Protecting the American Taxpayer and Medicare Act

Madam President, I want to talk about the American Taxpayer and Medicare Act, of which I am a sponsor. Cosponsoring this legislation with me are Senator Graham, Senator Hagerty, Senator Tim Scott, Senator Rick Scott, Senator Blackburn, Senator Hawley, Senator Cotton, Senator Boozman, and others who are likely to join.

I am going to make a few remarks about the bill, and a number of my colleagues would also like to comment about my bill, so I will be yielding to them. At the end of my colleagues' remarks, I will have a motion to make.

As a result of the American Rescue Plan, working in conjunction with the Budget Control Act of 2011, there are cuts scheduled to take effect in 2022 with respect to Medicare and with respect to our farmers.

Medicare specifically, unless my bill passes and unless this body takes action, will be cut $36 billion. Those Medicare cuts will include--but they are not limited to--they will include cuts to cancer treatments for our elderly. Those cuts would reduce laboratory fees and analyses that our seniors depend on every single day.

For the reasons I just referenced, our farmers are also going to get cut unless we take action--specifically, the crop insurance programs on which our farmers rely.

We are recovering from a pandemic, as we all know. Now is not the time, in my judgment, to put this burden on our seniors and on our farmers. Our seniors, part of the ``greatest generation,'' don't deserve them, and our farmers, the backbone of America, don't deserve these cuts either. In fact, America was born on the farm, and I think we ought to keep that in mind.

At this time, I would yield to the senior Senator from Arkansas, Senator Boozman.

Madam President, Americans may be poor since President Biden took office, but they are not stupid.

They look around Washington, DC, and they see liars and they see frauds in every direction. Now, I don't think a single member of this body supports cutting Medicare or hurting our farmers, especially not at this moment. I don't. I don't.

And I don't think any of my Republican colleagues or any of my Democratic colleagues do as well. But a deal has been made. A deal has been made to give us--some of us see it this way anyway--a choice between voting for a heart attack or cancer.

You either have to give up your principles on the debt limit or you have to vote to cut Medicare and hurt our farmers, and no one wants to do that. I understand that people disagree over the debt limit, but there is no disagreement in this body over not cutting Medicare and not hurting our farmers.

Now, I am labor. I am not part of management. I don't want to be part of management. I wouldn't be good at management because I don't always fit in. It is not one of my best qualities. In fact, it is my best quality, and that is why I brought this bill.

As Senator Hawley said, much more eloquently than I could, the disagreement that reasonable people are having over the debt limit has been conflated in a cynical attempt to fool the American people by putting them both in a bill that we are going to shortly be asked to vote on. And we are going to be asked to give the American people either a heart attack or cancer. You have to choose. And I don't want to make that choice, and I am not going to make that choice. And that is why I brought this bill.

I do not agree with my Democratic friends about the debt limit. I don't support Build Back Better. I understand many of my Democratic friends do. I understand President Biden does. I understand Senator Schumer does. I understand Speaker Pelosi does. And I respect that, but I don't support it.

Now, they are going to try to pass Build Back Better, and they are going to try to implement it. But they can't do it without raising the debt ceiling. Now, if I don't support the Build Back Better bill, why would I want to allow them to borrow the money to implement the Build Back Better bill? I don't, and I am not going to break my word and vote to do that.

If my colleagues want to do that, that is their business. I don't tell people how to vote. If I am ever asked how to vote, I rarely--I almost always say, follow your heart, but just take your brain with you. And that is why I brought this bill. And I want to make it very clear, and you can write this down and take it home to mama, I do not support cutting Medicare, and I do not support cutting farmers.

I do support keeping my word to the American people. When I tell them I am going to do something, by God, I am going to stick. And I am not going to be scared away by some cynical deal that was made in Washington, DC.

Now, Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3344--the bill about which I have been speaking, and my colleagues, Protecting the American Taxpayer and Medicare Act--at this time, it is at the desk. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I really appreciate my colleague's remarks, I do. I don't agree with his objection, but I appreciate it.

I just want to say a couple more words. I didn't make a deal. Now, let me say it again. Let me say it a different way.

