Floor Statements

Madam President, reserving the right to object, would the Senator agree to include an amendment that would offset the cost of the bill with unspent Federal funds, the text of which I have at the desk?

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I note on the front page of USA Today ``Jobless Data could Break '80s Record.''

Not since the early 1980s has the nation's unemployment

rate been so grim for so long, a government report due Friday

is likely to show.

It goes on to say:

The chronic level of high unemployment shows that many

Americans are still suffering, even though [the government],

the National Bureau of Economic Research, has said the

recession officially ended in June 2009.

The people in this country know what is happening in their own communities and their own States and do not need to be told different things by the government when they know the reality in which they are living.

I heard from my distinguished colleague some concerns we all share about the economy and what best way to stimulate economic growth. I believe, with Members on my side of the aisle, that one of the things you do is you don't raise taxes on anyone in this country during these economic times. We are unanimous on this side of the aisle in that position.

But listening to my colleague, there are now actually a growing chorus of Members from his side of the aisle who are agreeing with me, including the two newest Members of the Senate from the other side of the aisle who have come here, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia and the one from Delaware. The one from West Virginia, while running for the Senate, said, ``I wouldn't raise any taxes,'' referring to the tax cuts that are scheduled to expire come the end of this year. The Senator-elect and newly sworn in Senator from Delaware, in terms of tax cuts, said, ``I would extend them for everyone.''

So there is a growing chorus on the ways to give this economy and the job-creating segment of this economy some certainty so they can then make the investments, make the decisions, hire the people to try to do that.

We are unanimous in our support for not raising taxes on anyone during economic times like this and, with that growing chorus, then, as a result, I object.

Madam President, in response to my colleague from Rhode Island, despite over a $13 trillion existing debt that we cannot pay back, the Democrats are back with another proposal to add another $13 billion to the deficit, add it to the growing deficit. This one is not even a new proposal, it is a proposal that was already rejected by 50 Senators, including 11 Members from across the aisle a number of months ago.

If we are going to attempt to help those seniors, as has been mentioned by my colleague, we need to do it in a fiscally responsible way.

I absolutely support helping the seniors who are having a hard time. I just propose we pay for it. That is why I offered the amendment to the proposal from the Senator from Rhode Island that would, in fact, just pay for it. It is as simple as that. I propose that instead of piling money, debt on top of our massive debt, what I have offered is an amendment that would authorize the Office of Management and Budget to cut an appropriate amount from other programs to help them find money to pay for this one.

Yes, Madam President.

Madam President, the way that I propose to pay for this to help those seniors, to help those who have those needs, is a proposal that is very familiar to this body. It is because 21 of my Democratic colleagues voted in favor of this way to pay for something earlier this week when the same pay-for was attached to an amendment from my colleague, Senator Johanns from Nebraska, that would have repealed an unfortunate paperwork mandate in the health care law.

I would be happy to list all of the Senators who voted for this. I am sorry my friend across the aisle is not joining me in supporting this fiscally responsible support for our seniors. But, as I say, on the issue of stimulating the economy and giving some certainty in this Nation to those job creators, the Republicans are united: 42 of us say you should not raise taxes on anyone during economic times like these, and the chorus of Democrats who support that continues to grow. It grew this past week from five members of the Democratic conference to seven with the swearing in of Senator Coons of Delaware and Senator Manchin of West Virginia.

Senator Kent Conrad from North Dakota has said:

The general rule of thumb is that you do not raise taxes or

cut spending during an economic downturn. That would be

counterproductive.

So he says do not raise taxes during an economic downturn.

Senator Evan Bayh said:

The economy is very weak right now. Raising taxes will

lower consumer demand at a time when we want people putting

more money into the economy.

Senator Jim Webb, Democrat from Virginia, said: ``I don't think they ought to be drawing a distinction . . . '' at a certain dollar number.

Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska said:

I support extending all of the expiring tax cuts until

Nebraska's and the nation's economy is in better shape, and

perhaps longer, because raising taxes in a weak economy could

impair recovery.

Senator Joe Lieberman, Connecticut, said:

I don't think it makes sense to raise any Federal taxes

during the uncertain economy we are struggling through.

Then, of course, Senator Coons: ``I would extend them to tax cuts for everyone.''

And Senator Manchin, then-Governor of West Virginia, said, ``I wouldn't raise any taxes.''

At a time with 9.6 percent unemployment, at a time when our Nation continues to struggle economically, at a time people are looking for work, wanting to work, looking for jobs, the job-creating sector of this country needs some certainty. With the mandates of the health care law, which are expensive, environmental mandates coming from the Environmental Protection Agency with their rules and regulations impacting on the cost of energy, and then the uncertainty, the significant uncertainty that exists in this country as to what tax rates will be and how that is going to impact all taxpayers with their take-home pay come January 1, it is no surprise that people are concerned and reluctant to make long-term commitments and investments in businesses and in the future.

That is why I stand here to object to my colleague from Rhode Island when he makes a proposal, which there is support for, but it is unpaid for. We need to pay for it. I bring to the Senate floor a responsible way in which to pay for it, and which he has rejected.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there are a couple ways we can help people who are currently looking for work. One is by extending unemployment benefits for those who have been out of work now 99 weeks. This is what the extension is about: for those who have already----

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as I have just heard from my colleague, would the Senator agree to include an amendment that has been proposed by Senator Brown that would offset the cost of the bill with unspent Federal funds, the text of which is at the desk? Would the Senator include that amendment that has been proposed?

Thank you, Mr. President. So I do object to the motion by the distinguished Senator from California.

As I was saying, there are two ways to help those who are looking for work and one of which is to improve the economy. We can do that by giving some certainty--certainty--to people who provide jobs, who build businesses, who create opportunities, the job-creating sector of this country. We can do that by giving them certainty regarding what their tax rates will be come January 1. Right now there is an incredible amount of uncertainty.

The second way is to deal with the unemployment benefits for those who have been out of work now 99 weeks because that is what this is about. These are people who have been collecting unemployment benefits for 99 weeks. I will tell you, there are people across the Nation having a tough time due to this poor economy. I wish to see the economy improve.

The national unemployment rate in October was 9.6 percent. Today's front page of USA Today says: ``Jobless data could break '80s record''--a record from the 1980s. ``November was likely 19th month above 9 percent.''

Yes, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from California. Senator Brown, who occupies the desk next to mine, was on the floor talking about this just 2 nights ago and does want to work to extend unemployment benefits and to do it in a way that is paid for. That is why I came to offer the amendment to the Senator from California to say: Well, let's do it but do it by paying for it using unspent Federal funds, the text of which is at the desk.

We need to pay to extend this. But what we need to do is stimulate the economy because of what we see on the front page of USA Today about ``Jobless data could break '80s record'' and ``November was likely 19th month above 9 percent.'' We need to give certainty to business.

