a new administration, we begin a new chapter on energy and environmental policy, and it 

is a time that environmental activists, 

the United Nations, and many of my 

Democratic colleagues have been salivating for for years. The stars are all 

aligned. Democrats control both sides 

of Pennsylvania Avenue, and the Supreme Court has spoken now that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the 

Clear Air Act, even though it was a 5- 

to-4 decision. It is kind of interesting 

how something can be a pollutant with 

a 5-to-4 decision. 

It is believed the stage has been set 

for a home run on mandatory Kyotolike climate controls and the dawn of a 

new bustling green energy economy. 

However, before many of my colleagues 

rush to leap before they look, I wish to 

remind them of some very unfortunate 

developments that may complicate 

their early action on items on their 

wish lists. I ask my colleagues to at 

least consider some of the facts I will 

be revealing over the next series of 

speeches and to keep an open mind before rushing to sweeping action after 

waiting for so many years. 

The scale and pace of the climate 

proposals and the regulatory actions 

we have debated in the past, including 

the recently failed Lieberman-Warner 

bill and the ones we will likely be debating this Congress, leave little room 

for error in this fragile, recession-ridden economy, and the inflated promises 

of a sweeping green jobs revolution 

need an honest and frank reality. The 

proponents of mandatory global warming controls need to be honest with the 

American people. The purpose of these 

programs is to ration fossil-based energy by making it more expensive and 

therefore less appealing for public consumption. It is a regressive tax that 

imposes a greater burden relative to resources on the poor than it does on the 

rich. Let me say that again. The purpose of these programs is to ration the 

fossil fuel-based energy by making it 

more expensive to all Americans and 

therefore less appealing for public consumption. But it is a regressive tax, 

and we have talked about this before. 

It is one that punishes those whose resources have to be used for such purposes as being able to operate their vehicles and heat their homes. 

Advocates may argue that the redistribution of wealth toward the income 

consumers will offset the balance of 

revenue or taxes being taken in, but we 

learned firsthand during the 

Lieberman-Warner debate that this 

simply is not true. I don’t like the argument that we have equal distribution of wealth efforts that are going to 

take a regressive nature out of the punitive values of this type of program. 

To me, there is something un-American about that. But while the bill’s 

sponsors try to convince us there is actually tax relief in the bill, we learn 

that families—now I am talking about 

the Lieberman-Warner bill, and this 

was only about 8 months ago, the 

Lieberman-Warner bill—we learn that 

families with workers will still have to 

pay $6.7 trillion into the system in the 

form of higher energy costs to get back 

an estimated $802 billion in tax relief. 

That is a return of $1 out of every $8.40 

paid. It is time that proponents of climate policies be honest. It is expensive, and it is going to cost taxpayers a 

lot of money. 

You know, it doesn’t really matter 

which form we use. We have gone 

through, first of all, the Kyoto Treaty. 

We came this close to passing the 

Kyoto Treaty, and it wasn’t until the 

Wharton School of Economics came 

along with the econometrics survey 

and they determined it would cost 

some $300 billion a year to join onto 

and actually try to achieve the emission requirements of Kyoto. Then 

along came the McCain-Lieberman bill 

and then after that the WarnerLieberman bill. And cap and trade is 

going to be about the same amount. 

They may massage it a little bit, but 

we are still talking in the neighborhood of $300 billion a year. That 

equates to over $2,000 for each taxpaying family in America. So it is 

huge. 

In the coming weeks, I will go into 

more detail about other false promises 

proponents of mandatory global warming policies are advocating. Among 

them are a reality check on green 

projects—the number of new green jobs 

from a climate regime are overstated 

compared to the number of manufacturing jobs lost, and we know from the 

National Association of Manufacturers 

how many jobs would have been lost 

with any of these schemes in the past; 

a review of the weaknesses of offset 

policies—companies have bought offsets which are not real; and a review of 

the attempts to estimate the cost of inaction. Many advocates are claiming it 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE