Floor Statements

Mr. President, with Americans now really focusing in on the health care debate, it is important to take a step back and recall where we started because somewhere along the way, Democratic leaders took their eyes off the ball.

It is a good time to remember what this reform debate was all about. The goal of this legislation, by all accounts--everyone agreed--the goal was to lower the cost of health care. This is what the President had to say. It is a direct quote:

The bill I sign--

According to the President--

must . . . slow the growth of health care costs in the long

run.

That was on July 22 of this year. Yet here we are, nearly 5 months later, and the administration's own scorekeeper, the CMS Actuary--the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Actuary--says the Democratic bill will actually drive costs up, exactly the opposite of what the debate was all about in the beginning, and exactly opposed to what the President indicated on July 22, that he would not sign such a bill.

Now, remember, the purpose of reform was to lower people's insurance premiums as well. Here is what the President had to say about that, a direct quote:

I have made a solemn pledge--

Said the President--

that I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the

end of my first term as President that will . . . cut the

cost of a typical family's premiums by up to $2500 a year.

That was the President campaigning for President on June 24, 2007, ``a solemn pledge that I will sign a universal health care bill into law . . . that will . . . cut the cost of a typical family's premiums by up to $2500 a year.''

Yet now we are being told by the administration's own nonpartisan scorekeeper--again the CMS Actuary--that new fees for drugs, devices, and insurance plans will drive up insurance premiums.

The purpose of reform was also to ease the burden on taxpayers. Here is what the President had to say about that:

No family making less than $250,000 a year will see any

form of tax increase.

That was the President on September 12, 2008: ``No family''--not a one--``no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.''

Yet now we are told by the independent analysts, such as the Joint Committee on Taxation, that taxes will actually go up on those same taxpayers, those making under $250,000 a year.

People who like the plans they have were told they would be able to keep them. Here is what the President had to say about that:

If you like your current plan--

``If you like your current plan''--

you will be able to keep it.

Then he said:

Let me repeat that: If you like your plan, you'll be able

to keep it.

That was July 21, 2009, just this summer. Yet now we are told by the independent analysts, such as the Congressional Budget Office, that millions of Americans will lose their employer-based coverage and that millions of seniors will see their extra benefits cut by about half.

Americans are looking at this, and they are truly outraged. The American people are outraged at what is happening. They cannot understand what we are doing. The latest CNN poll says 61 percent of Americans oppose this bill; 61 percent of the American people are saying don't pass this bill.

This bill is completely out of touch with the American public. Think about it: 1 out of 10 working Americans is looking for a job, and Democratic leaders in Washington want to spend $2.5 trillion on a bill that makes existing problems worse. Mr. President, 1 out of 10 Americans is out of work, and yet the majority seeks to pass a bill that makes the existing problems worse. Yet Democratic leaders in Washington are still insisting that we pass this bill.

Even as opposition grows, supporters of the bill are drafting plans and cutting deals to make this bill the law of the land by Christmas-- ignoring the wishes of the American people, off in a room somewhere, cutting plans and making deals, trying to figure out some way to jam the American people when they are asking us, overwhelmingly: Please don't pass this bill.

You get the impression that the supporters of this bill think it is about them, about them and their legacies. Well, this is not about them. This is about the American people. This is not about making history. This is about doing the right thing for every single American's health care.

Americans have a message: Higher premiums, higher taxes, higher health care costs are not what they signed up for. This is not what they were promised. This is not reform. Yes, doing nothing is not an option, but making current problems worse is worse.

Mr. President, I rise to wish a fond farewell to one of the Nation's finest television news anchors, Louisville's own Jackie Hays. After more than three decades in broadcasting, most of it spent in Louisville, Jackie will be retiring, and people throughout Louisville and across Kentucky are sorry to see her go.

The level of respect Jackie has earned in the community is reflected in the many awards she has won over the years. She has received 16-- 16--Best of Louisville awards, including numerous honors as Best Female News Anchor.

In 2005, she was named ``Best of the Best'' by Louisville Magazine. She has also received the Star Awards from the Women in Radio and Television, and Emmy nominations for her work both in Louisville and Philadelphia.

Jackie has had a lot of wonderful experiences in her career, all in pursuit of getting the best story for her viewers. She reported live from the scene of the bombing at the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta. She interviewed two Presidents; one of them was Ronald Reagan over lunch. And, of course, she has been a fixture in many Louisville homes on the first Saturday of every May, as she has anchored coverage of the Kentucky Derby 25 times.