My colleague from California made comments about a letter signed by 42 Republican Senators. In fact, I did sign that. All the Republican Members of the Senate signed it. In the first paragraph it says:

President Obama in his first speech after the November

election said ``we owe'' it to the American people to ``focus

on those issues that affect their jobs.'' He went on to say

that Americans ``want jobs to come back faster.''

That is why 42 of us signed the letter. Let's focus on that. Let us get that done. Let us provide that certainty. If after that is done the majority party wants to go and address the issues of don't ask, don't tell, wants to talk about the DREAM Act, talking about incentives for illegal immigrants with college education, if they want to talk about issues of firefighters joining unions, fine. But let's get to the fundamentals of what the American people want to have dealt with. That is why I was happy to offer an amendment to my colleague from California to say pay for it, and then we can move on. Because businesses need that sort of certainty.

I heard her many comments about taxes, and I believe you should not raise taxes on anyone in the middle of economic times such as these. My colleagues on this side of the aisle all agree and there is actually bipartisan agreement that you should not raise taxes on anyone in the middle of economic times such as these.

The newest Members of the Senate--and since the election there are now three new Members who have been sworn in; two on that side of the aisle, one on my side of the aisle--are unanimous in saying one should not raise taxes on anyone during these economic times.

Senator Manchin from West Virginia said: ``I wouldn't raise any taxes.''

Senator Coons from Delaware said: ``I would extend them [the tax cuts] for everyone.''

So when I look at this and also see statements by Joe Lieberman from Connecticut, Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska, Senator Jim Webb from Virginia, Senator Evan Bayh from Indiana, Senator Conrad from North Dakota, it is a growing chorus of Democrats saying: One should not raise taxes on anyone during these economic times.

We need to give certainty to the job-creating segment of this Nation. We need to do it in a timely manner. With it only being 4 weeks until the end of the year and people wanting to know what is going to happen with their taxes, I think the best thing this body could do is to provide that certainty.

So with that, I notice a number of colleagues who are waiting to speak and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will object, I understand Senator Brown of Massachusetts objected to this request yesterday and offered a fully offset alternative. Therefore, on his behalf, I do object and ask unanimous consent that his proposal be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, welcome to the Senate. It is a pleasure to have the Senator from West Virginia joining this body. I will tell the Senator that ever since the health care law has been passed, I come to the floor every week as a physician, as someone who has practiced medicine for a quarter of a century, taking care of families across the State of Wyoming, to give a doctor's second opinion about the health care law. I bring that each week, bringing a different story of someone who has not been helped by the health care law, someone who has been hurt by it, an identifiable victim of the health care law.

I heard it at home over Thanksgiving from doctors, nurses, as well as patients. I believe this law is going to be bad for patients, for providers, the nurses and doctors who take care of them, as well as for taxpayers. It has been no surprise to me that Americans want and expect repeal of this health care law.

The most recent Rasmussen poll showed that Americans support repeal of ObamaCare by a margin of 21 percent; 58 percent are for repeal and 37 percent are not. Independent voters support repeal by 24 percentage points, 59 to 35 percent.

So I continue to come to the floor to bring out to our colleagues the concerns I have about the health care law and the concerns I hear at home from patients and from providers and from taxpayers.

I wish to mention that recently the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, sent a letter to members of the medical school class of 2014. These would be the incoming medical students, first year medical students in your State and mine. In the letter that goes to about 15,000 or 16,000 first-year medical students, she talks about this health care law and about how she believes it will be good for them as medical students and good for their patients.

One of the things she talks about in the letter, interestingly enough, is she said that many of you and your siblings are undoubtedly under the age of 26, as many first-year medical students are. She then raises the issue that says you will now be able to stay on your family's insurance policies until you are 26.

As you know, this was one of the selling points behind this health care law, that young people would be able to stay on their insurance policies until the age of 26. The Secretary points that out to all incoming medical students. I think it came as quite a surprise--it did to me, and I think it should have to these medical students and others--to read a story on November 20 in the Wall Street Journal that talks about--the headline is: ``Union Drops Health Coverage for Workers' Children.''

The idea was that children were supposed to be covered under this health care law. I will start by reading this:

One of the largest union-administered health insurance

funds in New York is dropping coverage for the children of

more than 30,000 low-wage home attendants, union officials

say.

This is the Service Employees International Union. They are dropping coverage for about 6,000 children. The President has said no children will be dropped. The Secretary said no children will be dropped. Yet a union, which has encouraged, through its lobbying efforts, support of the health care law is now dropping 6,000 children. Why are they doing it? It says the health care reform legislation requires plans with dependent coverage to expand the coverage up to age 26. What they say is:

Our limited resources are already stretched as far as

possible, and meeting this new requirement would be

financially impossible.

During the entire debate on the health care law, people said that many of these rules and regulations and requirements are going to be financially demanding. Yet this body, before the occupant of the chair arrived, crammed

this law down the throats of the American people--the American people who don't want it or like it and have asked that it be repealed and replaced. Now even one of the unions that lobbied for it is saying: We are actually going to drop 6,000 children who had previously been covered because of the legislation, and they say it would be financially impossible to comply with.

So, Mr. President, I looked at the Secretary's letter, I looked at this response, and Tom Coburn, another physician in the Senate, and I had a lot of concerns about the letter the Secretary sent to the medical students of this country. So we also sent a letter, an open letter, to America's medical students in the first year of their medical school.

What we wanted to do was to first congratulate these young men and women on dedicating their time, their talent, and their skill in the service to others. We talked about the importance as physicians and as medical students of truly listening to their patients because one of the basic tenets of medicine is nothing should come between a doctor and his or her patients. It is important for them to be able to have the time to listen, to focus, and to spend time and not allow anyone or anything to come between the doctor and the patient. Yet here in the Senate we passed a health care law that puts Washington and faceless bureaucrats between the doctor and the patient. We talked about the significant change in the doctor-patient relationship in this letter Senator Coburn and I sent to medical students and our concerns that Washington is now going to have more power to determine the care these medical students and future doctors are going to be able to deliver to their patients. We talked about the 150 new government regulating bodies coming out as a result of this 2,700-page bill and that they are going to intrude upon the doctor-patient relationship. We talked about our concerns about what is called cookbook medicine--follow these rules--because of the new authorities that have been provided by these 150 new bodies that have been created by the law and that decisions will be made based on cost rather than on what may be best for the individual patients.

The President continues to talk about providing coverage for more people. Well, there is a lot of difference between coverage and care, and that is why, when a leader in Saudi Arabia had a recent health problem within the last 2 weeks, he chose to come to the United States--because it is the best care in the world. The World Health Organization may have someone else listed at No. 1, but the ruler from Saudi Arabia decided to come to the United States. He didn't go to Cuba or England or Canada; he came here for our care. We want the young men and women who are in medicine, who are going into medicine and training in medicine to be able to provide that kind of care. And we want the American people to be able to continue to receive that kind of care. Unfortunately, in this body, political passion overtook good policy, and a law was passed that I think is not going to be good for patients or for providers or for those people paying the bill.