I don't hate anybody. Lord knows I look for grace wherever I can find it. I like every one of my colleagues; I really do. The Senate is the most interesting group of people I have ever been around.

I am not part of management. I am labor, and I meant what I said. I belong in labor because I don't always fit in, and I do believe it is one of my best qualities.

The truth of the matter is--and this is what we are disagreeing over--President Biden, Senator Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, my other Democratic friends have proposed the Build Back Better bill.

Now, any economist with a pulse will tell you that it is going to cost about $5 trillion without the gimmicks. It is going to raise taxes a couple of trillion. We will probably end up having to borrow another 3 trillion to pay for it. We will have to borrow the money. We don't have the 3 trillion. We don't even have 5 percent of it.

Now, I think that the bill represents a spending taxation and borrowing orgy that we don't need, but I understand my Democratic colleagues disagree. I get that.

My Democratic friends can't pass and implement the bill without raising the debt limit. That is just a fact, because they won't be able to borrow the money.

Now, if I don't support the bill, why do I want to support allowing them to borrow the money, especially when Senator Schumer--my friend Senator Schumer--can do it on his own?

He can do it before the weekend is out. All he has got to do is do a simple amendment to the budget resolution.

What am I missing here?

And I know a deal has been made and some people are going to vote for it. You are not looking at one of them. And I respect their right to make a deal, but I didn't make a deal. But I have been put in the position of saying: OK, Kennedy, we are going to show you. You have got to choose between keeping your word to your people or cutting Medicare.

And we wonder why Congress polls right up there with skim milk. That is why they look around, they see frauds and liars in every direction.

I really regret that my bill didn't pass because it would have protected our elderly, and I do support protecting our elderly. And it would have protected our farmers, and I do support protecting our farmers. And this so-called deal puts them both at risk.

Reserving the right to object, Madam President.

Madam President and colleagues, I yield to no Senator in my support of this country's senior citizens. My background, colleagues, I was codirector of the Oregon Gray Panthers, the senior citizens group, for almost 7 years before I went into public life.

And I know that there is no Senator here who doesn't support senior citizens, farmers, the extraordinarily important Americans that my colleagues have been talking about.

But what really has not been explained here--because we all kind of talk this special lingo around here--is what my colleagues really seek to do in the Kennedy amendment.

What my colleague from Louisiana wishes to do is rip up an agreement reached between Democrats and Republicans. Specifically, colleagues, Senators Schumer and McConnell. So what they did is reach a bipartisan agreement to defuse an economic timebomb by creating a process to avoid default.

Senator Kennedy's proposal sticks a flame right back under that fuse. Now,

the two parties obviously have different approaches when it comes to gamesmanship around this country's financial commitments. Setting all of that aside, the fact is our country is now way too close to default for the Senate to be playing games.

This debate is almost entirely about financial commitments made under past Presidents. It doesn't have anything to do with legislation that is still in the works. That is a fact. The reality is my colleague from Louisiana seeks to bring the country closer to default. The Senate ought to be clear on the consequences if that were to come to pass.

Default would be an economic disaster for our country as well as for individual families and businesses. And, again, colleagues, since senior citizens came up so frequently, this has been my particular passion. It is why I went into public service. Social Security stops going out. Military could stop getting paid. Interest rates go into the stratosphere, making existing Federal debt even more expensive, if you go forward with this proposal.

Costs go up for families who want to buy homes or buy cars. Getting a small business loan becomes more expensive. Jobs across the country are wiped out amid this turmoil. And all of that would happen right in the middle of the holidays, when Americans are simply trying to enjoy their time with families, go out and shop for presents, and enjoy their time together.

My view is, after almost 2 years of pandemic and economic chaos, people have had it hard enough. And two leaders--a Democrat and a Republican--have come together because they understand the Senate doesn't need to add another catastrophe to their financial challenges, the challenges I just described--one, by the way, that would be entirely self-made.

There is an agreement before the Senate, colleagues; an agreement between the Republican leader and the Democratic leader. That agreement brought the two sides together. My colleagues must not throw that agreement away. And I respect all my colleagues--all of them--but I just believe that this proposal from the Senator from Louisiana is misguided. It brings our country closer to default.

