Floor Statements

Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes of Senator Bond's time.

Mr. President, there has been significant attention given to efforts by the United Nations to establish a global climate change agreement. The effort has been based, in

large part, on information contained in reports prepared by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Supporters repeatedly cite figures and conclusions in the U.N. reports to justify a complete overhaul of the world economy. Supporters have been steadfast in claiming the report is conclusive, in claiming the scientific data is solid, and in claiming the integrity of the findings are above reproach. Any mistakes identified and pointed out are minimized and ignored.

They have been singing this song for years. The U.N.'s top climate official is Dr. R.K. Pachauri, and the chorus of defenders of the U.N. reports have grown louder in recent months as the house of cards they have built is falling apart.

There have been disclosures of e-mails that show scientists manipulated the sciences; there have been nonscientific materials utilized to reach scientific conclusions; there has been scientific conclusions that are not properly peer reviewed. Each week, the list of errors grows. The excuses from Dr. Pachauri, the man in charge of the U.N. climate change reports, well, they have been wearing thin.

I come to the floor as a Senator who serves on both the Energy Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee. I come to the floor to tell you and our Nation the United Nations' scientists are manipulating data to further political goals--political goals of passing a climate change accord that will cost the world billions.

This is not my accusation. The person making the charge is the person who verified the false conclusion.

It is better to hear it in the person's own words:

His name is Dr. Murari Lal. Dr. Lal is a retired Indian academic, now a consultant. He was one of the four lead authors of the Asia chapter of the U.N. report.

He is also behind the bogus claim in United Nations climate change reports that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035.

He admitted that this scientific ``fact'' as climate change supporters like to state, was included in the report ``purely to put political pressure on world leaders.''

Let me repeat--he said this so called ``fact'' was included in the United Nations report ``purely to put political pressure on world leaders.''

According to Dr. Lal, ``It related to several countries in this region and their water sources.''

``We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.''

The so called ``fact'' in the report is just not true.

On January 21, the Economist stated that when informed about the error the United Nations ``did nothing'' and the claims were ``airily dismissed by Rajendra Pachauri.''

The Times of the U.K. reports a second factually inaccurate conclusion. It reports that the United Nations wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters.

In an article written by Jonathan Leake, he stated that: The United Nations climate panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

The original link between climate change and natural disasters was based on an unpublished report. According to the Times the report ``had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny''--and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link was ``too weak.''

Despite the warnings once again, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change included the fiction in its report.

Today the claim by the U.N. that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of natural disasters is a large part of the political debate across this country.

How many politicians made the claim that Hurricane Katrina was the result of climate change? Well now they know the inconvenient truth.

According to the Times of the U.K., the actual authors of the claim on natural disasters withdrew the claim--but the United Nations did not.

Every day new scandals emerge about the so called ``facts'' in the U.N. reports.

Claims that ice is disappearing from the world's mountain tops were apparently based on a student dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

It was revealed that green activists with little scientific experience were the source for unsubstantiated claims that global warming might wipe out 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest.

These revelations are in addition to the released e-mails by the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University. These are the e-mails that first raised serious questions about the conduct of U.N. and even U.S. scientists.

These e-mails demonstrate a coordinated effort by trusted climate scientists to suppress dissenting views and manipulate data and methods to skew the U.N. reports to reach a politically correct view of the impact of climate change.

Scientists at the Climatic Research Unit said that they ``admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.''

The lack of any raw data prevents other scientists from checking their work and raises additional questions about the accuracy of the data used in the U.N. reports.

The actions by scientists and others to suppress data that contradicts their conclusions is misleading, unethical and unacceptable.

Their conduct needs to be investigated.

Senator Inhofe and I have written U.N. Secretary Moon to have the U.N. conduct an independent investigation into the original climate gate revelations.

That request has not been acted upon.

Revelations of ongoing scientific fraud at the United Nations Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change is disturbing.

Concrete action by world leaders is needed.

The integrity of the data and the integrity of the science has been compromised.

Today, I call for government delegations of the U.N.'s general assembly and U.N. Secretary Moon to pressure Dr. Rajendra Pachauri to step down as head of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

It is time to conduct an independent investigation into the conduct of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Dr. Pachauri should be removed from any involvement with the investigation.

Recent reports over the weekend raise questions about whether or not Dr. Pachauri knew of the false information in the U.N. report months prior to the disclosure.

These claims, first reported in the Times of the U.K., stated that:

Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change assessment that glaciers would disappear by

2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it.

If proved true, this would mean that Pachauri failed to alert the world to this mistake before the December Copenhagen conference.

Investor's Business Daily in an editorial stated:

If we're serious about restoring science to its rightful

place, the head of the UN's panel on climate change should

step down. Evidence shows he quarterbacked a deliberate and

premeditated fraud.

Walter Russell Read, project director for Religion and Foreign Policy at the Pew Forum was quoted in Investor's Business Daily Tuesday February 2 as saying:

After years in which global warming activists had lectured

everyone about the overwhelming nature of the scientific

evidence, it turned out that the most prestigious agencies in

the global warming movement were breaking laws, hiding data

and making inflated, bogus claims resting on, in some cases,

no scientific basis at all.

President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and U.N. Ambassador Rice need to apply all the necessary pressure to ensure that Dr. Pachauri is removed.

I also call on President Obama to direct his cabinet to stop supporting any policies that relied in whole and in part on the fraudulent United Nations reports.

It is time to have the scientific data behind such policies independently verified.

Administration policies relating to climate change will cost millions of Americans their jobs.

We need to get this right.

To continue to rely on these corrupted U.N. reports is an endorsement of fraudulent behavior.

It is a signal to the American people that ideology is more important than their jobs.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, during the 57th Congress, our predecessors passed the Newland Reclamation Act that changed the landscape of arid Western States. Part of the 1902 act, which created the Reclamation Service, included funding for a dam in a narrow, 70- foot gorge in the Shoshone Canyon, 6 miles from Cody, WY.

The construction of the Shoshone Dam began in 1905. Workers used 78,576 cubic feet of rubble concrete to build the massive structure. When work was completed on January 15, 1910, the Shoshone Dam was the world's highest concrete arch dam at 325 feet. The total bill for the dam was $1,345,000.

Water from the Shoshone River filled a reservoir that covered an area 10 miles long and 4 miles wide--over 300,000 acres of land. Promotional brochures published during the early years boasted that the dam and reservoir created a ``healthful, invigorating and enjoyable climate with an abundance of sunshine and irrigation water.'' Further, in an effort to draw enterprising farmers to the basin, they stated the area is ``immune from storms and that tornadoes and cyclones are unknown in the region.''

The 79th Congress once again passed legislation affecting the dam-- this time to rename it for one of the West's favorite sons: William F. Cody. In 1946, the Shoshone Dam formally became the Buffalo Bill Dam. While Buffalo Bill may be most famous for his Wild West Show in the early 1900s, he had the vision to harness the Shoshone River to open the area for development. Cody and his colleagues had big dreams to build more than 50 miles of canals and irrigate more than 150,000 acres. He was only able to bring water to 6,000 acres before his finances and stamina ran out. However, it was because he saw the region's potential that the dam was initially built.

Those of us who are fortunate to call Wyoming home have a great appreciation for the opportunity to live with, utilize and benefit from the Buffalo Bill Dam. It is a positive presence in the world of the West.

Last week marked the tremendous structure's 100th birthday. We remember the ingenuity, courage and foresight of the men and women who made the dam possible. It changed the near desert landscape into one that supports a wide range of agricultural and recreational activities. We often say Wyoming is what America was. The Buffalo Bill Dam is a great reminder of this.

I don't know how many of my colleagues have seen the editorial in today's Investors Business Daily.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article to which I am going to refer.

The article is headlined: ``Louisiana Purchase and Omaha Stakes.'' The editorial says:

Politics: Mary Landrieu was the new ``Louisiana Purchase.''

Ben Nelson got the federal government to pick up his state's

future Medicaid tab.

And the article continues:

Maybe we should just put Senate votes up on eBay. . . .

Nelson won a permanent exemption from the state share of

Medicaid expansion for Nebraska--forever. The world's

greatest deliberative body has now become the most corrupt.

So Uncle Sam is taking the hit for 100 percent of the Medicaid expansion for Nebraska forever. That is what this says. It goes on to say this is not what legislating is about; that this is not compromise, rather, it is about bribery.

Mr. President, this is horrible for us as a nation to have these things written about this institution, when we should be way above any of these sorts of claims.

I look at that map that my colleague from Mississippi has up, with just Nebraska on there as the special deal, and I do not believe that is the way legislation should be written. We should be looking at ways to improve health care for all Americans, improve the quality, make it more affordable, make it more available to people, and give them the access they need.

I brought four amendments the other day, after Senator Reid brought his massive amendment to the floor, and each was rejected. They were things that would actually improve this bill and make it better for Americans.

So I stand here, looking at this, and reading headline after headline and editorial after editorial about just how very bad is the way this bill is being pushed forward. We certainly wouldn't want any young child to know how this is happening in their country, as we try to get them involved in this process and learn and study and feel that maybe they should become involved in this. This isn't what legislating in America is all about. We are better than this.

If you have to do these sorts of things to get a 60th vote, then the bill isn't good enough to pass. If the ideas aren't good enough to get the votes, then it shouldn't pass. In this country, we look for bipartisan solutions to the big issues of the day. That is what we did

in the Wyoming Legislature. Major issues passed with overwhelming numbers. That is what has happened in this country throughout the course of history. The big bills have come forth with large numbers of supporters, and that is how you get the country to follow you, not by trying to force through a vote, buying a vote here and buying a vote there to just squeak by with the minimum amount of support. That is not the way to change policy that is going to affect everyone in the United States personally and affect one-sixth of our economy. That is not the way to do it.

It has not been the way, it shouldn't be the way, and it should never be the way again. I am looking for some Democrat to stand up and say: This isn't the way, and I am going to not vote for this bill.

It is not. There have been a number of references to our friend and colleague, the late Senator Ted Kennedy. Let's take a look at the book his brother, John Kennedy, wrote, ``Profiles in Courage.'' As we have seen all this, it is time for one courageous Democrat to stand and say: This is about our country. This is about our country, not about a kickback. This is about health care, not about a hand in the cookie jar.

That is what we need. We need one courageous Democrat to stand and say: I don't want to be part of this editorial that talks about the Louisiana Purchase and Omaha Stakes. I don't want to be a part of this that says this, the world's greatest deliberative body, has now become corrupt. I don't want to be a part of this that says this is about bribery.

It needs one courageous Democrat, 1 out of 60, to stand and say: I am going to vote no; we need to back up; we need to think about this. We have 100 Members of the Senate who want to reform health care in this country, who want to get the costs under control, who want to improve quality, who want to improve access--100 Senators want to do that. That is the goal of each and every one of us here.

We need one courageous Senator to say it is time, time now, to take a step back, let us go home over Christmas, let us think about this, let us talk to our constituents at home, let us hear what they have to say about this looking out for No. 1--$100 million. Dana Milbank's column in the Washington Post today, that is what we need now in the Senate. We need the kind of courage John Kennedy wrote about in ``Profiles in Courage.''

It is time for a new chapter to be written in ``Profiles in Courage.'' One of the Members of this body can be that profile. All they have to do is stand up and say: No, I will not be part of what has been called corruption in the Senate. I will not be part of what has been called, in the editorials, bribery in the Senate. I will be that courageous person and vote no. It is time for a new chapter in ``Profiles in Courage.''

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I just heard my colleague, the Senator from Ohio, say: I wish some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would understand families who don't have insurance.

I practiced medicine for 25 years, taking care of families in the State of Wyoming. During that time, I took care of all patients, regardless of their ability to pay. I will tell you, I believe, as a physician who practiced medicine for 25 years--and as someone whom the Obama administration has decided to completely ignore, as he did the other Senator of this Chamber who is a physician--that I know specifically and personally about what happens to families who lose their insurance. My colleague and I know specifically what happens to families who are on Medicaid, a health care program which my colleague who is now leaving the Chamber after asking if anyone in this body understands people without insurance but not staying to hear the discussion for the next hour--making statements and then leaving--I understand those families. I understand the families on Medicare, I understand the families on Medicaid, I understand the families without insurance, I understand the families worried about losing their insurance, I understand about the families worried about disease.

My colleague from Ohio said: Do people understand women with breast cancer? Well, my wife is a--

Regular order, Mr. President.

My wife was a breast cancer survivor, and her breast cancer was discovered in her forties by a screening mammogram. It was that screening mammogram that saved her life because the cancer had already spread. It had already spread to a lymph node. She had three operations, two bouts of full chemotherapy, radiation--35 treatments and all--all--because of the screening mammogram that saved her life. Yet because of this bill that was brought to the Senate floor--with the government knowing better than the rest of America, knowing what health care ought to be given and shouldn't be given--all of a sudden what we see is the government knows best, people don't know--her life would have been lost because she is one of those 1,900.

So I understand, having practiced medicine, having lived that life as a physician--taken care of people without health insurance and on Medicaid and Medicare and those worrying about losing their insurance when they lose their job--the implications. Yet I took care of all of them, as did all my partners. We dealt with all these people, trying to help each and every one of them, regardless of their ability to pay. It is why we need health reform in this country that actually works on availability of care, affordability of care, access to care, and quality care. This bill that I voted against last night doesn't address the needs of the country. It fails time and time again.

The President made a number of promises--a number of promises--to the people of this country. He said people would see their insurance premiums drop by $2,500. Instead, the budget officers say: Oh, no, it is going to go up $2,100 for a family. Has the President not read the bill, not read the responses that have come from the Congressional Budget Office? Does he not see the difference there of $4,600 per family?

The President said this wouldn't add a dime to the deficit. Well, it is going to add a lot of dimes to the deficit. This is going to add $1 trillion to the deficit. He said: Oh no, will not at all. Yet they didn't do the doctor fix--the Medicare doctor fix. Now the Speaker of the House says: Oh, we will handle that in January or February for $250 billion, since they are not going to pay for it here.

The President said: Taxes will not go up on anybody making under $250,000 for a family. There are a dozen taxes in the bill that will be passed on to the American people. Now any teenager who goes to a tanning salon is going to get taxed 10 percent. I don't think any of those people are making over $250,000 apiece.

The President said: People will not lose their coverage. Oh, they are going to lose their coverage. Many will lose the coverage they have, coverage they like, because they have cut 11 million people on Medicare Advantage--a program people like, a program my patients like. People whom I have taken care of like it because there is actually an advantage to the program. It is a program that deals specifically with preventive care. It is coordinated care. That is what happens with Medicare Advantage. The President doesn't like. They will lose their coverage.

Of course, the President said we wouldn't see any cuts to Medicare. Yet the bill says $500 billion of cuts to Medicare for the seniors who depend upon Medicare.

The President said we would have an open, honest debate. He said C- SPAN would be there covering the debates. Those of us with the most experience--the two physicians, with 50 years in the practice of medicine and taking care of families in this country--were completely excluded--completely excluded--even though we offered to go to the White House and read the bill with the President.

So what do we have? What is the verdict of the American people on the vote that was taken in the dark of night--at 1 a.m. in the morning--a Monday morning vote, taken at 1 a.m. so the American people, hopefully, according to the Democrats, would be asleep and not see what they were doing to the American people? The verdict is the American people are overwhelmingly opposed--opposed--to the bill the Senate last night voted 60 to 40 on cloture and decided to move ahead on.

The deals in the bill are absolutely astonishing: $100 million for a hospital in a State we still can't identify and no one is claiming, a payoff to one State, a payoff to another State, and then the cuts in Medicare for our seniors who depend on Medicare, a program that is going to go broke in the year 2017--not to save Medicare. Instead of saving Medicare, to start a whole new government program.

I see my colleague from the State of Tennessee is standing, and he has worked closely with people on Medicare in his home State. He is familiar with that and with Medicaid and he knows how difficult it is for patients to get to see a doctor. With the cuts in Medicare, it is going to make it harder for those hospitals to stay alive and open in your community, and for patients to get the kind of care they need.

So I would ask my friend from Tennessee: Are there concerns you have about the cuts to Medicare and how they are going to impact on the care of people in your home State?

Mr. President, what you are hearing is what we are noticing as Republicans take a look at the bill. I saw the majority whip come onto the Senate floor a few minutes ago. Yesterday he was on the floor and said the Republicans have not offered amendments to this bill, so I brought four amendments yesterday. The chairman of the Finance Committee objected.

One had to do with letting people on Medicare keep their own doctors or choose who they want to go to see for a doctor. The purpose of this what was called ``Medicare Patient Freedom to Contract'' is it ``allows Medicare patients the right to privately contract for medical services with the physician of their choice.''