So that is what I hear every weekend at home in Wyoming. It may be what you hear as well. I know you have heard that in your home State. Yet the President of the United States sat for a wide-ranging interview with Barbara Walters on television the other evening, and when he described this health care law, he said he was extraordinarily proud of health care reform. What I consider a health spending bill he calls a lasting legacy which he said, ``I am extraordinarily proud of.''

That is one reason I was surprised to see the headline in the Washington Post, which actually, I believe, was the same day as the President's interview with Barbara Walters. In the Washington Post edition of Friday, November 26, the front-page headline reads ``Doctors Say Medicare Cuts Forcing Them to Shift Away From Elderly.'' Medicare cuts are forcing them to shift away from the elderly. This is what we talked about during the debate on the floor of the Senate when that health care law was being debated, that they have taken $500 billion away from Medicare--not to save Medicare, not to help our seniors, not to extend the life of Medicare, no, but to start a whole new government program.

That is why every week I come to the floor to offer a doctor's second opinion and share with all those in this Chamber and the American people why I believe, as a doctor who has practiced medicine for a long time, that this is a health care law that we need to repeal and replace--replace it with something that is good for patients, good for providers, and good for the taxpayers of this country.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this request just came to us moments ago. This is the first time we have seen this request, and I cannot speak to the merits of this bill or the problems that may exist.

What I do know is that 42 Senators from this side of the aisle have signed a letter to say that what we ought to do and what we need to do is to find a way to fund the government and prevent a tax hike on every American come January 1.

Mr. President, some of these requests may have bipartisan support, but we don't know anything about the specific legislation as we have just received this request. I think almost every bill in this package of requests that we are going to be considering now is still in committee, so we don't even know if the ranking member of that committee has concerns or potential changes.

This is not the way to handle this. This is December; it is a lameduck session. Let's stop the theater and get to the business we all know we need to address.

I object.

I object.

Mr. President, my statement was, what I do know is that 42 Republicans have signed a letter to say what we ought to do and what we need to do is to find a way to fund the government and prevent a tax hike on every American come January 1.

I would be happy to read the entire letter that was sent to Senator Reid if there is some question as to what was exactly in that letter.

Mr. President, I am not going to answer a hypothetical. What I will tell you is, we did send a letter to Leader Reid. I will be happy to go through the entire letter at this point:

Dear Leader Reid: The nation's unemployment level, stuck

near 10 percent, is unacceptable to Americans. Senate

Republicans have been urging Congress to make private-sector

job creation a priority all year. President Obama in his

first speech after the November election said ``we owe'' it

to the American people to ``focus on those issues that affect

their jobs.'' He went on to say that Americans ``want jobs to

come back faster.'' Our constituents have repeatedly asked us

to focus on creating an environment for private-sector job

growth; it is time that our constituents' priorities become

the Senate's priorities.

For that reason, we write to inform you that we will not

agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to any

legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the

government and we have prevented the tax increase that is

currently awaiting all American taxpayers. With little time

left in this Congressional session, legislative scheduling

should be focused on these critical priorities. While there

are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the

Senate's attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters

above the critical issues of funding the government and

preventing a job-killing tax hike.

Given our struggling economy, preventing the tax increase

and providing economic certainty should be our top priority.

Without Congressional action by December 31, all American

taxpayers will be hit by an increase in their individual

income-tax rates and investment income through the capital

gains and dividend rates. If Congress were to adopt the

President's tax proposal to prevent the tax increase for only

some Americans, small businesses would be targeted with a

job-killing tax increase at the worst possible time,

Specifically, more than 750,000 small businesses will see a

tax increase, which will affect 50 percent of small-business

income and nearly 25 percent of the entire workforce. The

death tax rate will also climb from zero percent to 55

percent, which makes it the top concern for America's small

businesses. Republicans and Democrats agree that small

businesses create most new jobs, so we ought to be able to

agree that raising taxes on small businesses is the wrong

remedy in this economy. Finally, Congress still needs to act

on the ``tax extenders'' and the alternative minimum tax

``patch,'' all of which expired on December 31, 2009.

We look forward to continuing to work with you in a

constructive manner to keep the government operating and

provide the nation's small businesses with economic certainty

that the job-killing tax hike will be prevented.

With that, I tell you that all 42 members of the Republican Party, this side of the aisle, have signed their names.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this request, again, has come to us just moments ago. This is the first time we have had a chance to look at this. I will not speak to the merits of the bill and the problems that may exist, but this is not the way to handle this. As you know, we are now in December, in the lameduck session. There are things that could have been brought up any time in the last 1\1/2\ years to 2 years, and we have focused specifically on making sure taxes are not increased for Americans between now and January 1. All Americans are concerned about those taxes going up.

As a result, I think it is time to stop the theater we have and get to the business we all know we need to address and I object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4915, something we have been discussing the last week, and that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the substitute amendment at the desk, a fully offset repeal of section 9006 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Small Business 1099 paperwork mandate, be agreed to, that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments by my colleague from Michigan because this was brought to the floor previously but with a threshold of 67 votes, and there were two different approaches to trying to help the small businesses across the country that are all being held hostage by a very onerous paperwork requirement in filing. But the threshold of needing 67 votes was too high, even though people from both sides of the aisle voted for both the measures that were offered.

We want to help small businesses around the country and eliminate what the IRS says is going to be almost impossible to comply with, what small businesses say is going to be expensive to carry out, and what Senator Johanns, in an amendment, has a paid-for solution. I think this is something we should, as a Senate and as a body, be committed to adopting. The President of the United States says this needs to be solved.

What I heard now is an objection to something I think is a very reasonable request, and I am sorry that objection has been made.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Greyson Buckingham for his hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Greyson is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Jackson Hole High School. He currently attends Georgetown University, where he is majoring in history and government and minoring in Spanish and philosophy. Throughout his internship, he has demonstrated a strong work ethic which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months.

I want to thank Greyson for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Ian Lowe for his hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Ian is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Campbell County High School. He graduated from the University of Wyoming, where he majored in international studies and environment. Throughout his internship, he has demonstrated a strong work ethic which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months.

I want to thank Ian for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Robert Daley for his hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Robert is a native of Pennsylvania and graduated from Governor Mifflin Public High School. He graduated from American University, where he majored in political science. Throughout his internship, he has demonstrated a strong work ethic which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months.

I want to thank Robert for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Max Weiss for his hard work as an intern in my Rock Springs office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Max is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Rock Springs High School. He attended Leiden University where he received his master's of clinical psychology. Throughout his internship, he has demonstrated a strong work ethic which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months.

I want to thank Max for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.

Mr. President, a couple of weeks ago, Americans voted. They voted for more jobs, for less spending and, of course, for smaller government. As you know, I have come to the Senate floor week after week to give a doctor's second opinion about the health care law. Polling shows that 58 percent of Americans voting on election day still want to repeal and replace the President's new health care law.

Americans have made it clear they oppose this new policy that put Washington between patients and their doctors. The day after the election, President Obama was asked about his health care law's impact on the election. He didn't seem to understand the message from the American people. It appears to me that the President continues to believe the American people liked his policy but just didn't like his sales pitch.