Once she went up in an F/A-18 Hornet with the Blue Angels, a U.S. Navy flying acrobatic team that has performed in the Kentucky Derby Festival. She flew at 600 knots--that is nearly 700 miles an hour--and was subjected to seven times the normal force of gravity. She may have blacked out briefly with all that force--as the instructor told her most people do--but for the thrill of the ride, and to better tell the story to her viewers, she says it was worth it.

Jackie was born in Paris, TN, right over the border from Murray, KY, and she attended Murray State University on a special Presidential academic scholarship. She was named the outstanding senior in radio and television and began her broadcasting career at a Paducah station while still a senior in college.

After graduating with highest honors, she went on to a full-time position, until moving to Louisville in 1980 to work for WHAS Television. After 5 years, she briefly went to work in Philadelphia, but in 1988 she returned to Kentucky and River City where she has stayed ever since.

For the last 21 years, since returning to Louisville, Jackie has been with WAVE-3 News. She is currently the anchor of that channel's 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. newscasts.

After 32 years in broadcasting, Jackie has earned a well-deserved rest, and I know she is looking forward to spending more time with her husband Paul, their two daughters, and their dogs. Jackie and Paul are avid horse riders, and I hear they just got a new horse named Chipper.

But Jackie will be greatly missed by the people of Louisville and the surrounding area. Every day, through the television, viewers have welcomed her into their homes. Now we should stop and recognize that we have welcomed her into our community and our lives as well. So I just wanted to take this moment to thank her for her incredible career on behalf of Kentuckians everywhere.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain and I be permitted to engage in a discussion regarding the health care matter.

Madam President, last Friday, we heard from two entities. We heard from the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services, indicating health care costs in this country would actually go up under the Reid bill. We also heard from CNN. We heard from CMS and from CNN. We heard from CNN about how the American people feel about this measure. At a time when all the polls indicate the American people do not favor this bill, do not want us to pass it, and when the government's Actuary indicates the bill will actually not cut health care costs, which we thought was what this debate was all about in the first place, we are being confronted with a procedure that is quite unusual: an effort to restructure one-sixth of the economy through a massive bill that it appears almost no one has seen.

At what point, I would ask my friend and colleague from Arizona, could we expect that the American people would have an opportunity to see this measure that has been off in the conference room here and being turned into sausage in an effort to get 60 votes?

I would say to my friend from Arizona, that is a process that gives making sausage a bad name.

I would say to my friend, it certainly is not changing business as usual in Washington. Even more important than that, it is not changing American health care for the better, which is what we all thought this whole thing was about when we started down this path of seeing what we could do to improve America's health care, which almost everyone correctly understands is already the best in the world.

We have been trying to get votes on the Crapo motion, for example, since last Tuesday. It will be a week tomorrow. Maybe at some point we will be able to have amendments again.

We started off on this bill with each side offering amendments, and we went along pretty well until, I think, the majority decided it was not only better to write the bill in secret, it was better to not have any amendments to the bill. So they began to filibuster our efforts for Senators to have an opportunity to vote on aspects of this bill, such as the $\1/2\ trillion worth of cuts in Medicare which we, fortunately, were able to get votes on; the $400 billion in new taxes, which we would like to be able to get votes on.

This is the core of the bill. The American people have every right, I would say to my friend from Arizona, to expect us to debate the core of the bill--the core of the bill, the essence of the bill--which is not, of course, going to be changed behind closed doors or during this meeting that is going on with Democrats only.

I would say to my friend from Arizona, talk about an example of manufactured urgency. Is it not the case, I ask my friend from Arizona, that the benefits under this bill don't kick in until 2014?

So the urgency, it strikes me, I would say to my friend from Arizona, is to get this thing out of the Congress before the American people storm the Capitol.

We know from the survey data, do we not, that the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to this bill? So what is the argument I keep hearing on the other side? I was going to ask my friend from Arizona: I hear the President and others say: Let's make history. Well, there has been much history made but much of it has actually been bad, right?

Could I say to my friend from Arizona, no one has done more in the Senate, in the time I have been here, to express opposition to and warn us about the perils of excessive spending.

As I recall, one of the things the Senator from Arizona told us after he came back following his campaign was, what the American people are concerned about is the cost of health care--the cost. Of course, we are also

concerned about government spending--the cost to consumers of health care and the cost to government spending. Dr. Christina Romer, a part of the White House's economic team, said on one of the shows yesterday:

We are going to be expanding coverage to some 30 million

Americans and, of course, that's going to up the level of

health care spending. You can't do that and not spend more.

Maybe she didn't get the talking points for yesterday's appearances. But we have conflicting messages out of the White House on this very measure.

In short, it is safe to say this is a confused mess, a 2,100-page monstrosity of confusion and unintended consequences. Yet they are in this rush to enact a bill--the benefits of which don't kick in until 2014--before Christmas Day this year. I am astonished at the irresponsibility of it.

I thank my friend.

The fear is palpable. In addition to the public opinion polls we have all seen, we are each having experiences with individuals. I will cite three.

I ran into a police officer--a long-term police officer, an African American. He came up to me and said: Senator, you have to stop this health care bill.

Then there are the health care providers. I see Dr. Barrasso from Wyoming. Within the last week, I spoke to one of the Nation's fine cardiovascular surgeons. He said: Please stop the health care bill. This is going to destroy the quality of our profession. He told me of a friend of his, a neurosurgeon, who called him with the same concern.

I get the sense that there are an enormous number of health care providers--physicians, hospitals, everybody involved in the health care provider business--apparently, with the exception of the pharmaceutical industry, which seems to have cut a special deal--who are just apoplectic about the possibility that the finest health care in the world is going to be destroyed by this--as the Senator from Tennessee points out--``historic mistake.''

I say to my friends, beyond that, the administration basically told this company to shut up. They issued a gag order that was so offensive, even an editorial in the New York Times said it should not have been done. They could not communicate with their customers the impact of various parts of this bill on a product they buy, Medicare Advantage. The tactics have been highly questionable, it strikes me, from the beginning of the year up to the present. What Senator McCain is talking about is just the most recent example.

Will the Senator yield for this point?

Is that the same AARP that would, I am told, actually benefit from the decline of Medicare Advantage because they sell policies themselves that would be more likely to be purchased by seniors? Is that the same AARP?

If I could, Madam President, Senator McCain and I had an opportunity to talk off the floor about things that may be in or out of the current Reid bill. It is over there behind closed doors.

Whether things are popping up or being left out, and whether any of that is significant, I would say to my friend from Arizona, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference, does it? Because the core of the bill, that which will not change, has not changed in any of these various iterations of Reid that we have seen, with $\1/2\ trillion in cuts in Medicare, $400 billion in new taxes, and higher insurance premiums for everyone else.

I would ask my friend from Arizona, if he thinks any of that is going to change?

It could be the reason they are so anxious to do this before Christmas is they think Americans will be too occupied with the holiday season and somehow they can sneak this unpopular bill through and everybody will be busy opening presents or taking care of their families and somehow the American people will not notice.

I suggest to my colleague, I think this is going to be a vote that will be remembered forever. This is going to be one of those rare votes in the history of the Congress that will be remembered forever.

Absolutely. That is what Senate Republicans have said for quite a while. Let's start over and go step by step to deal with the cost issue. Instead, there is this consuming desire on the other side of the aisle to transform one-sixth of our economy, to have the Government take it over and to make history and, as has been pointed out in this colloquy by many Senators: There are many things that happened in our history that we wish had not occurred. This is certainly going to be one of them.

I am optimistic. We just need one Democrat, just one to stand up and say: Mr. President, I am sorry, this is not the kind of history I want to make. I would love to listen to you but I also want to listen to my constituents and it is very clear where my constituents are. If I have to choose between you and my constituents, with all due respect I am going to pick my constituents. Just one Democrat needs to stand up and say I am willing to listen to the American people rather than arrogantly assume that all the wisdom resides in Washington.

If we figure this out, we are going to do it for you whether you want us to or not.

The Senator from Tennessee is entirely correct. We made a major effort. Senator Grassley and Senator Enzi, the two ranking members of the relevant committees, as well as Senator Snowe, were in endless discussions with the majority. Then it became clear that they were not interested in doing anything short of this massive restructuring of one-sixth of our economy, which includes, as the Senator indicated--we expressed our concerns early about these $\1/2\ trillion cuts in Medicare to start a program for someone else.

I would go so far as to suggest the reason the public's reaction to this has been so severe is because they have chosen such a partisan route. Had they chosen a different route, had we produced a bill in the middle, a bill much more modest in its intention rather than this audacious restructuring, the American people would see us behind it and they would be behind it.