I ask my friend from Tennessee, who has just spoken about Medicare, wouldn't he think that patients who have been promised that they can keep the health care they want should be able, or at least this Senate ought to be able to debate an amendment about allowing Medicare patients the right to privately contract for medical services with the physician of their choice? Wouldn't that seem fair?

Another amendment--I see my colleague from South Dakota is here--is an amendment I offered on the floor of the Senate yesterday to protect individuals from skyrocketing insurance premiums. You may recall the President of the United States said premiums--families in Wyoming and other States, families across the country--health insurance premiums would go down $2,500 per family. Yet what I read and studied, and as I look at this, it says to me it looks like premiums will go up instead of going down. Instead of going down $2,500, they will go up $2,100. I think for 90 percent of the families in this country, their insurance premiums will either stay the same or go up more because the bill is passed than if we did nothing.

I ask my friend from South Dakota--I know he has been bringing forth information; I know he put a chart together on it--would there not be some value in allowing the Senate to discuss an amendment because this amendment basically said let the State insurance commissioners--because every State has an insurance commissioner--let the State insurance commissioner take a look at what happens to insurance premiums in their State. If the insurance commissioner finds that the premiums have gone up faster than the Consumer Price Index, then in that State where those premiums have gone up faster than the Consumer Price Index, all of these laws and regulations and rules would no longer apply. The mandates, the rating rules, the benefit mandate, all of those included in the Reid bill would not apply.

Wouldn't that make sense, I ask my colleague from South Dakota? What is the Senator's understanding of this and should not we be allowed to at least discuss and debate that as a Senate when we have been promised as citizens of this country that premiums would go down?

(Mrs. HAGAN assumed the Chair.)

I try to stay in close touch with the people of Wyoming. I go home every weekend. We have not been able to do that the last couple of weekends so I have had telephone townhall meetings. I know the Senator from Tennessee has done the same. There is a way people can push a button to indicate whether they are in favor or against. Ninety-three percent of the people of Wyoming are opposed to the bill the Democrats are trying to jam through in the middle of the night. I know the Senator from Tennessee has recently had telephone townhall meetings with his constituents because he was not able to be home personally with them. Maybe the Senator wants to share with us some of the experiences he has had and some of the messages he has heard from the fine folks of Tennessee.

Our friends at the University of Minnesota said that if people were allowed to shop across State lines, shop around for insurance that is better for them and their family and their personal situation, we would have 12 million more Americans insured today than we have now, without a single page of legislation. That is all we need to do: allow people to shop across State lines. But when we talk about and look at this bill, which has mandates, there is going to be a mandate for people to buy insurance.

One of the amendments I tried to offer yesterday that I thought made a lot of sense for young people was that for individuals under the age of 30 or for those making less than $30,000 a year, they would be exempted from the mandate, the individual mandate that they have to buy insurance.

I was involved in a discussion on a college campus in a debate on this topic, and in talking to the students, they were astonished to learn--because they were not focused on this; they were focused on their studies and working--they were astonished that they are all going to have to buy, as a matter of law, if this passes, health insurance immediately, and if they do not, they are going to have to start paying a tax or a fine, depending on how you describe it.

So in my amendment, I said, for those up to the age of 30 and making under $30,000 a year, let's exempt them from the mandate. That amendment was rejected.

Then I said, well, if they are going to do this and force these people to buy insurance, and if they do not buy insurance, they have to pay these excessive fines or taxes--or however you want to define it--I said, how about that the penalties these people would have to pay, if they choose not to buy insurance--because it is going to be a lot cheaper to not buy insurance and to just pay the tax--what if that money could go into a personal account so that person can then use the money to then buy insurance? So it would be kind of like a savings account, so the money would be there for them to buy insurance. So individual mandate penalties would accrue not to the government but in a personal account, so they could purchase health insurance within a 3- year period. The money would accumulate. That amendment was rejected as well.

So we have lots of ideas, good ideas, to help people with affordable care, available care, and yet one after another they have been rejected in a step-by-step process to try to find ways to solve the health care crisis we know faces the country. All 100 Members of the Senate know we need to find ways to make health care more affordable and to work on high-quality care.

It has been fascinating to see the dean of the Johns Hopkins Medical Center and the dean of Harvard and those who have looked at this bill closely say that the people who are supporting this are living in collective denial, that this bill is doomed to fail, that it will raise the cost of care, not lower the cost of care, and will do nothing to improve quality.

When you take a look at what the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has done, which is the group that oversees Medicare, they have said that 10 years from now, if this goes through, you are still going to have 24 million uninsured, you are going to have 18 million more on Medicaid, the program the Senator from Tennessee appropriately referred to as having a bus ticket for a bus that is not going to come, because that is what has happened. Half the doctors in the country do not take care of patients on Medicaid because the reimbursement is so low that they cannot afford to continue to care for those people. Five million people will lose the insurance they get through work, and health care costs will go up. The cost curve will go up instead of going down. But the whole purpose of this was to help drive the cost down.

Then, additionally, they said that 20 percent of providers--20 percent of the providers--of health care in this country--and that includes physicians, nurse practitioners, medical clinics, hospitals-- 20 percent of the providers in this country, under this plan, 10 years from now, will be unprofitable, unable to keep their doors open.

So we have heard about sweetheart deals. We have heard about taxes going up. We have heard about Medicare cuts. And what we have seen is one promise after another made by the President that has been unfulfilled and actually reversed by the bill we see ahead of us.

So I ask my friend from Tennessee, wouldn't he agree that in the next 2 days, the best thing for the country would be to have this bill not pass the Senate and instead go back in a step-by-step way and regain the trust of the American people?

Mr. President, I just heard my colleague from Montana talk about jobs that are going to be lost, and the jobs are going to be lost if this bill passes.

There was an article in the Wall Street Journal that quoted the Federation of Independent Business, a wonderful organization that works so well with small businesses in this country. Their prediction is that if this passes--if this passes--the mandates in this bill will mandate that employers provide

health care. This is going to cost 1.6 million jobs by 2013.

Then I got an e-mail from a friend in Dubois, WY, who says that if this bill passes, he knows he is going to lay off workers--quite to the contrary of what my colleague from Montana says when he says it is going to help keep people working.

At a time when the country is experiencing 10 percent unemployment, at a time when the people's No. 1 concern is jobs and the economy of this country, we are now embarking on an additional spending spree when our national debt is at the highest levels ever.

I disagree with my colleague from Montana. I think, contrary to what he suggested--he said: I am not just blowing smoke--I believe we will lose jobs if this passes.

When I am finished with our comments on this side.

I also heard the majority whip come to the floor and say the Republicans have only offered four amendments. I offered 19 amendments. So I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that I be allowed to call up my amendment No. 3148 to protect individuals facing skyrocketing premiums.

The purpose of this amendment is----

Regular order.

So we have a 383-page amendment brought to the floor, read on the floor yesterday. I worked my way through it, along with my staff--383 pages. And the majority whip comes to the floor and says the Republicans have not offered amendments. I just tried to offer one, unsuccessfully, and it has been objected to.

So I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that I be allowed to call up amendment No. 3153 to protect young, healthy persons from increased insurance premiums.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending--and these are--I just heard the comments--these are amendments that are aimed to keep the President's words that we will get insurance premiums under control, people will notice their premiums go down, that we will make it better for people, easier for people. The Democrats ought to accept all these amendments because they are intended to do just that.

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that I be allowed to call up amendment No. 3146. This amendment deals with individual mandate penalties and creates personal accounts for young people who are penalized and they have to pay a fee and a fine if they do not obey the individual mandate, and that would go into an account for them so they could use that money to buy their own health insurance.

Regular order.

Mr. President, I understand this is going to improve Medicare. I heard the chairman of the Finance Committee say this is going to make Medicare stronger. I believe Medicare patients ought to have the freedom to contract and the right to privately contract for medical services with the physician of their choice.

If, as the chairman of the Finance Committee has now recommended in his statement, it doesn't work out the way it is suggested--I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and I be allowed to call up amendment No. 2984, Medicare patient freedom to contract.

Mr. President, that is why I am not surprised when I read polls that say negatives abound in polls about this bill, written in secret, brought to us just a little over 24 hours ago with a 383- page amendment, one that is now not going to be allowed to have any amendments offered.

I just offered four different amendments aimed to strengthen the health care system of the country. Each time, the chairman of the Finance Committee is not even interested in hearing what the amendments are about.