Well, in the President's first year alone, he participated in 42 press conferences, gave 158 interviews--including 5 Sunday shows all in 1 day--held 23 townhall meetings and had 7 campaign rallies. In fact, there were only 21 days in that entire first year when the President had no public or press events. Clearly, the American people heard the President's sales pitch; they just didn't want to buy his product. Nevertheless, the President and this Congress proceeded to force this new health care law upon the American people, and they paid a heavy price in the 2010 elections when Americans voted for candidates who vowed to overturn the President's new law.

Republicans have listened to the American people and are committed to ensuring that America's health care system continues to remain the best in the world. As a physician, as well as a Member of the Senate, I listened carefully to the discussions and the debate during the entire campaign season. I listened to what candidates had to say on both sides of the aisle, I listened to what Americans had to say all over the country, and I put together something called United Against Obamacare. It is a compendium of comments and statements made by the 13 newly elected Republican Senators to this body who will take office within the next 2 months. Let me read sentences taken from statements each of them made about health care.

I view the health care bill as the single greatest assault

to our freedom in my lifetime.

The thing that worries me the most about this bill, 2,000

pages of all kinds of mandates, huge new government control

of health care, is that in time--and it won't be much time--

the government is going to intervene between patients and

their doctor.

That first sentence was by Senator-elect Johnson and the next sentence was from Senator-elect Toomey.

I don't want the government to tell me what is acceptable

and unacceptable about my health care options. I want my

doctor to tell me what's best for my care.

That statement was made by Senator-elect Boozman.

It is not supported by the American people. They do not

want one size fits all health care.

A statement made by Senator-elect Coats.

Government control of health care will reduce competition,

limit personal choices, and increase overall costs.

A statement made by Senator-elect Hoeven.

I think premiums will rise, and as people begin to deal

with the penalties of Obamacare, we will have more loss of

jobs.

That was Senator-elect Rand Paul. Next:

We're becoming less competitive every time government

increases the cost of being in business--and if it's a

problem for a large business, my small business men and women

will have even greater struggles to overcome.

That was Senator-elect Moran. Next:

I do not think that 12 new taxes and cuts to Medicare are

in the interest of the people.

That was Senator-elect Kirk.

It's going to bankrupt America, it adds $2.5 trillion to

our debt in the long term.

That is Senator-elect Rubio.

That's why it's important to keep the repeal effort alive.

What we owe is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue.

It is an American issue.

Senator-elect Ayotte.

Every possible means must be applied within Congress as

well as through the application of the Constitution and the

law to stop full implementation of this legislation.

Senator-elect Lee.

I have proposed over a dozen health care solutions to help

reduce the cost of health care.

Senator-elect Blunt. And in conclusion:

I can tell you at least one thing coming . . . When it

comes time to vote to repeal health care, I vote yes.

Senator-elect Portman.

That is United Against Obamacare and statements made by the men and women who were recently elected to the Senate on the Republican side of the aisle.

We will fight to repeal the law and replace it with legislation that will help patients and providers and taxpayers.

During his recent press conference, President Obama also said that if Republicans have ideas for how to improve our health care system, he would now be happy to consider them. Well, it would have been nice if he had considered our ideas during the last 2 years but better late than never. Since the President was sworn in, Republicans have proposed a host of proposals that will improve health care in America. Today, I wish to walk through some of the Republican ideas that are strongly supported by a majority of the American people.

First, if Congress wanted to truly demonstrate that it got the message--if it truly wanted to demonstrate that it got the message--the House and the Senate would immediately repeal the President's new health care law. Senator DeMint currently has a bill that would repeal the health care law in its entirety. By passing this law, we could ensure that the American people will get the reform they want.

It is unlikely that Democrats will vote for a straight up-or-down repeal bill, and even less likely that the President would sign it into law. So I wish to talk about other Republican proposals that would eliminate some of the most egregious portions of the President's new health care law.

Senator Hatch of Utah proposed the American Job Protection Act. It repeals the health care law's job-killing employer mandate. It strikes relevant sections in the health care law forcing employers to provide health insurance to their employees or face a penalty.

Senator Hatch has also introduced the American Liberty Restoration Act. It repeals the health care law's individual mandate--the mandate requiring all Americans to buy health insurance. The Federal Government has never before forced the American people to purchase a product, a good, or a service they may not want. We should overturn this unconstitutional mandate.

Senator Johanns introduced the Small Business Paperwork Elimination Act. It repeals section 9006 of the health care law. Section 9006 requires business owners to submit separate 1099 reporting forms for each business-to-business transaction totaling more than $600 over the course of a year. Small business owners now, with this law, have to file 1099 forms for basic business expenses, such as phone service, Internet service, shipping costs, and office supplies. This only serves to increase the cost to own and to operate a business. Why? Because, according to the law, they will then be able to provide $17 billion more in taxes to pay for this unwanted health care law.

Senator Cornyn introduced the Health Care Bureaucrats Elimination Act. It repeals the health care law's Independent Payment Advisory Board. This bill would remove the unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats from their position of making Medicare payment and reimbursement decisions.

Senator Enzi offered the grandfather regulation resolution of disapproval. This resolution overturns a new Obama administration health care law regulation. President Obama repeatedly promised: If you like what you have, you can keep it. This so-called grandfather regulation breaks that promise. The new regulation was supposed to spare businesses already providing health insurance to their workers many of the higher costs of new mandates imposed by the health care law. If businesses lose this so-called grandfathered status, then they will be required to comply with all the new insurance mandates in the law. This includes requirements to offer a Federal minimum benefit package and to waive copayments for certain services. This will force our small businesses to change plans and increase costs.

In fact, the regulation--and it is a regulation where they took two pages of the law and blew it into 121 pages of regulations--the regulation estimates that fully 80 percent of small businesses can expect to lose their grandfathered status based on the extensive regulations the administration wrote. This is a job-killing, wage- cutting regulation. Certainly, this is not the reform the American people were promised.

Also, just this week, Leader McConnell is filing an amicus brief regarding the health care litigation that is currently pending in Florida's Federal court. His brief argues that the individual mandate is not authorized by Congress and that the Government cannot use the commerce clause to force citizens to buy a product.

This list of ideas represents only a fraction of the Republican ideas currently on the table. If the President is serious about working with us, he will consider our constructive proposals. If not, he will continue to see the American people strongly speak out against his expensive, overreaching, and ideological agenda.

I yield the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. As my colleagues know, I have come to the floor week after week after this bill was signed into law with a doctor's second opinion based on my nearly quarter of a century practice in Wyoming, taking care of families there. I go home every weekend and talk to people.

The people of Wyoming remember when the President of the United States spoke to a joint session of Congress and he told the American people about the plan that was later signed into law. During that speech the President said:

. . . if you are among the hundreds of millions of

Americans who already have health insurance through your job,

or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan

will require you or your employer to change the coverage or

the doctor you have.