By choosing this sort of narrow ``my way or the highway'' approach, ``we are going to get the 60 votes and jam you,'' they have made it impossible to make this a proposal that they could sell to the American people.

The American people are not foolish. The difference between this issue and most issues is everybody cares about health care regardless of age. The older you get the more you care about it, but everybody cares about health care. But they are paying attention and they see that this is not in any way a bipartisan proposal. So they have created for themselves not only a terrible bill, in my judgment, that should not pass and probably will not pass, but an enormous political problem for themselves along the way that would have been entirely avoidable had they chosen a different route from the beginning.

I hear--and I know my colleagues have--they are about to send us another stimulus bill. I think I hear the Senator from Tennessee saying the single most important thing we could do to jump- start this economy would be to stop this job-killing health care bill.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I am not going to object, I would just want to confirm with the majority leader our understanding that even though it is not locked in in this consent agreement, we anticipate voting on both the Hutchison amendment and the Sanders amendment.

Yes.

Would that include both Sanders and Hutchison?

During the time that Democratic Senators are at the White House, would we be in recess or would we be allowed to----

Do you have any idea how long that meeting is going to be?

And at what time is it?

Mr. President, today I will cast my vote against H.R. 3288, the six-bill appropriations omnibus. This bloated package includes the following spending bills: Military Construction/Veterans Affairs, VA; State, Foreign Operations; Commerce, Justice and Science; Financial Services; Transportation, Housing and Urban Development; and Labor, Health and Human Services and Education.

I will vote against this $\1/2\ trillion package because it spends $50 billion more in taxpayer money than last year--a 12 percent increase. When unemployment stands at 10 percent--and higher than that across Kentucky--and families are struggling to make ends meet, the Federal Government should not be burdening its citizens with more debt. Congress must be a better steward of public funds. Moreover, the bill includes a number of policy riders, such as spending taxpayer dollars on abortions, that undercut the culture of life that our government should be promoting.

My opposition to the omnibus as a whole comes despite the fact there are several portions of this sprawling package that I would like to vote for. For example, I support much of the Military Construction/VA bill. I voted for it as a freestanding measure when the Senate passed its version a few weeks ago. And the measure carries a number of provisions that are important to Kentuckians, such as enhanced funding of chemical demilitarization efforts at the Blue Grass Army Depot, added monies for the soldiers and their families at Fort Campbell, and a provision honoring Kentucky veteran Robley Rex. The Military Construction/VA bill also includes a number of important national priorities that I support such as modernizing troop housing, expanding mortgage relief for the men and women in uniform, enhancing rural health care for our veterans, improving family housing for our soldiers, bolstering mental health care for returning combat veterans, aiding homeless veterans, and strengthening the ability of the VA to process claims more quickly. Were the Military Construction/VA measure a freestanding bill, I would vote for it.

Aside from the Military Construction/VA portion of the omnibus, I also regret I cannot register my support for certain parts of the State, Foreign Operations appropriations bill. I favor a number of provisions in the latter bill including funding for Israel, support for our allies in the war on terror and monies for Burmese refugees.

Finally, there are segments of the other four bills in this package that reflect Kentucky priorities that were included at my request and that I am supportive of.

In closing, it is unfortunate that the majority continues to avoid regular order. I am hopeful that the majority's effort in this regard does not presage further legislative shortcuts on matters of national importance.

Mr. President, I think you are going to report the bill. Regular order.

Mr. President, is not the regular order to return to the health care bill?

Mr. President, we have been trying for days to get an agreement to have votes on the health care measure, which our friends on the other side have said is so important to the American people and must be acted upon before Christmas. Specifically, the pending Crapo amendment has been there since last Tuesday. It now becomes clear to me the majority simply does not want to have any more votes, presumably pending these discussions that are going on behind closed doors on a bill that almost nobody in the Senate has seen.

Therefore, I send a cloture motion to the desk on the Crapo amendment.

Mr. President, I hope we can bring to fruition a consent agreement to allow us to begin to vote. Yesterday, against considerable opposition on my own side, I basically backed down and offered the consent agreement the majority leader had offered a few days ago, which would have allowed our Democratic friends to have a side-by-side with their own amendment on the issue of drug reimportation and a side-by-side with Senator Crapo's amendment on taxes. The majority objected, essentially, to the consent that they had previously offered a few days before.