The people of Wyoming say: Don't cut my Medicare, don't raise my taxes, don't make things worse for me, especially in these economic times. This is a bill that is going to cut people's Medicare by $500 billion, it is going to raise their taxes, and it is going to make things worse for the people of Wyoming and this country. That is why the front page of a local newspaper has a story, ``Doctor Shortage Will Worsen.'' Great concerns.

Even the Actuary of Medicare and Medicaid says that if all of this goes through--and this is before we had the 383 new pages--if all of this goes through, one in five hospitals is going to have significant problems within the next 10 years and one in five doctors' offices may have to close. That is why this health bill is scary.

For anyone who has not had an opportunity to read Dr. Coburn's, Senator Coburn's article in the Wall Street Journal, an editorial, Thursday, December 17, I recommend the editorial to them. It is titled ``The Health Bill Is Scary.''

I ask unanimous consent to have this editorial printed in the Record.

Mr. President, here you have it. We have a bill that is going to be voted on at 1 in the morning on a Monday morning. Why? Because the people who are proposing the bill are scared to let the American people know what is in it. That is why public opinion has soured on this proposal to the point that it is at the lowest level ever, with just 32 percent of Americans in favor, just less than one in three. Less than one in three Americans supports what is being proposed.

I believe each one of my amendments would have raised the level of support, would have made this better for American taxpayers, for American citizens, for American patients, for the patients who depend on our health care system, for the providers who give the care, and for the people who pay for it.

I see my colleague from North Carolina ready to rise. I am so happy to be joined on the Senate floor by these two wonderful colleagues who have a great bill of their own that has gotten very little hearing, very little opportunity, certainly no opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.

As my Senate colleague from North Carolina gets his microphone ready to go, I will say that to be held to a false deadline of Christmas Day on something as important as a bill that is going to impact the health of every person in this country, impact one-sixth of the economy of the United States--it is much more important that we get it right than that it gets rushed through with speed and secrecy, with not being able to offer amendments when a 383-page amendment by Senator Reid is dropped on the table yesterday and a vote is going to be held at 1 in the morning on a Monday morning.

It is astonishing that we do not have bipartisan support, people working together to find solutions. It is astonishing when you have a body such as this of 100 Members, 2 of whom are physicians with 50 years of experience practicing medicine, working with the system, fighting against insurance companies and fighting against the government, two physicians who know that you do not want anybody between you and your physician, you do not want a government bureaucrat, you do not want an insurance bureaucrat, you do not want anyone. But what we are looking at is the worst of all possible worlds.

I ask my colleague from North Carolina if he has some additional thoughts.

Madam President, I agree completely. As a practicing physician taking care of people in Wyoming for 25 years, I have great concerns about this bill, what we know for sure is in it, which is $500 billion of cuts in Medicare to our patients who depend on Medicare, and that is a system that we know is going broke. That is why there is a front-page story in one of the Wyoming papers: ``Doctors Shortage Will Worsen.'' It is going to be harder on rural communities and others around the country if this goes through, and we know that because the folks who have looked at the parts of the bill we have seen have said that one-fifth of the hospitals in this country will be--if they are able to keep their doors open--operating at a significant loss 10 years from now. That is not the best future for health care in our country.

I had a telephone townhall meeting. People from all around the State of Wyoming were calling in and asking me questions, and they asked: What is in the bill? What is coming to the Senate?

We don't know yet. We haven't seen it.

They said: Well, when you find out, come home and let's have some more townhall meetings so we can have some input.

That is what we ought to do as a Senate. We ought to know what is in the bill and then let us go home and share it with our friends so they know. Because right now what the American people have seen of this bill, the 2,000-page bill, they rightly believe this will increase the cost of their own personal care.

Following along what the Senators are saying, that is why the support of the American people for the bill is at an all-time low. It is at the lowest level of support ever. According to this NBC poll, fewer than one out of three Americans support this bill. They don't know all that is in it, but they don't like what they see so far, because they believe, in overwhelming numbers, that the cost of their own care will go up, that this will add to the deficit, it will hurt the economy, and their health care would actually be better if we pass nothing.

So why would the American people support a bill that is going to cost them more personally and when their health care will get worse? That is not the value the American people have ever wanted.

That is what I hear from patients at home, and it is what I hear on telephone town meetings. That is what we are hearing in all of our States. This is what the American people continue to say: Do not pass this bill.

As our leader said, we do need health care reform, and Dr. Coburn certainly knows that. But it is not this reform that we need.

The American people are saying: Don't cut my Medicare, don't raise my taxes, don't make things worse than they are right now, and this bill cuts Medicare, raises taxes, and for people depending on a health care system in this country this makes things worse.

I am grateful to the Senator for bringing this up. I had a telephone townhall meeting last night, and this specific motion the Senator is bringing today came up with great praise from the people of Wyoming who said: She is doing it right, leading the good fight. After I answer the question, I will ask: How do we know the money is even going to be there? That is the question that came up in my telephone townhall. People of Wyoming are concerned, if this passes, it will make health care harder for people in rural States, such as Wyoming and Montana. My colleague from Montana is on the floor. The doctor shortage will worsen. This is the headline on the front page by the Wyoming Tribune Eagle: ``Doctor Shortage Will Worsen.'' There is a lot of concern for the folks in Wyoming and communities where there is a sole

hospital, a sole physician provider trying to recruit nurses and physician assistants and nurse practitioners. The doctor shortage will worsen as we see a situation where they will be cutting Medicare $500 billion, raising taxes $500 billion, and people who had insurance on this telephone townhall were very concerned that their insurance premiums are going to go up, in spite of the fact that the President has promised families would see insurance rates go down. We know those rates are going to go way up for people who buy their own insurance. People say: Don't cut Medicare, don't raise taxes, don't make matters worse than they are right now. For the people of Wyoming, they are afraid that matters will be made worse.

The Washington Post had a major poll in the paper today specifically asking seniors the question about Medicare. We are talking about health care quality, the quality of care. The question is: Do you think health care reform will strengthen the Medicare Program or weaken the Medicare Program? They asked specifically and broke it down to seniors. Only 1 out of 8 seniors in this poll said it actually would get better. But the rest are saying: No, it is going to get worse. The seniors who watch this most carefully know what it means to try to get health care under the Medicare Program, a program that we know is going broke. Yet they are taking all this money not to save Medicare but to start a new program. We know the quality of care is going to go down. That is what the people of my home State and the people I talked to from around the country are concerned about. They are delighted the Senator offered this motion.

I did a poll in the townhall meeting: Are you for or against the bill? Some of them say: What is in it? We don't know. Which is exactly what the junior Senator, a Democrat from Indiana, said in today's national press release: We are all being urged to vote for something, and we don't know the details of what is in it. The junior Senator from Indiana is a Democrat. He doesn't know what is in it. The people of Wyoming don't know what is in it. But they do know taxes start immediately, benefits not for 4 years. That is why they are happy you offered this motion. They want to know: How do we know the money will be there 4 years from now?

Mr. President, I ask my colleague this: I was reading a national publication yesterday, and the headline is ``Making Nightmare Out Of Health Care.'' It says taxes will go up. This also says the proposed overhaul contains, at last count, 13 different tax hikes. It goes on to say the Joint Tax Committee said that for any one person who may end up paying lower taxes, there will be nearly four times as many--close to 70 million people--who will pay higher taxes.

That is why I have been waiting for a week now to vote for the Crapo motion. This was introduced last Tuesday. A whole week has passed, and the Democrats have been filibustering and preventing us from voting on this very important amendment, which the American people agree with-- that we ought to eliminate these taxes and stick with what the President promised the American people.

As a result of the President's promises, I read a recent CNN poll. It says that 61 percent of Americans oppose this bill the Democrats are proposing. It gets to the specific question of tax increases and the President's promise. It says:

Do you think your taxes would or would not increase if this

bill passes?

And 85 percent of the Americans polled said they believe their taxes will go up.

I ask my friend from Idaho--it seems to me the American people get it; they realize they are going to be hit hard with this $500 billion of tax increases, 13 different taxes, which will get put on the backs of the hard-working people of our country.

Why is it that we are not allowed to vote on this motion? I will vote for it. I appreciate the Senator from Idaho bringing this motion forward because, clearly, the support of the American people is behind him.

The Senator from Idaho had a picture of a woman making $50,000 and the health benefits that resulted. My concern is not just her taxes; my concern is also her job. It is also a fact that she would still have a job.

What I hear from the people of Wyoming is: Don't raise my taxes, don't cut my Medicare, don't make matters worse than they are right now in this economy where we have 10-percent unemployment.