Let me repeat:

Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.

I think I heard the chairman of the Finance Committee say that if you like your plan, you can pretty much keep it. That is not what the President said. Pretty much keep it? With those words, the President-- and congressional Democrats--made a vow to 170 million people who get health coverage through their employer. The President and congressional Democrats promised that if you like what you have, then the health care law would let you keep it. What a difference a year makes.

On June 14 of this year, the Obama administration released a 121-page ``grandfathered health plan'' rule. It is a rule that clearly violates--clearly violates--the President's promise.

Let me explain how. ObamaCare included a provision allowing existing insurance plans to be ``grandfathered'' under the new law. Theoretically, that means that employers and individuals would not have to give up the coverage they have and they like to comply with onerous government rules and mandates.

So you have to make sure, though, that you read the fine print. Look at the chart. The chart in the new administration rules estimates between 39 and 69 percent of businesses will lose their grandfathered health plan status.

The picture is even worse for small businesses in America, and it is small businesses that are the engines that drive this economy. The same chart in this report estimates that by the year 2013, up to 80 percent--80 percent--of small businesses will lose their grandfathered status. This means American businesses will not be able to keep their current insurance plans. That is what this means. They will be required by the Federal Government to comply with all the new mandates which are very expensive and are contained in the new health care law. This only serves to drive employer health care costs up, making it even more difficult for them to offer health insurance to their workers.

I am sorry. Maybe the American people are confused. The American people believed the goal of reform was to lower health care costs. America's small businesses struggle each and every day to find a way to provide health insurance to their employees. The government should be making it easier for businesses to keep providing the coverage. Instead, this bureaucratic regulation drives prices up. This is going to increase the odds that employers are going to simply choose to stop offering health care insurance coverage completely.

Additionally, this so-called grandfather regulation makes it much harder for employers to make health insurance changes that would actually help to keep down the cost of care, to keep down the cost of coverage. Today, businesses have very few options if they want to keep costs in check, as well as keep their grandfathered status. Businesses that lose their grandfathered status are then forced to comply with all the new rules, all the mandates in the health care law, and now, even by the White House's own admission, we are talking about up to 80 percent of the small businesses in this country.

Subjecting employers to these mandates forces them to change and to expand their insurance plans. What does that mean? Well, it means costs are going to go up. No surprise. It is obvious this administration doesn't want the American people to be able to keep what they have if they like it. The law wasn't written that way, and certainly the regulations were written in a way that violates--and this is the White House--the White House regulations were written in a way that violates the pledge the President made to the American people.

President Obama and congressional Democrats certainly like using their talking points, but the American people know it is just spin. That is why this bill was unpopular when it was signed into law and now, 6 months later, it is even more unpopular, with 61 percent of the American people wanting this bill and this law repealed and replaced.

That is why I come to the floor today to support the efforts of my friend, the senior Senator from Wyoming, the ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, who has introduced Senate Joint Resolution 39, a resolution of disapproval that would overturn the administration's so-called grandfather rule. It is an honor to stand with Senator Enzi and fight against this job-killing Washington mandate. I appreciate his leadership but, more importantly, his dedication to make sure the President

keeps his promise--a promise that if you like the health insurance you had before the new health care law was passed, then you can actually keep it.

That is my second opinion. That is why we need to repeal and replace this health care law.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will offer a unanimous consent request in a moment that will permanently lock fairness into the Tax Code.

American taxpayers are currently allowed to deduct either State income or sales taxes on their Federal tax return. Americans who live in States with a State income tax have always been able to deduct their State taxes. Since passage of the 1986 tax reform, Americans living in States without a State income tax have been out of luck.

With the leadership of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Congress responded by reinstating a deduction for State sales tax. This provision provided financial relief for millions of taxpayers, and it brought back some fairness to the Tax Code. Americans in States that have no income tax, such as Wyoming, Texas, Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, and Washington, finally received relief similar to individuals in States with State income taxes.

The sales tax deduction needs to be made permanent. Now is not the time to raise taxes on American taxpayers.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3617; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 35, a bill to provide a permanent deduction for State and local general sales taxes, be inserted; I ask unanimous consent that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, at this time, it is my understanding that this time is reserved for the minority party.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would say that Senator Thune has a bill similar in design to deal with a number of needed concerns and considerations, and in light of the fact that Senator Thune's legislation has been objected to and not yet been able to get clearance from the other side, I do object.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor and recognize the Wyoming Army National Guard 300th Armored Field Artillery Battalion Cowboy Cannoneers.

On October 1, 2010, the 300th soldiers will gather for their final battalion reunion. This reunion marks the 60th anniversary of their Korean war mobilization.

On August 19, 1950, the citizen soldiers of 300th AFA answered the call, picked up their rifles and put on their uniforms to defend our great country. My wife Bobbi's father, Sergeant First Class Robert L. Brown was one of these brave men.

Madam President, I come to the floor today, on the 6- month anniversary of the signing into law of what has commonly across the country come to be called ObamaCare. I come as a physician, someone who has practiced medicine in Wyoming since the early 1980s, taking care of thousands and thousands of patients across the cowboy State-- families. I bring that experience to the Senate floor. I have a doctor's second opinion, now that here we are, 6 months out. It is akin to looking at an x ray after something has happened, going 6 months later and taking a look at the x ray to see what has occurred to the patient.

Six months ago when Obama signed his new health care bill into law, he said: ``All of the overheated rhetoric over reform will finally confront the reality of reform.''

Here we are 6 months later. The American people have been confronted with the reality of the President's reform, and they do not like it. The American people who listened to Speaker Pelosi say: First, we must pass the bill before you get to find out what is in it, now have learned more and more what is in it, and they don't like it. The American people watched as this body came together, cobbled together legislation with things such as the ``Cornhusker kickback'' and special treats for different Senators so we would agree to vote for the bill, and the American people don't like it.

As a matter of fact, there was a Rasmussen poll that just came out Monday, and as of Monday this week, 6 months after the bill was signed into law, 61 percent of the American people want Washington to repeal this new health care law--61 percent want it repealed. Once again, instead of listening to the American people, the President continues to try to sell his law. He tried it again yesterday in a back yard. He continues to make promises he knows he cannot keep and that have not been kept with this new law.

Now that we are 6 months into the new law, I wish to walk you through some of the President's promises and the reality that the people of this great country are living with as they look at what has been crammed down their throats. Promise No. 1 by the President: If you like your current health care coverage, you can keep it. According to a new Obama administration regulation--this is the President's own administration, writing the regulation--a majority of Americans who get their insurance through work will not be able to keep the current health care plan they have. Even the White House admits it. The President keeps saying it, but the White House admits it is not true.

Promise No. 2: The law will bring the cost of medical care down and reduce the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office disagrees, saying it erases savings. The Actuary at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services says the new law will increase health care spending.

Let's look at promise No. 3. This says the law will strengthen Medicare. It actually cuts Medicare by $\1/2\ trillion--$500 billion cut from Medicare. The seniors of this country are furious.