I hope we can get back on track. The commitment was made by the majority at the beginning of this debate that we would have plenty of amendments. We had a process where we went from one side to the other, back and forth, smoothly. Either side was able to offer side-by-side amendments if they chose to. I think it is not fair to the American people--not fair to the American people to deny them the opportunity to have votes on what has been called the most important issue of our era, so important it has to be done before Christmas.

In the meantime, they are in some secret meeting, trying to come up with a bill that not only not all Senators have seen, not even Democratic Senators, but the American people have not seen it. We know what the core of the bill is. There are amendments the American people would like to see us debate and vote on and that is why I filed cloture on the Crapo amendment. Hopefully, we will not have to have that cloture vote, we can get back on track, as we were until things began to bog down midweek.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I object.

I object.

Mr. President, I will proceed under my leader time.

Mr. President, yesterday may well have been a seminal moment in this debate. We heard from CMS. And for those who do not know what that is, who may be watching C-SPAN 2, that is the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. They did an analysis of the Reid health care bill, a rather detailed analysis. The important part I will summarize. It says: We estimate that total national health expenditures under this bill would increase by an estimated $234 billion during the calendar years 2010 to 2019. In other words, it will increase the deficit. We know there was a letter to Chairman Baucus from six Democrats on September 17, 2009, saying:

There are many, wide-ranging options to address the broad

and complicated issue of runaway health care costs, and we

pledge our support to you in making the necessary and tough

decisions. This is our number one priority. If we pass health

[care] reform legislation without addressing the issue of

health care spending, we will have failed.

That letter was signed by Senator Kohl of Wisconsin, Senator McCaskill of Missouri, Senator Pryor of Arkansas, Senator Begich of Alaska, Senator Bayh of Indiana, and Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota to the chairman of the Finance Committee, saying: ``If we pass health care reform legislation without addressing the issue of health [care] spending, we will have failed.''

We know from CMS, the actuary at the Department of Health and Human Services, that the Reid bill fails the test of Senators Kohl, McCaskill, Pryor, Begich, Bayh, and Klobuchar. So we know what CMS thinks.

We also know what CNN thinks. We know where the American people are. We have watched the public opinion polls dramatically shift against the Reid proposal. The well-respected Quinnipiac poll a week or so ago had the proposal disapproved by 14 percent; the week before that, Gallup had it disapproved by 9 percent. And now CNN, just yesterday, the latest poll: people oppose the Senate bill 61 to 36.

We have heard from both CMS and CNN. When will our colleagues on the other side of the aisle respond to either cold, hard facts or the American people? They argue: ``to make history.'' It is clear this would be a historical mistake of gargantuan proportions--a historical mistake of gargantuan proportions. The only history we would be making here is a historical mistake.

We know from the experts it will not achieve the goal. We know from the American people they do not want us to pass it. It is time to stop this effort and to start over and go step by step to fix the problems the American people sent us here to fix regarding the American health care system.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we had indicated to Senators Reid and Durbin that we wanted to see if there was a way to develop some path forward on the health care bill, and I wish to at this point propound a consent agreement that might well give us a way to move forward on some of the amendments that have been pending for quite some time, some of which are both supported and opposed on each side.

Having said that, I ask unanimous consent that after the vote on the adoption of the pending conference report, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 3590 under the following order; there be 2 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees and following the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate proceed to a series of stacked votes in relation to the following amendments or motions; a Baucus sense-of-the-Senate amendment related to taxes, the pending Crapo motion--which I might add parenthetically has been out there since last Tuesday--the Crapo motion to commit the bill related to taxes, then the Dorgan amendment, which is on the drug importation issue, No. 2793, and then a McCain amendment, No. 3200, on the same subject.

I further ask unanimous consent that the above referenced motion and amendments be subject to an affirmative 60-vote threshold, and if they achieve that threshold, they become agreed to; further, if they do not achieve that threshold, they be withdrawn; finally, I ask that no amendments be in order to any of the mentioned amendments and motion.

Before the Chair rules, I wish to make a quick point. The majority leader has been proposing a series of votes, which regretfully has not held to our pattern of alternating back and forth. We have many people interested in the pending amendments, and under the agreement I put forward, each side would get two votes, as we have tried to operate throughout the health care debate, and then we would move forward.

Well, fortunately, Senator McCain is on the floor at this time, and I will ask him to describe it.