Like the Senator from South Dakota, I am a member of the National Federation of Independent Business. I have been a member for years. They are telling us that as these taxes are raised and collected in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, in 2010 we are going to lose 400,000 jobs in America, and in 2011 another 400,000, and another 400,000 after that, and another 400,000, as the taxes continue to be collected. So we would be losing in this country 1.6 million jobs as a result of these increased taxes all Americans are going to have to pay.

I ask the Senator from Idaho, isn't it even more critical that we pass his motion in addition to the fact that we do not want these taxes? They are going to hurt our economy across the board.

I have a couple of points I wish to add because I think you made a point, as does Senator

Johanns. The concern is are there going to be enough doctors to take care of these patients. We are talking about 18 million more people placed on the Medicaid rolls, which is a huge unfunded mandate to the States. Having practiced in Wyoming for 25 years, in Casper, taking care of families, taking care of lots of patients on Medicaid, it becomes harder and harder for doctors to take new patients.

There is an article in this week's Wyoming Tribune Eagle: Doctor Shortage Will Worsen. As many as a third of today's practicing physicians will retire by the time all of these additional 18 million get on to Medicaid.

There is an article in the Wall Street Journal and it talks about a report from a research group, nonprofit, based in Washington, the Center for Studying Health System Change, and it says, as the Senator has previously stated:

Nearly half of all the doctors polled said that they had

stopped accepting or limited the number of new Medicaid

patients. That is because many Medicaid programs, straining

under surging costs, are balancing their budgets by freezing

or reducing payments to doctors. That, in turn, is driving

many doctors, particularly specialists, out of the program.

For people in Wyoming, whether in Cokeville or Kemmerer or Casper, in all of these communities we are looking to try to recruit physicians. It is making it much more difficult when we look at this health care proposal the Democrats have, which is going to raise taxes, cut Medicare, cause premiums to go up for people who have insurance, and one of the reasons is because it underpays so much for things such as Medicaid. Yet they are talking about putting another 18 million people on Medicaid.

This morning I called one of the offices of a physician group in Wyoming and said, What are the differences in terms of Medicaid versus regular insurance? For something like carpal tunnel, we know about overuse of the wrist and carpal tunnel surgery where the normal fee is about $2,000 for the surgery. Medicaid itself reimburses less than $500. Medicare--they are talking about putting a lot more people on Medicare--reimburses less than $400.

It is very difficult if you are trying to run an office and you pay all of the overhead expenses and see everybody who wants to see you to do it on the fees alone that you get from Medicare or Medicaid. That is why I have great concerns. If we have all these people on Medicaid, will it actually help them get care?

I think this Democratic proposal we are looking at fails. It fails in terms of getting costs under control. It fails in terms of increasing quality or increasing access, but those are the things we need in health care reform.

I see my colleague from Florida is here, who has experience, having run a Governor's office as Chief of Staff. He may want to add to this discussion as well. I can't see any way this would be sustainable. As a matter of fact, a report that came out recently from the CMS, the group that oversees all of this, said it is not sustainable, that one out of five hospitals by the year 2020 and one out of five doctor groups will basically have to go out of business and close their doors.

It seems, as we are on the Senate floor talking--

It seems to me, as we are on the Senate floor discussing the issue wide open--any American can come in here and listen to us--hidden behind closed doors is the other party, maybe sharing what is in the secret negotiations, maybe not, because it sounds as if a number of their members don't know.

What I do know from practicing medicine for 25 years and taking care of families around the State of Wyoming is that people depend on Medicare for their coverage. There are seniors who depend on Medicare and Medicare Advantage. The reason they call it Medicare Advantage is because there are advantages to being in it. It coordinates care. It helps with preventative care, which is not part of the regular Medicare Program.

Yesterday, I heard my colleague from Arizona say there are those who want to shut down Medicare Advantage--AARP, he said--because they are the ones to benefit and profit if, in fact, Medicare Advantage is lost to the seniors in this country. Madam President, 11 million Americans depend on Medicare Advantage. Yet they are losing because of a vote this body took. This body voted to strip $120 billion away from our folks who depend on Medicare Advantage.

I know the Senator from Arizona has another important point he wants to make.

I have great concerns about the health care availability for the people of our great country. This is a front-page story in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on the 13th: ``Doctor shortage will worsen.'' That is what I am worried about. I am worried about the patients at home. I am worried about the folks in Arizona, Alabama, and Tennessee. ``Doctor shortage will worsen.'' ``It is estimated that as many as one-third of today's practicing physicians will retire by 2020'' and provider shortages will continue to increase. It says that based on health care so-called reforms they are proposing, the strain on certainly Wyoming's physician shortage will even possibly lead to longer wait time for appointments as patients travel even farther for care.

As I look at this bill that raises taxes $500 billion, cuts Medicare $500 billion, and causes people who already have insurance--insurance they like but they are concerned about the cost--they will see the cost of their premiums going

up. There is very little in this bill that I think the American people would be interested in having for themselves.

The President has made a number of promises. He said: I won't add a dime to the deficit. Eighty percent of Americans do not believe him. Recent poll, CNN: 80 percent of Americans don't believe the President on that point. How about taxes? With taxes, he said he won't add a dime to your taxes. Eighty-five percent of Americans don't believe him there. They believe their taxes are going to go up. Yet they don't believe the quality of their care will be better.

So when we talk about a bipartisan solution, we want to improve access to care, we want to get costs under control. This bill raises costs.

It is interesting because what you are doing now is fundamentally talking about the core of the bill, the core that cannot be changed as they drop this or add that. It is the core that led the dean of Harvard Medical School to say this bill, the core, is going to make spending worse. It is going to drive up spending and it is going to not improve quality.

This physician at Harvard has said people who are supporting this are living in collective denial. It is no surprise that the American people are very skeptical, very suspicious. It is why the dean at Johns- Hopkins Medical Center this past week wrote an editorial that said ``this bill will have catastrophic effects'' and it will do more harm than good. We are talking about the health care of the people of our country.

That is what we are hearing from the deans of medical schools. It is what I hear at home all the time. People in Wyoming read this and say this is wrong. This is going to make it harder for doctors to practice, harder for us to recruit doctors, harder for hospitals to stay open. We are saying in Wyoming--the Washington Post said it on Saturday, ``Medicare Cuts Could Hurt Hospitals, Expert Warns.'' We are seeing that affecting the quality of care. We are seeing it in terms of will we have a doctor shortage? Will that worsen? We are going to deal with that at home, but people are seeing it all across the country because fundamentally this bill is flawed. It does not address the sort of concerns we have, and we are trying to get costs under control. This will drive up costs. We are trying to help improve the quality of care. This will not improve the quality of care. We are hoping to improve access for patients. This will make it harder. This will make longer waiting lines, this will limit people's choices, it will limit care in the rural community. I know about those in Wyoming. You know about them in Alabama.

When we read the report by the Actuaries from the committee that oversees Medicare--and they didn't rush to do this. They are talking about the bill that now has been out, the 2,000-page bill that has been out for people to read for 3 weeks. It took them 3 weeks to do the report because they wanted to do a very thorough evaluation and they looked at it, and they said we think one out of five hospitals in the United States will end up closing within 5 years and one out of five doctors offices will close if this goes through. This is what the Democrats are proposing, something that is going to lead to one in five hospitals closing, one in five doctors offices shutting their doors, saying we can't continue to keep the doors open under these circumstances.

This report has said the whole effort to drive down the costs of care is wrong. At its core it is wrong; that the cost of care is going up if we pass this bill that is ahead of us now, regardless of the little changes they may make at the periphery. At the core this is going to drive up the cost of care. At the core it is going to cut our seniors who depend on Medicare for their health care.

Medicare is going broke. This is not going in any way to help that. It is going to make it worse. Then if they try to put more people into that Medicare ship that is already sinking, that is going to make it worse as well.

Plus the way they try to solve this, to say we are going to cover all these new people, many of them, the majority of them are going to be put on Medicaid--Medicaid, a program that Governors across the political spectrum have all said is a failed program, a program that is driving the States into bankruptcy, a program that Governors call the mother of all unfunded mandates--that is the way they are trying to get the costs down, by putting the cost on the States.

It is still the same people of America who have to pay those bills, whether you are paying your taxes here or there. Plus they are going to raise taxes. This report from the Medicare Services Group looked at that and said all of those taxes are going to go up, $500 billion in taxes. Of course those are going to get passed on, so people of all different income brackets in the United States, all people are going to get hit with those taxes. Some people may see a little benefit, but by 4 to 1, four times as many people are going to get taxed as people who are going to see any benefits.