To make matters worse, this money is not being used to save Medicare or to strengthen Medicare. The money is being used to start a whole new government program for other people. There is a rebellion among the seniors of this country.

Let's look at another promise the President made. He said: The law will create jobs. We have 9.6 percent unemployment in this country. We continue to learn about companies that want to employ people, that want to create jobs, but instead those companies are cutting their payrolls in order to deal with the massive new tax increases included in the law. If you look at the incentives that are given to small companies, in terms of helping them with health care costs, the incentives are the ones that say: If you want to get something, you want to cut the number of employees you have and cut the salaries of the people you are still going to employ. That does not create jobs. This law does not create jobs.

Then, of course, President Obama also promised that the Federal Government would not ration care. Then I would say why did the President make a recess appointment of a man to run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid who has repeatedly acknowledged and said the government must ration care? He has a long history, but he did not come to the Senate to explain a number of statements he has made about redistributing wealth, rationing care. He does not need to explain it to the Senate. He needs to explain it to the people of this country. That is Donald Berwick, a physician from Massachusetts, still refusing to testify before Congress and the American people. He has been invited again to come today. There will be people waiting in a room to which he has been invited. We will see if he does arrive, but I doubt it.

You wonder why Americans are sick and tired of Washington. It is no surprise; yesterday, when speaking at the event in Virginia, the President focused on provisions of the new law that go into effect today. As Paul Harvey used to say: ``Now the rest of the story.'' Some of the changes the President touted yesterday actually don't start right away. Many Americans will not see how these changes will impact them until after January 1 of 2011. But yesterday, USA Today, the newspaper, actually ran a big story--a full-page story almost--on the new provisions. The thing that was so interesting about the story is, the story outlined the basics of each provision--a little thing there. Then underneath each one of the basics it had several paragraphs of things they called be aware: The basics are this, but be aware that this may happen to you, and this may happen to you and this may not apply or this may apply.

All those things are to alert the American people that there is a lot more to it when you look at this over 2,000-page bill and the so many agencies that are being brought forth to write rules and regulations-- so many things the American people will still learn about this bill, and as they learn those things they will like it even less.

The story outlined the basics and then the ``be awares'' of each provision. I think it is very important for the Americans who are listening and who are focused on this to be aware of these ``be awares,'' that they are so much longer than the provisions. What I would like to do is walk through some of them with you.

The law does allow young adults to stay on and be added to their parents' health insurance plan until age 26. That is what we hear. Make sure to read the fine print.

One of the things the Obama administration published was the so- called grandfather regulation--not when the bill was signed into law but in June. This Washington White House regulation defines the rules that employers must follow if they want the health coverage they currently offer their employees to be exempt from the new law's mandates. It says be aware that children are not eligible to be added to their parents' grandfathered employer group plan if the child can access coverage in other ways, if they have a job--another very complicated situation of rules and regulations.

Second, the law now requires insurers to cover more preventive services--immunizations, mammograms, colonoscopies. It is important for people to take responsibility for their health and things such as screening mammograms and immunizations; those help people in the long run. It says insurers cannot charge copayments or deductibles for these added benefits. Then let's get to the ``be aware'' section. Be aware these cost savings only apply to new health insurance plans, not the so-called grandfathered plans, so you have them describing the grandfathered plans and who can be a part of it and who cannot.

There is more to this than meets the eye. Also, be aware--don't be surprised if you see your insurance premiums go up.

The President wants to sell Americans on the good things in the law, what he considers the good things in the law, but he has failed to mention that mandating insurers to cover these extra benefits is going to cause premiums to go up.

Another: Insurance companies can no longer cap the amount they will pay over a person's lifetime. Americans need to be aware, however, that insurance plans that had lower premium costs because--they say, how do you get premiums down? They did it by limiting lifetime amounts. It says those people now may be forced to pay higher insurance premiums.

Another: The law designed new rules preventing insurers from denying coverage to any child under the age of 19 who has a preexisting medical condition. So what did the Washington Post say about that? What did the Los Angeles Times report? They both printed articles this Tuesday, 2 days ago, warning consumers that major health insurance companies--what are they going to do about this? They are going to plan to stop selling new child-only covered products completely. Is this going to help kids with preexisting conditions, this law? As these insurance companies plan to stop selling new child-only coverage products, that is not going to help. It is because of this law.

The health care law allows parents to wait until their child is sick before buying a policy. When only sick people buy health insurance, premiums have to go up. As the rate increases, more people drop their coverage. This certainly is going to hit lower income families hard. Some uninsured parents, while they can't afford family insurance, often decide to buy a child-only policy to ensure their kids have coverage. But according to these new reports, families all across America will have fewer health insurance options because of the new law--fewer options for families, fewer options for patients, not more.

This Congress had a historic opportunity to make patient-centered health care reforms to bring down the cost of medical care in this country. We had a historic opportunity, and this Congress missed it. The one thing the American people wanted out of health care reform was lower costs. But increased Washington mandates passed by this Senate only serve to produce fewer insurance choices, increased costs, and insert the Federal Government between patients and their doctors.

It is time that we start talking honestly about how this law--even the things on which Republicans and Democrats agree--affected patients and their families. That is why I believe this health care law needs to be repealed. It should be repealed and replaced with better ideas. And there are better ideas--better ideas that were rejected by the majority in this Senate, who refused to listen, who refused to listen to the American people who were bringing forth better ideas, changes such as allowing people to buy insurance across State lines--that is going to bring down the cost of care, and it is going to help about 12 million people who did not have insurance get insurance; offering premium breaks to folks who make healthy lifestyle changes--absolutely critical; dealing with lawsuit abuse to help eliminate some of this defensive medicine and the increased cost of that practice. We need to allow small businesses to join together, to pool together in order to offer affordable health insurance to their workers, get better deals with insurance costs. These are changes that put patients in control of their medical decisions, not the government.

People ask me, as a doctor, what I think about this, what I think about this law. I will tell you, having practiced medicine for over 25 years, we need to do something. This wasn't it. This law is bad for people. It is bad for people who are patients. It is bad for people who are providers, the nurses and the doctors who take care of the patients. It is bad for payers, the taxpayers of this country who will foot a significant amount of the bill. The people who get their insurance through work--what is the impact going to be on those jobs and those businesses? This is a bill that is bad for people.

We can and we must fix a broken health care system, but we can do it without undermining choice, which is what this health care law has done; without undermining competition, which is what this health care law has done; and without undermining innovation, which is what this health care law has done. And we need to do it without raiding Medicare to start a whole new government entitlement program. We can do it without raising taxes that kill jobs in a bad economy.

That is why, as we are here today, 6 months after the enactment of this bill becoming law, the Obamacare law, 6 months later, 61 percent of the American people want it repealed. It is now time to repeal and replace this health care legislation and replace it with something that will work for the American people because that is what this country wants, that is what this country needs, that is what this country and the people of this country have been asking for all along, but the members of the majority and the White House refused to listen.