Maybe I have a solution to the problem. It actually involves my side agreeing to a procedure we have not followed throughout this bill, but let me suggest the following, which I think would get us out of this conundrum we seem to be in: that even though we have alternated from side to side, we would agree to both Dorgan and Lautenberg in conjunction, right after Crapo and Baucus; and then we get in the queue our next two--which I believe you are already familiar with, because they have been discussed on the floor--the Hutchison- Thune amendment, and then a Snowe amendment.

In other words, Mr. President, putting it another way, we are basically conceding to what the Senator had earlier proffered as a way to get moving on the bill, and then we would get back into our process of going side to side. And we want you to know that our next two--as we have been letting each side know what the other side was going to offer--our next two would be the Snowe amendment and the Hutchison-Thune amendment.

Of course.

If you so chose.

I understand capitulation when we do it, and we have essentially said to the majority we will go along with what you had earlier requested and we would like for you to take ``yes'' for an answer and for us to wrap this up and have a sense of where we are going from here.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, Republicans are fully engaged in the health care debate. It is our view that there is no more important work we can do here than to show Americans what the Democratic plan for health care would mean to them. Once we return to the debate, Republicans will be ready with two important amendments.

One of those amendments, by Senator Crapo, would enable the President to keep one of the pledges he made as a candidate and as President about what the Democratic plan for health care reform would look like. He said that no family making less than $250,000 a year and no individual making less than $200,000 a year would see a tax increase of any kind. The Crapo motion would ensure that promise is kept.

An amendment by Senators Hutchison and Thune would ensure that none of the taxes imposed by this bill would go into effect a day earlier than the benefits. In other words, you don't get taxes before you get benefits. This is a commonsense amendment. You certainly wouldn't ask someone to pay for the mortgage on a house 4 years before they were allowed to move in. In the same way, we should not tax people for a benefit they don't get for 4 long years.

The Hutchison-Thune amendment also aims to keep government honest, because most Americans have a hard time believing Washington would collect taxes on one thing for 4 years and actually have the discipline not to use the money on something else. This amendment would guard against that.

For the moment, the majority has decided to take us off health care. It has moved to an Omnibus appropriations bill that has all the hallmarks of all the other bloated spending bills we have seen this year. It is really outrageous, actually. At a time of double-digit unemployment, at a time when Democrats are talking about increasing by nearly $2 trillion the amount of money the government is legally allowed to borrow, the majority has moved us off of one $2.5 trillion spending bill and on to a 1,000-page omnibus that would cost the American taxpayer another $\1/2\ trillion right in the middle of a recession.

Once again, the majority has shown a lack of restraint when it comes to spending. At a moment of record debt, at a moment when inflation is nearly flat, this bill represents a 12-percent annual increase in government spending. Let me say that again. Inflation is flat. Yet we are increasing discretionary spending by 12 percent in this omnibus spending bill. The American people are not increasing their spending 12 percent. Moreover, it includes a number of controversial, unrelated provisions, including, among other things, language to weaken restrictions on abortion funding.

This $\1/2\ trillion spending bill spends $50 billion more than last year. All this spending comes right on the heels of a new report from Treasury that says the government ran a deficit of nearly $300 billion in October and November--the worst deficit we have ever had at this point in a fiscal year, ever. At a time when families across the country are struggling to make ends meet, lawmakers almost seem to be flouting their ability to spend taxpayer money. This bill contains many worthy projects. Unfortunately, the majority has piled on so much spending, so much debt and new controversial policies that I certainly can't support it.

As you may know, the Senate is considering a bill that would make basic changes in the country's health care system. We have been debating it for weeks. What I keep hearing on the other side is no reference to what the American people think. I hear these arguments about making history. Ignoring the public is not a great way to make history. We have not seen poll data for months that indicate the American people support the Reid bill. The most devastating one came out last night. A CNN opinion research poll taken December 2 and 3, this week--not exactly a bastion of conservatism--indicates that 61 percent of the American people oppose this health care bill and only 36 percent favor it.

We are looking for one courageous Member of the other side of the aisle--just one--to stand up and say he or she will not ignore the overwhelming opinion of the American people, he or she will not be so arrogant as to assume we have the right answer here and 61 percent of the American people somehow don't know what they are talking about.

The American people are pretty smart. They have been watching this carefully. This health care bill, like no other issue, affects every single American regardless of age. Everybody is interested in the subject. They have watched the debate closely. They are telling us: Please, Congress, please do not pass this bill.

I yield the floor.