Therefore, I object.

I would like to thank my colleague from Missouri. As my colleagues have pointed out, we rise to support Senator Kennedy's UC-- unanimous consent request--his legislation, because we have consistently supported funding for Medicare and funding for our farmers and our ranchers who work hard to provide food, fuel, and fiber for our Nation.

That is why I support both the UC request and the amendment that Senator Graham is sponsoring. I am cosponsoring that amendment as well. That would ensure that we fund these priorities.

I do not support linking these funds with an increase in the debt ceiling, as the bill from the House would do, without our amendment.

We should not be tying the debt ceiling to important legislation that ensures healthcare providers can continue to care for our seniors and protect our farmers who produce the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world.

So I strongly support and have cosponsored the Graham amendment which would strike the fast-track debt ceiling process from this bill. As we are saying very clearly, we support the funding for Medicare. We support the funding for our farmers and ranchers.

Now, Democrats, who control the White House, the Senate, and the House, are trying to use reconciliation to pass a trillion-plus tax- and-spending bill on a purely partisan basis. Given that, they obviously can use reconciliation to pass a debt ceiling increase on their own. They do not need this House legislation to do it.

And with that, I will yield to my colleague from Kansas.

Mr. MARSHALL: I thank the Senator for yielding. I am honored to be here this evening to support my colleague from Louisiana. I want to take this Nation back to a year ago, a year ago this spring in April 2020. COVID was on the rise--our first variant, our first wave ripping through this country. Our ERs were overflowing; the ICU beds were full; and doctors and nurses across this Nation ran to the sound of the battle.

We didn't have vaccines. There weren't therapeutics, but we took an oath to take care of our fellow man. I joined those doctors. I went to an ICU in Southwest Kansas where we had 8 beds, 12 patients, and 9 ventilators.

So how are we going to reward those doctors today? We are going to cut their pay. We are going to cut most doctors' pay 2 to 11 percent. Even before COVID, there was a doctor shortage. There was doctor burnout. Because of this pay cut, even more doctors will quit. More doctors are going to stop taking Medicare.

Yesterday, the leadership on the other side of the aisle just wanted to kick doctors, but today I found out they are kicking farmers in the shins as well. Holding doctors and farmers hostage is no way to run a government. I, too, am tired of seeing doctors and farmers used as pawns for political gain.

I support Senator Kennedy's bill, and I am honored to turn it back to him.

Madam President, I rise to make a very simple point, which is that Medicare is too important to be held hostage to political games, and that is what is going on here now. We need to have a clean bill to fully fund and protect Medicare for the millions of Americans who rely on it, including over 1 million just in the State of Missouri.

And that is why I am supporting Senator Kennedy's bill to fully protect and

secure Medicare, and I will support every amendment and bill and clean amendment and bill to fully protect and secure Medicare, including, I think, Senator Graham's that he's going to be offering shortly, which I am also privileged to cosponsor.

And I would just say this: I call on the Members of both parties-- both parties--to stop using Medicare as a pawn in a political game. Let's fund Medicare. Let's do it on its own. Let's not hold it hostage to other agendas. Let's not hold it hostage to other programs. Let's not hold it hostage to others' individual ambitions, whatever they may be.

But let's take the opportunity now with this bill to fully protect Medicare for our seniors all across this country. That should be something that we can all get behind, and for those reasons I am proud to support Senator Kennedy's legislation.

And now I yield to Senator Hoeven.

Madam President, I want to thank Senator Kennedy for his help and his leadership in this effort. We simply have to support America's healthcare providers, farmers, and ranchers. Doctors and the entire medical community are still struggling after being unable to perform nonemergency procedures during the pandemic.

With an aging population and more physicians not accepting Medicare because of insufficient payment, Medicare beneficiaries would face a reality of less access to quality care. That is why I introduced my own legislation to prevent these damaging cuts from harming our physicians, our providers. Our agriculture community is also struggling, and we must protect our farmers and ranchers by ensuring their operations can stay afloat and keep producing the most abundant and safest food supply in the world.

For all of these reasons, I support Senator Kennedy's bill.

I understand that my fellow Senator from Missouri also has some concerns, and so I yield to him.