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

Mr. President, for the past 6 months I have come to the floor of the U.S. Senate to offer my doctor's ``second opinion'' about the health reform law. Day after day, week after week, we continue to see disturbing news reports uncovering the law's consequences-- consequences that restrict individual freedoms, erode patient access to medical care, and increase our Nation's debt and deficit.

Specifically, I have listened closely as President Obama and congressional Democrats repeatedly try to convince the American people that the health care law does not cut Medicare. Having practiced medicine for well over two decades, I can tell you that the Nation's Medicare patients and Medicare providers are not fooled. They know the Democrat's health care law cuts over $500 billion from the Medicare Program. They know the law does not use that money to make sure Medicare is strong and solvent for generations to come. They know the law raids Medicare and uses the money to start a brand new entitlement program for the nonelderly.

America's seniors, and the medical professionals who treat them, understand that if we take over $500 billion away from Medicare then patients will lose benefits. They understand that if we take over $500 billion away from Medicare, then the quality of care will go down. They understand it will be increasingly difficult to see a doctor-- especially in rural and frontier States like Wyoming. And they understand the local community hospitals, home health agencies, nursing homes, and skilled nursing facilities will struggle to keep their doors open.

Over the August work period, I traveled all across the State of Wyoming--talking to folks at town meetings, parades, picnics, fairs, and rodeos. Everyone agrees Medicare is going broke--and that the new health care law does nothing to fix the problem. In fact, it only serves to make a bad situation worse.

I want to share with the Senate a guest editorial printed in the Casper Journal. Written by Kathy Blair, a board certified orthopedic physical therapist, the article explains how proposed Medicare reimbursement cuts to physical and occupational therapists will limit patient access to medical care.

On Friday, June 25, 2010, the Obama administration released its proposed 2011 Physician Fee Schedule rule and regulation. The draft rule sets Medicare payments for individual physician services. As Kathy's editorial explains, the new health care law requires the Administration to institute a so-called Multiple Procedure Payment Reduction--MPPR. Originally designed to impact payment for multiple surgeries performed simultaneously, the administration now plans to apply the MPPR policy to physical and occupational therapy services. This move is expected to cut Medicare physical and occupational therapy payments next year by 12 percent.

I thank Kathy Blair for bringing this important matter to the Senate's attention and ask unanimous consent to have her editorial printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today as the Senate returns to give a doctor's second opinion of the health care law. As the Presiding Officer knows because he has

been here for so many of these speeches every week since this bill was signed into law, I have come to the Senate floor as a physician, an orthopedic surgeon, as someone who has taken care of families in the State of Wyoming since 1983, to give a doctor's second opinion of the new health care law and what I view is the impact it is going to have on health care in this country.

The Presiding Officer knows that during the debate and discussions at the time of the health bill and now the health care law, I had many reservations. My concern was that it was going to be bad for patients, bad for providers--the nurses and doctors who take care of those patients--and bad for payers, the people paying their health care costs, as well as the taxpayers of this country.

When the health care bill was signed into law, Democrats were extremely proud of it, and they were actually eager at that time to tell all of America about their vote. As a matter of fact, the Senate majority leader, Senator Reid, said:

This is a happy day. We are going to hear an earful, but it

is going to be an earful of wonderment and happiness that

people waited for a long time.

Here we are just 6 months later, but the new law is not greeted with happiness. It is not greeted with wonderment. Now the Democrats of this country are singing a very different tune. In fact, 56 percent of Americans want the law repealed. Each week, as I have given my second opinion, I have said it is time to repeal and replace this health care law. Now Democrats are completely changing their message about the new law. Now they no longer say the law will lower costs. They no longer say it will improve care. Instead, they now admit the law has some shortfalls, and they are talking about how they are working to improve it. This law needs to be repealed and replaced.

I think that now the people of America know what Nancy Pelosi meant when she said, ``First we have to pass the law before you get to find out what is in it.'' That is what she said. Well, now the people of this country have found out what is in it, and they recognize that it is not good for the country.

There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal last Friday. Kimberly Strassel talked about the health care law, and she said:

A total of 279 House and Senate Democrats voted for

ObamaCare. Now not one is running an ad touting that vote.

How can they, given the headlines?

But she does quote a number of Democrats who are running for election this year, and those Democrats are talking about why they voted against--against--the bill that the President claimed would be good for the country. These are Democrats voting against what they call ``massive government health care.'' That was one Member of the House. Another said she voted against the ``trillion-dollar health care plan.'' A former Governor of Georgia, a Democrat, said:

Not only is ObamaCare ``financially devastating,'' it is

``the greatest failure, modern failure, of political

leadership in my lifetime.''

While Congress was out of session in August, Politico ran a story entitled ``Dems Retreat on Health Care Cost Pitch.'' I ask unanimous consent to have that article printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thought it was so important that more Americans should know about this. The article explains that:

Key White House allies are dramatically shifting their

attempts to defend health care legislation, abandoning claims

that it will reduce costs and the deficit and instead

stressing a promise to ``improve it.''

Well, this new Democratic message strategy on health care was developed by key Democratic strategists and pollsters, and it was detailed in a 24-slide PowerPoint presentation. The language in the presentation is remarkable, and it is radically different from what President Obama and the Democrats on this floor promised during the debate about health care. This new Democratic spin demonstrates that people who voted for this bad law now recognize how unpopular it is with the people of this country and how it will never live up to the grand promises. That is why people all around the country were saying, ``Don't vote for this'' as people in this body were cramming this bill--and now law--down the throats of the American people.

Well, rather than walk through all 24 slides, I wish to hit some of the highlights of the new Democratic health care message.

Let's take a look at what they call ``Challenging Environment.'' They say:

Straightforward policy defenses fail to be moving voters'

opinions about the law.

They say:

The public is disappointed, anxious, and depressed by the

current direction of the country--not trusting.

Voters are concerned about rising health care costs and

believe costs will continue to rise.

That is in spite of promises made on this floor that it wouldn't happen.

They say:

Women in particular are concerned that the health care law

will mean less provider availability--scarcity an issue.

They say:

Many don't believe health reform will help the economy.

Well, there is a reason people don't trust Washington. There is a reason the policy defenses in the new law fail

to move voter opinions, and it is because the new law is not good for patients; the new law is not good for providers--the nurses, the doctors, the hospitals, the home health aides, hospice care; and the new health care law is not good for the people who are going to be paying the bill.

Let's take the next slide and make it personal. It says:

Use personal stories coupled with clear, simple

descriptions of how the law benefits people at the individual

level to convey critical benefits of reform.

Well, there are a lot of personal stories they won't tell you, and those are the personal stories including the small business owners all across this country who are being strangled by the redtape in this law, strangled by rules and regulations and expense. That is why we are looking at 9.6 percent unemployment in this country--because of the lack of certainty for small businesses and the increased expenses they are having to deal with as a result of this law.

They won't tell you the stories about patients with preexisting conditions who did have insurance but now have been penalized by the new law because they played by the rules.