I say to my friend the majority leader, the problem with that is we have been going back and forth with an amendment on each side, and the agreement that you have proffered, if I understand it correctly, basically had two Democratic side-by-sides. Am I not correct in my understanding of that?

My point was, typically a side-by-side is offered one on each side. On the drug reimportation issue, you have basically two votes, both generated on the Democratic side, which created some confusion. But we will have to continue to talk about this and see if we can work our way through it.

The answer to it is that our good friend the majority leader told us on November 30 we would be here the next two weekends. He said again this past Monday we would be here this weekend. I assumed and I know he certainly meant what he said. Our Members are here and ready to work. We wish to work on health care amendments. But as a result of the privileged status of the conference report that is before us, we have had that displaced. But I think everybody was on full notice as to what the work schedule was going to be for last weekend and this weekend.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and I will object--we have been told by the majority that the single most important thing we could do would be to work on weekends and try to pass this health care bill which, according to the CNN poll that came out last night, the American people oppose 61 to 36, before Christmas. We are here. We are prepared to work. We would like to get back on the health care bill as rapidly as possible and vote on amendments to the bill. It either is or it isn't important enough for us to be here before Christmas. My Members are not expecting to take a break. We have been told by the majority all year long this is important. First we had to get it done before August. Then we had to get it done before Thanksgiving. Now we have to get it done before Christmas. We are here, ready to work.

I object.

I say to my friends from Tennessee and Idaho, December 11, 2009 may be remembered as the seminal moment in the health care debate for those who are writing about what finally happened on this issue. There were two extraordinary messages delivered on this very day on this health care issue. They were delivered from CMS and from CNN. CNN told us how the American people felt about it: 61 percent, as the Senator from Idaho pointed out, telling us please don't pass this bill. A week ago, Quinnipiac said 14 percent more disapproved than approved; the week before Gallup said 9 percent more disapproved than approved. We can see what is happening here: widening public opposition.

And then CMS, the actuary, the independent government employee who is an expert on this, says this bill, the Reid bill, doesn't do any of the things it is being promoted to accomplish. So two important messages on December 11 delivered from CNN and from CMS.

Mr. President, this follows along further with my colleagues who were discussing the CMS report.

Americans, of course, were told the purpose of reform was to lower costs, to bend the so-called cost curve down. But the report released last night by the administration's own independent scorekeeper, as we have been discussing on the floor of the Senate, shows the Reid bill gets a failing grade.

The chief actuary is the person the administration depends on to give its straightforward, unbiased analysis of the impact the legislation would have. This is an independent expert. It is the official referee, if you will. So this is quite significant.

According to CMS, the Reid bill increases national health spending. According to CMS, there are new fees for drugs, devices and insurance plans in the Reid bill and they will increase prices and health insurance premiums for consumers.

According to CMS, claims about the Reid bill extending the solvency of Medicare are based on the shakiest of assumptions.

According to CMS, the Reid bill creates a new long-term insurance program, commonly referred to around here as the CLASS Act, that CMS actuaries found faces a ``very serious risk of becoming unsustainable.''

The CMS found that such programs face a significant risk of failure.

The Reid bill pays for a $1 trillion government expansion into health care, with nearly $1 trillion in Medicare payment cuts.

All of this, I continue to be quoting from the CMS report.

The report further says the Reid bill is especially likely to result in providers being unwilling to treat Medicare and Medicaid patients, meaning a significant portion of the increased demands for Medicaid services would be difficult to meet.

The CMS actuary noted the Medicare cuts in the bill could jeopardize Medicare beneficiaries' access to care.

The CMS actuary also found that roughly 20 percent of all Part A providers--that is hospitals and nursing homes, for example--would become unprofitable within the next 10 years as a result of these cuts. As a result of those Medicare cuts, 20 percent of hospitals and nursing homes would become unprofitable within 10 years.

The CMS actuary found that further reductions in Medicare growth rates through the actions of the independent Medicare advisory board, which advocates have pointed to as a central linchpin in reducing health care spending, ``may be difficult to achieve in practice.''

The CMS further found the Reid bill would cut payments to Medicare Advantage plans by approximately $110 billion over 10 years, resulting in ``less

generous benefit packages'' and decreasing enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans by about 33 percent. That is a 33-percent decrease in Medicare Advantage enrollment over 10 years.

What should we conclude from this CMS report? The report confirms what we have known all along: The Reid plan will increase costs, raise premiums, and slash Medicare.