We are looking at a program, a core fundamental of a bill that to me is fatally flawed--fatally flawed--that will raise prices, raise insurance premiums for people who have insurance, cut Medicare and raise taxes. And you say, how could people support that?

We need the solution to improve quality, get costs under control and improve access. This does not do any of those things. Plus it starts collecting taxes, as my friend from South Dakota said--it starts collecting taxes in 3 weeks but yet doesn't give services for 4 years.

I would like to ask my colleague, we are talking about a job-killing bill, and we are not talking about a couple of jobs. The National Federation of Independent Business estimates that mandating that employers provide health care will cost 1.7 million jobs over the next 4 years, between now and 2013. We are not talking about a couple jobs, 1.6 million jobs when our unemployment rate is already 10 percent. When I look at this as a job-killing bill, bad for our economy at a time when the No. 1 issue I hear about at home are jobs and the economy, that is another fundamental reason to take a look at a bill that at its core is fatally flawed and say: Don't do that right now. Our economy can't afford it. The jobless rate, we cannot afford to see that number get worse.

Mr. President. Wyoming has lost a statesman. On Sunday, December 13, 2009, Ambassador Thomas F. Stroock passed away at the age of 84. Tom once said, ``I don't know why God gave me this wonderful life. Good fortune, I guess.'' Those of us who had the benefit of knowing Tom are certain that his wonderful life was a result of his determination, toughness, and confidence.

Tom served our Nation as a marine in WWII. In 1948, he graduated from Yale University and then found his way to Wyoming. His first job was as a roughneck on an oil rig. The following year, the lovely Marta Freyre de Andrade agreed to be his wife.

Tom was a man who saw possibilities and opportunities. He started his own oil and gas properties firm in 1952, Stroock Leasing Corporation and Alpha Exploration, Inc. It grew to be one of Wyoming's most respected and successful oil and gas businesses.

While he was busy with his successful energy endeavors, Tom still had much to give Wyoming and our Nation. He served for 16 years in the Wyoming Legislature. He was chairman of the local school board, as well as the Wyoming School Boards Association and Wyoming Higher Education Council. Tom used his energy and business acumen to lead the industry though his service on the Wyoming Natural Gas Pipeline Authority and the Enhanced Oil Recovery Commission.

In 1989, his good friend and college classmate, President George H. W. Bush, tapped him to be the U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Guatemala. It was a tough assignment. Guatemala was in the midst of a decades-long civil war. Tom approached this job as he did all of his other challenges--with forthrightness and courage. Ambassador Stroock provided challenge and support to our friends in Guatemala as they worked toward a more stable economy, a decrease in political violence and perhaps most notable to the outside world, increased internal safety measures. Tom helped bring about changes that greatly impacted the daily lives of Guatemalans.

Tom Stroock's accomplishments were numerous. Throughout his lifetime of leadership and service, Marta was at his side. The couple, married for 60 years, served as a pillar of the Casper, WY, community. Their daughters Margie, Sandy, Betty, and Anne, are carrying on their father's commitment to business and public service.

Mr. President, while we are saddened by the passing of Ambassador Thomas F. Stroock, we are left with the example of a life well lived.

I thank my colleague from South Dakota because South Dakota and Wyoming are very similar in many ways. Both have rural areas all spread across the State, with people needing health care.

And I have seen it. I have seen the concerns from people, but also from small businesses. My colleagues mentioned the National Federation of Independent Business. A lot of businesses in Wyoming are members of that organization, and rightfully so, because small business is the engine that drives the economy. They are the job creators in this country.

I see these taxes--4 years of taxes--before the first health care services are given as going to hurt our small businesses in Wyoming. It is going to hurt small businesses all around the country.

In one of the morning papers, it talks about the plans that are being presented by the Democrats, with all the increases in health costs--the fines, the taxes, that this will cost 1.6 million jobs before the first health care services are given in 2013--1.6 million jobs across the country. That affects all of our States.

At a time when unemployment is at 10 percent, at a time when Investor's Business Daily, this morning, says: ``Job Cuts Hit Hardest on Low-Skill Men; Outlook Is Gloomy,'' at a time when we are looking at an outlook which they call in the headlines of the front page of their paper ``gloomy,'' why would we say: Lets increase taxes on Americans, and then cut Medicare from our seniors who depend upon Medicare, and lets not improve services for 4 more years?

It is no surprise then that the Republican leader would come to the floor and say we have now reached an all-time high of American people opposed, completely opposed, to this piece of legislation. The Republican leader read a poll that said 61 percent of Americans now oppose this bill. Well, it is because they are learning more about it. The more people of America see what is in this bill, the more they realize they cannot believe any of the promises that were made by the Democrats, by the administration, the promises that were made, and the polling shows it.

Two specific questions that were asked in the poll were two specific promises that the President made. One is, he said he will not sign a bill if it adds one dime to the deficit. OK. We do not want to add to the deficit, although the Democrats want us to vote this weekend on raising the debt level by well over $1 trillion. And why? Because they cannot control the spending. But the question was, do you think the Federal budget deficit would or would not increase if this bill is passed--when the President said it will not raise it by a dime?

Mr. President, 79 percent of Americans said this is going to increase the deficit. Only 19 percent believe what the President is telling the American people.

Then the question of taxes. The President said: My plan will not raise your taxes one penny. What do the American people think when the President speaks? Question: Do you think your taxes would or would not increase? This is the CNN poll the Republican leader just talked about, done earlier this month: Do you think your taxes would or would not increase? The number of people who believe their taxes will increase if this passes, 85 percent. Eighty-five percent of the American people believe they are not getting it straight from the President of the United States. Only 14 percent believe him when he says he will not raise taxes a penny.

So we have the Democrats bringing forth a bill--to me, as a practicing physician in Wyoming, taking care of families in Wyoming, talking to doctors, talking to patients, having townhall meetings in the State, having telephone townhall meetings, the Democrats bring forth a bill that the people of Wyoming and the people of America realize is going to cost them more, is going to add to the deficit, and hurt the health care they receive.

Eighty-five percent of Americans are happy with the health care they receive. They do not like the cost. They do not like the price. But this bill we are looking at is going to raise premiums for people who have insurance. The President promised that for families all across America, their premiums would drop by $2,500 per family. But if you go out there trying to buy insurance, if this bill passes, you are going to end up paying $2,100 more than you would otherwise if nothing passes. That is why the majority of Americans say we would be better off if nothing passed. That is what the American people say. The Democrats seem to be ignoring the voice of the American people. At a time of 10 percent unemployment, at a time when the National Federation of Independent Business points out that we will lose over a million more jobs if this passes, we should be looking at ways to help small businesses hire more workers, hire more people.

The small businesses continue to be the engines that drive up the economy. Senator Collins from Maine was on the floor and gave an explanation of some of the taxes on all of the small businesses in Maine. If you have 10 employees and you go to an 11th employee, if this bill passes, that small business gets penalized for growing their business.

We want to have an opportunity to hire people.

She also explained that if we actually try to work ways through small businesses to give raises to people, those businesses get penalized from a tax standpoint.

As I look at this health care bill, we need health care reform that is going to bring down the cost of care. This bill is going to raise the cost of care for all Americans. It is going to hurt our seniors by taking almost $500 billion out of Medicare, a program on which the seniors depend. It is going to raise $500 billion in taxes which is going to hurt the engine that drives the economy. It is going to hurt small business. It is going to cause people to lose their jobs. I think it is foolish for people to continue to support this bill. It makes no sense.

I listened to my colleague from South Dakota who showed the chart that says 21 days until the tax increases begin but almost 4 years until the benefits begin. What do the people in South Dakota have to say about this?

Mr. President, I would respond to my colleague from Texas that I think she is absolutely right. The more people learn about this bill and the details of the bill, the more the American people oppose this bill.

My colleague from Texas made a wonderful point yesterday and again today when she said if they start this

tax collecting right now, do we even know the money is going to be there 4 years from now to start supplying the services. There was a story in today's USA TODAY talking about unemployment in this country, and the story says:

Public Gain, Private Pain. For Federal workers there is a

hiring boom. The Federal Government is adding jobs this year

at a rate of nearly 10,000 per month.