Let's look at another slide. It says ``improve the law.'' The recommendation of the pollsters to the Democrats is ``use transition or bridge language to meet public where they are and relax their defenses.'' The American people know what they are talking about. Then they say:

The law is not perfect, but it does good things and helps

many people. Now we'll work to improve it.

The question is, does this new law help you, the American citizen, at home? That is the question. That is what people ask themselves. What is the impact of this going to be on my own health care? Is the new law helping you? Is the new law helping small businesses that can't seem to qualify for the tax credit the administration and the congressional Democrats promised, in spite of the fact that 4 million postcards were sent out to small businesses, and only a very small percentage of those could qualify for any of these tax opportunities? Were those people willing to cut the salaries of the employed and lay off others? That is why we voted against this bill.

Is this new law helping individuals who, thanks to the new administration grandfathering rules and regulations, will lose their employer-sponsored health insurance plan? Is the new law helping seniors, who will see more than $500 billion robbed from Medicare-- seniors on Medicare Advantage, a program they signed up for intentionally because they know there is an advantage to being on that program, because it works with preventive care and it coordinates care? That is all gone.

Is the new law helping the 18 million people who will find themselves locked into the Medicaid Program? Is the new law helping the millions of Americans who will see their health insurance premiums go up next year to comply with benefit mandates in the law?

Instead of working to improve the law now, those on the other side of the aisle should have improved it before it was passed. Members of my party repeatedly wanted to work with Democrats to improve this legislation. Unfortunately, we were shut out of the process.

Let's look at the next chart. It says ``blunt'' the mandate. Part of the new Democratic spin is to blunt the mandate. It says:

Tap into the individual responsibility to blunt opposition

to the mandate to have health insurance.

Mandate? What is this mandate? It is a mandate that everybody in America has to have insurance. All individuals have to have it. All employers have to offer it. People either must buy insurance or employers must provide insurance. There is a mandate. Currently, 20 States are suing the Federal Government about the mandate. It also says:

Those who choose not to have insurance and use the

emergency room for routine care are increasing costs for the

rest of us who have insurance.

Well, let's look at a report from the Centers for Disease Control, which came out in May. It confirms that, as opposed to what this slide says, the uninsured don't visit the emergency room more often. Do you know who does? It is Medicaid patients. It shows that more than 30 percent of Medicaid patients under the age of 65 visited emergency rooms in this country at least once in 2007. This health care law locks 18 million more Americans into Medicaid, forcing them into the emergency rooms, because doctors frequently cannot afford to see them in their offices. So the question is: Will these 18 million more Americans who have been locked into Medicaid be able to find a physician to treat them? If not, how will the emergency rooms of this country cope when these patients use the ER as their primary care provider?

We all know that the health care law was modeled after the Massachusetts State health reform plan. The Boston Globe reported on July 4 of this year that recent State data proved emergency room visits rose in Massachusetts by 9 percent, from 2004 to 2008--about 3 million visits a year. According to the Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and their policy plan, providing insurance coverage may have actually contributed to the ER visit increase. But the goal was to lower the number of visits to the emergency room.

Let's look at another chart that talks about what health care coverage Members of Congress have. It says:

Supporters of the law and those campaigning need to

highlight that Members of Congress will participate in the

same plan.

It is important to remember that the only reason Members of Congress are on the same plan is because Senators Coburn and Grassley fought for this. It is also important to remember that members of the congressional leadership, their staffs, White House employees, and other Federal employees will not be on the plan. Then let's look at the new head of Medicare and Medicaid, Dr. Berwick, who is someone named to that post in a recess appointment. His name didn't surface during the entire debate of the health care bill. Nobody was in charge of Medicare and Medicaid during the health care debate. Why? Because the President chose to not even name someone. When he finally named someone, this is someone who is in love with the British health care system. He made a number of quotes about rationing of care and ways that he envisioned the British health care system to be so much better than the U.S. health care system.

Yet, Dr. Berwick has, as a result of his contract, from the group he worked with in Boston before taking this new job--a job that the President made a recess appointment for--somebody who never came to Congress to testify, never presented himself to the American people--I don't know what he is hiding. He doesn't have to live under the plan forced down the throats of the American people because his contract, when he left Boston, said that he will get care under them for life. So will his wife. So he is making rules and regulations that apply to the rest of the country but not to him.

Let's look at another slide having to do with Medicare cuts. The new Democratic spin says:

It is critical to reassure seniors that Medicare will not

be cut.

Then it says:

Free preventive care.

This is absolutely absurd and untrue. It is clear that the new law cuts $500 billion from our seniors on Medicare. It is not to save Medicare. It doesn't just start a whole new government program for someone else, but when I talk to seniors--and I have done this all over the last month, traveling around the State of Wyoming, visiting parades, picnics, fairs, and rodeos--the seniors say: If you want to change Medicare to save Medicare, we can deal with that, but not to start a whole new government program for someone else.

The final slide I think is most telling. It is a slide that is a list of the don'ts. The new Democratic spin says:

Don't assume that the public knows the health reform law

passed, or if they know it passed, understand how it will

affect them; don't list benefits outside of any personal

context; don't barrage voters with a long list of benefits;

don't use complex language or insider jargon; don't use

heated political rhetoric or congratulatory language.

And believe it or not, it also says on the slide the Democrats' pollsters put out:

Don't say the law will reduce costs and deficit.

Well, let's take a look at some of the quotes we heard leading up to passage of the law--promises by the President of the United States, by House Speaker

Pelosi, and by Majority Leader Reid. The President met with Senate Democrats in December of 2009, before a vote in the Senate. He said:

We agree on reforms that will finally reduce the costs of

health care.

He says:

Families will save on their premiums.

He said:

This will be the largest deficit reduction plan in over a

decade.

Now the Democrats are being told:

Don't say the law will reduce costs and the deficit.

Isn't that what the President said to the Democrats in December of 2009?

The American people have been misled. They can see through this. That is why they were screaming: Do not pass this law. Yet what the President said and now what the American people know to be the truth is the exact opposite.

Let's look at what House Speaker Pelosi said. In March of this year she said:

This is a triumph for the American people in terms of

deficit reduction.

This isn't going to reduce the deficit. Now, finally 6 months after it has been passed into law, the Democrats are admitting that this is not a triumph for the American people in terms of deficit reduction.

Then Senator Reid, from that desk on the Senate floor, in November of last year, said:

One of the major goals of the Patient Protection and

Affordable Care Act is to lower Federal health care costs and

reduce the deficit.

He then said:

Our bill does that.

The bill signed into law does not do that. And now even the Democrats, with their new spin, are saying that we better not keep saying it because the American people don't believe it. That is why 56 percent of the American people want this law repealed and replaced.

The American people are sick of the spin. They deserve the truth about the new law and how it will impact their lives. It is clear that this law is not good for patients, it is not good for providers--the nurses and doctors who take care of the patients--and it is not good for the payers--the taxpayers of this country and the people who pay their own health care costs. We need to repeal and replace this new law with a plan that will actually help our country.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.