We have read about all of the different bureaucracies that will be brought into play if this passes: over 70 new bureaucracies, 150,000 more Federal employees, more Washington bureaucrats to make rules and regulations that affect the people of America. It talks about the 10- percent unemployment in the country. It says, it is the new Federal jobs--not the small business jobs, the Federal jobs--that have helped bring down the unemployment rate from 10.2 to 10 percent. It is the Federal jobs.

I am looking at all of this money that Washington is going to collect. I used to think it was a big gimmick so they could say, Well, we have kept the number under $900 billion. I still believe it is a big gimmick, but I am concerned they are going to spend the money as well so the money won't be there, which is the point of the Senator from Texas, who has been very fiscally conservative, out there always making sure we are not spending the taxpayer money in any way that is not a wise use of the money.

Is that one of the concerns the Senator has? I know the Senator from South Dakota has similar concerns: Will the money be there if they are going to hire more Washington bureaucrats, which is what USA TODAY says?

As my friend knows, small communities----

To follow up, the small communities of this Nation have great concerns about these cuts in Medicare because the small community hospitals that stay open know they have to live within their means. When Medicare cuts total over almost $\1/2\ trillion, it is the small communities that have just one hospital in a frontier medicine mode taking care of people who may live 50, 100, or 150 miles away, those hospitals' very survivability is at stake.

That is why we cannot pass this bill, which will hurt seniors, raise taxes on the American people, cost jobs, and cause people who have insurance to have their premiums raised. For all these reasons, this bill is the wrong prescription for America.

My answer to that is they are objective. That is why we did not get this report--I have the same copy my colleague from Arizona has. This just came out, and the reason is because they wanted to take the time to study the bill which they got in the middle of November. So they needed the time to actually go through point by point what the implications were.

The Senator talked about the one segment where they talk about they ``face a significant risk of failure.'' They actually go on to say: ``This will eventually trigger an insurance death spiral.'' This is for people who depend upon Medicare for their health care.

There is an Associated Press story out today that says this provides a sober warning--a sober warning--today to Members of the Senate. This is a time when the Senate raised the debt limit in this country by over $1 trillion. As the old saying goes--I say to my friend who served in the Navy--they are spending money like drunken sailors, and yet they want to keep the bar open longer. They want to increase the debt at a time when our Nation cannot afford it, when we have 10 percent unemployment.

The folks who know Medicare the best and can look at this objectively and share with the American people what their beliefs are as to what the impact is going to be say that is going to be devastating for patients who rely on Medicare for their health care--our seniors--and devastating for small community hospitals. I see the former Governor, now Senator of Nebraska, is here, and he knows, as I do from Wyoming, the impact on our small community hospitals.

But as the Senator from Tennessee said, this is all being done in a back room. We are not privy to the newest changes, which I think are actually going to make matters worse. The New York Times today says Democrats' new ideas would be even more expensive. Questions exist about the affordability. What we are dealing with is a situation that is unsustainable, and that is why the newest poll out today by CNN-- certainly not biased one way or the other--finds that 61 percent of Americans oppose this bill. It is the highest level of opposition to date because more and more people are seeing and learning the truth about what is being proposed in the bill before the Senate.

Well, we should not. We need to be fair. We need to deal with this in a realistic way. But the bill in front of us now is going to raise taxes $500 billion, it is going to cut Medicare by almost $500 billion for our seniors who depend upon it, and for people who have insurance they like, it is going to increase their premiums. They are going to end up paying more than if no bill was passed at all.

That is why, across the board, more people would rather have this Senate do nothing than to pass this bill we are looking at today. They understand the impact on this Nation and our future is devastating. This will cause us to lose jobs, with the taxes; it will cause us to lose care in small communities; and for our seniors who depend upon Medicare, they are going to throw more people into Medicaid, another program where half the folks now can't find a doctor who will see them.

All in all, there is nothing I see about this bill or any of the new changes and certainly nothing in this report that says to the American people: Hey, you might want to think about this. The American people have thought about it. This report tells the American people this is not what they want for health care in this Nation.

It does say that. The President has said he wanted to bend the cost curve down. This report says, if we do these things that are in the Reid bill, costs of care will actually go up faster than if we did nothing at all. That means for people who buy their own insurance, the cost of their premiums will go up faster than if this Senate passed nothing at all.

For people all across the country, costs are still going to go up. The cost of doing business will go up. For families who buy their own insurance, the cost of their premiums will go up. For people who are on Medicare, they are going to see tremendous cuts into that program, and they depend on that for their health care. So costs are going up for people who pay for their own and for businesses that try to build jobs.

We know small business in this country is the engine that drives the economy, and according to the National Federation of Independent Businesses, 70 percent of all new jobs come from small businesses. They are going to be penalized to the point they are not going to be able to add those new jobs. The NFIB says we will lose across the country 1.6 million jobs over the next 4 years as the government keeps collecting the taxes but doesn't even give any of these health care services because those have all been delayed for 4 years.

It is happening. It will get worse under the proposal that is ahead of us. That 90-percent figure is actually a high number. I know a number of physicians and hospitals, especially in rural communities, that get reimbursed less than that. The ambulance services do not even get reimbursed enough from Medicare--these are volunteer ambulance services--to fill the ambulance with the gas for taking somebody the long distances from where they may have fallen and hurt themselves, broken a hip, to get them all the way to the hospital. This is across the board bad for America.

We say we want patients to be able to get care. If you throw a whole bunch more people on to this boat that is already sinking, which is what the Democratic leader is now trying to do, it is going to make it that much harder for our hospitals to stay open, especially in these communities where there is only one hospital providing care--much more difficult. But with any young physician coming out with a lot of debt, trying to hire the nurse and pay the rent and the electricity and the liability insurance and all of that, these do not even cover the expenses. That means they have to charge more to the person who does have insurance, the cost shifting that occurs.

As a result, for people who have insurance, they are going to see their rates going up. For people who rely on Medicare, it is going to be harder to find a doctor. For those who are put onto Medicaid, with the aid for those who need additional help, which the Senate majority leader is trying to put more people into that area, it is going to be harder for them to find care.

Across the board, there is nothing good with this proposal. What we have seen today documented from the folks who are objective and look at the whole picture, they think it is actually as bad--they admit it is as bad as we have been saying it is. They say you guys have been right, what you are saying about the cost of care, the impact on health care. And their phraseology is such that I think they absolutely pinpoint all of the reasons that the American people, now by a number of 61 percent, oppose this bill we are taking a look at. That is why the Mayo Clinic has said, in the letter from their executive director of their Health Policy Center, ``Expanding this system to persons 55 to 64 years old will ultimately hurt patients by accelerating the financial ruin of hospitals and doctors across the country.'' That is what we are looking at.

I would be happy to. OK, so we agree, it is the sense of the Senate. It is meaningless in terms of actually having the force of law. The Senator talked about the issues of the spending and the taxes, so we came up with a sense of the Senate.

This is why we are asking people all across the country to read the bill. The sense of the Senate essentially means nothing. It says we kind of agree on this, but there is no law applied.

Well, I do care to comment. I care to comment that the important thing is to get the taxes out of the bill--not what a sense of the Senate is, not some procedural maneuver. It is the specifics of removing the taxes from the bill.

When the President says, ``My plan won't raise your taxes one penny,'' which was his quote, we need to be able to make sure the President is telling us the truth, that we need to remove these taxes from the bill.

The Joint Committee on Taxation looked at this bill--specifically looked at this bill--and it said that 38 percent of the people earning less than $200,000 a year will see a tax increase--a tax increase under the Reid bill.

So we want to make sure the President's words go with what is in the bill. So we need to actually remove the taxes--not just have a sense of the Senate.

Then, when we look at the chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, he was asked a question at the Finance Committee, and he said, when it all ``shakes out,'' we would expect people who are going to be paying taxes are going to have incomes ``less than'' the number the President said.

So I want to get to the point of the Crapo amendment, the amendment that actually says: Get these taxes out of the bill. This is a bill that is going to raise taxes by $500 billion, and those are taxes that are going to impact all Americans.

At a time when we have 10-percent unemployment, when the Senate is being asked to increase the debt level by another almost $2 trillion, the last thing we need to be spending our time on is a sense of the Senate. We need to actually get to those taxes that are going to affect the people, the hard-working people of America get those taxes out of the bill.

So as we are looking at that Baucus amendment; it is very nice, but it reminds me of the Bennet amendment we had here last week, and I think everybody voted for it. The New York Times, in their editorial, said it was a meaningless amendment. I want an amendment with some teeth in it that I can vote for, and I am ready to vote right now.

Madam President, it seems to me that what the Senator is doing with the Crapo amendment is actually trying to help people, trying to help the American people by taking this burden of $500 billion of taxes off of their backs, off of their shoulders, helping the American people. That is what I see he is trying to accomplish, at a time where with a gimmick they are going to start taxing immediately and when the taxes go into play--today is the 11th of December; in 20 days they are going to start collecting taxes for services they are not going to give for 4 more years. So it seems to me what is going on here with the Crapo amendment is it is saving the American people by keeping dollars in their pockets, keeping dollars in the pockets of the hard- working people of our country.

I am not the only one who is saying that. There is a new CNN poll out today that specifically asks the question--because the President has made a statement about the fact that you wouldn't see your taxes go up--Do you think your taxes would or would not increase if Harry Reid's bill is passed, and 85 percent of the American people in a CNN poll out today said they believe their taxes are going to go up; 85 percent of the American people.

I am fine with voting on this, but it doesn't mean anything. I think it is absolutely meaningless, the Baucus amendment. I want to get to the heart of the matter, the meat of the matter, which is the Crapo amendment. That is the one I think makes the difference for the American people. If I were a citizen sitting at home watching C-SPAN on a Friday afternoon saying, what is going on in the Senate, what do I want, what is going to help me, I would say I want to call my Senator and say: Vote for the Crapo motion because that is the one that is actually going to help keep money in my pocket. The sense of the Senate? Oh, that is nice, but it is meaningless.

I am ready to vote right now for the Crapo motion because that is the one I think is going to help possibly save my job if I am at home and working. I am worried about unemployment in the country, I am worried about the taxes and the impact that is going to have. Because I worry if we don't get these taxes out of here, it is going to be a job killer for our Nation and for families all across this country, in Idaho, in Wyoming, in Kansas, in Kentucky. I think we have great concerns for the economy and the 10-percent unemployment. We need to get those taxes out of there now.

Mr. President, I have great concern about the cost of health care for American families. We see it with our seniors certainly, as they will be seeing Medicare cuts. In this bill, there is $464 billion in Medicare cuts, but there are taxes that are going to go up, which will impact all of the people in this country.

I remember a promise the President made. He said his plan would not raise taxes one penny. He went on to say: not your income taxes, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes--any of your taxes.

We are seeing that taxes are going up, and in a way that is basically--you hate to say it, but it is a gimmick in this bill, where they are going to collect taxes for 10 years but only give benefits for 6, and it is the last 6 years.

As my colleague from Texas said, they are going to start collecting taxes--today is December 10--on the 31st of this month, 21 days from now, but the services would not be given for 4 years. That is how they get the number under $1 trillion, and it is at a time when the President makes a statement that this would not add a penny or a dime to the deficit. Eighty percent of the American people don't believe it because they know what is in front of them. They know what it is like to live their own lives. Is this what the Senator from Texas is seeing as well?

You cannot go home and say that with a straight face. There are many rural areas in our States. People see through all this.

There are two articles next to each other in today's New York Times. One talks about the details of the secret agreement they are working on behind closed doors. It says: ``Details Are Scanty.'' Right next to it it talks about: ``For Rural Elderly, Times Are Distinctly Harder.'' These are the people who are going to see taxes going up, these are the people who are going to see cuts in Medicare.

I want to read the first paragraph because this is from Lingle, WY, a community in my State. It talks about Norma Clark, 80. It says:

Norma Clark, 80, slipped on the ice out by the horse corral

one afternoon and broke her hip in four places.

I am an orthopedic doctor. I have taken care of these over the years.

Alone, it took her three hours--

These are the kind of wonderful Americans we have--

Alone, it took her 3 hours to drag herself 40 yards back to

the house through snow and mud, after she had tied her legs

together with rope to stabilize the injury.

This is a person who is on Medicare, and they are going to cut $464 billion from Medicare, and they are going to use gimmicks that are going to harm our people.

I have a former Governor and a former chief of staff for a Governor's office. You know in the rural parts of your community, I say to Governor, now the Senator from Nebraska, you have people like that-- hard-working people who expect honesty from a government, and they are not getting it in this bill which is going to tax for 10 years and only give services for 6.

I would add to that, following on my colleague from Oklahoma, that there is the coordinated care, which is one of the advantages of Medicare Advantage, but there is also the preventive component of this. We talk about ways to help people keep their health care costs down, and that has to do with coordinated care and preventing illness.

We want to keep our seniors healthy. That is one way they can stay out of the hospital, out of the nursing home, and stay active. Yet with the cuts in Medicare Advantage, the Democrats have voted to do that--to cut all the money out of this program that seniors like. Eleven million American seniors who depend upon Medicare for their health care choose this because there is an advantage to them.

My colleague from Oklahoma, the other physician in the Senate, has talked, as I have, extensively about patient-centered health care--not insurance centered, not government centered. Medicare Advantage helps keep it patient centered. So when I see deals being cut behind closed doors where they are cutting out people from all across the country and providing sweetheart deals to help seniors on Medicare Advantage in Florida in order to encourage one Member of the Senate to vote a certain way, I have to ask myself: What about the seniors in the rest of the country, whether it is Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, or Arizona?

A lot of seniors have great concern, and I would hope they would call up and say this is wrong; we need to know what is going on, and to ask why it is there is a sweetheart deal for one selected Senator from one State when we want to have that same advantage; and why are the Democrats voting to eliminate all this Medicare money.

Additionally, the Senator from Arizona talked about the closed-door meetings, secretly trying to come up with things.

There was an article in the paper today that the Democrats are turning to actually throwing more people on the Medicare and Medicaid rolls as they are trying to come up with some compromise; the idea being it is going to be compromising the care of the people. They are trying to put more people onto the Medicaid rolls. The Senator from Tennessee has said many physicians don't take those patients because reimbursement is so poor. It is putting more people into a boat that is already sinking. They want to put more people on Medicaid and more on Medicare, but at the same time they are cutting Medicare by $464 billion. This is a program we know is already going broke. Yet they want to now put people age 55 to 64, add those to the Medicare rolls, which is a program we have great concerns about.

Special deals for some, cutting out many others, now adding more people to the Medicare rolls--to me, this is not sustainable. Yet these are the deals that are being cut less than 100 feet from here off the floor of the Senate, when we are out here debating for all the American people to see the things we think are important about health care. Jobs are going to be lost as a result, if this bill gets passed. People who have insurance will end up paying more in premiums, if this bill is passed. People who depend on Medicare, whether it is Medicare Advantage or regular Medicare, will see their health care deteriorate as a result of this proposal. I turn to the Senator from Arizona, who has been a special student of this.

I have. People know there is an advantage to being in this program, and that is why they sign up for it. That is why citizens all around the country have signed up for Medicare Advantage. They realize there is value in prevention and there is value in coordinated care. There is value in having eye care, dental care, hearing care. There are advantages to wanting to stay healthy, to keep down the cost of care.

That is one of the reasons that Medicare Advantage was brought forth. I know a lot of Senators from rural States supported it because it would allow people in small communities to have this advantage to be in a program such as that. It could encourage doctors to go into those communities to try to keep those people well, work with prevention. The 11 million people who are on Medicare Advantage know they are on Medicare Advantage. They have chosen it. It is the fastest growing component because people realize the advantages of being on Medicare Advantage. If they want to stay independent, healthy, and fit, they sign up for Medicare Advantage. I would think people all across the country, who are seniors on Medicare but are not on Medicare Advantage, would want to say: Why didn't I know about this program? As seniors talk about this at senior centers--and I go to centers and meetings there and visit with folks and hear their concerns--they are converting over and joining, signing up for Medicare Advantage because they know there are advantages to it. For this Senate and the Democrats to say: We want to slash over $100 billion from Medicare Advantage, I think the people of America understand this is a great loss to them and a peril to their own health, as they lose the coordinated care and the preventive nature of the care.

I would concur that this is actually taking a step backward. That is why the Senator from Florida has demanded they make accommodations for the people of Florida. The people of Wyoming want those same accommodations, as do the people of Arizona and Texas. Because 11 million Americans have chosen the Medicare Advantage Program because it does help coordinate care. It has preventive care. It keeps it more patient centered as opposed to government centered, insurance company centered. That is the way for people to stay healthy, live longer lives, and keep their independence.

We have seen cuts across the board on Medicare, whether it is home health, nursing homes, hospice care, Medicare Advantage. And across the board, they are cutting Medicare in a way that certainly the seniors of this country do not deserve. They have paid into that program for many years and they deserve their benefits.