That is not reform. The analysis speaks for itself. This day, this Friday, as we were discussing yesterday, is a seminal moment. We have heard from CMS, the Government's objective actuary, the bill fails to meet any of the objectives we all had in mind. We also heard from CNN about how the American people feel about this package: 61 percent are opposed; only 36 percent are in support.

The American people are asking us not to pass this, and the Center for Medicaid Services' actuary is telling us it doesn't achieve the goals that were desired at the outset.

How much more do we need to hear? How much more do we need to hear before we stop this bill and start over and go step by step to deal with the cost issue, which the American people thought we were going to address in this debate?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I would like to recognize an outstanding Kentuckian for her talented efforts to entertain and educate the public about the Cumberland Gap National Historic Park. Ranger Carol Borneman is the recipient of the 2009 Freeman Tilden Award for the southeast region of the National Park Service. Ranger Carol, as she is commonly known from her television show, ``Wild Outdoor Adventures with Ranger Carol,'' has been with the Cumberland Gap National Historical Park for over 15 years and serves as the park's supervisory interpreter.

The Cumberland Gap, through the Cumberland Mountains and near the Kentucky-Virginia border, was America's historical gateway to the West. Ranger Carol's stories bring to life the travel experiences of America's earliest western settlers in a way that is both educational and memorable.

There is no doubt that it is Ranger Carol's love for the park that keeps her stories entertaining. Mark Woods, Superintendent of the Cumberland Gap National Historical Park, stated that ``she truly has a passion for the work that she does and it definitely comes through on the show. . . . You cannot watch the show without being captivated by Carol's knowledge, dedication, and sheer enthusiasm.''

The Freeman Tilden Award is the most prestigious award given in the field of interpretation and education within the National Park Service. Borneman is not new to such an honor; in fact, this is the second time she has received it. It is with great pride that I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Ranger Carol Borneman on receiving the Freeman Tilden Award, and for her outstanding efforts to keep important Kentucky history alive for future generations to enjoy.

Mr. President, today I would like to reflect on the life of a dear friend, the late A. Robert Doll. Bob, as he was affectionately known, was a well-known lawyer, leader, and volunteer in his beloved Louisville community. His passing is a great loss, but his legacy lives on in the business and organizations he so dearly loved.

Mr. Doll was a founding member of the law firm Greenebaum, Doll & McDonald in Louisville. He joined the firm in the 1950s after receiving his law degree from the College of William and Mary. During his 50-plus years with Greenebaum, Doll & McDonald, Bob helped the firm grow from a mere 20 lawyers to a firm with multiple offices and 120 lawyers. When Bob was just 30 years old, he argued and won a case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mr. Doll showed his respect for his customers with the motto, ``I believe that a successful law firm must emphasize and create the delivery of prompt and exceptional legal service to the client--we must remember that the client is king.'' One of the great successes of his career was helping to bring the Toyota plant to Scott County. He also served as the president of the Louisville Bar Foundation. In 1986, Mr. Doll was named Lawyer of the Year by the Louisville Bar Association.

Bob was also active in his community, as he served as president of the Greater Louisville YMCA board of directors and maintained a leading role in the Boy Scouts of America. Phillip Scott, the current firm chairman of Greenebaum, Doll & McDonald, stated that ``Mr. Doll was not just a great lawyer, but a great man and great leader. He was a progressive leader who made Greenebaum the firm it is today. We deeply value the friendship, ideals and character he bestowed upon on us, and we'll miss him greatly.''

As a leader in his community, Bob Doll was a man of integrity who made a real positive impact in the Commonwealth. His devotion for creating and maintaining a client-focused business shows he always cared about serving the community first. He will be missed by all who had the pleasure of knowing him, and I ask that my colleagues join me in paying tribute to the wonderful life of Mr. A. Bob Doll.

Mr. President, I apologize to my colleagues for interrupting their conversation. Hopefully, it can continue upon completion of my remarks, and I may well wish to join in.

Health Care Reform

Mr. President, the American people have seen what Democrats in Congress plan to do with seniors' health care. They have looked on in disbelief as almost every Democrat in the Senate voted again and again and again to slash Medicare. Now they are watching in disbelief as Democrats float the idea of herding millions more-- millions more--into this nearly bankrupt program as part of a backroom deal to force their plan for health care on the American people by Christmas.

Every day it seems we hear new revelations about secret conference room deliberations where Democrats are

frantically working to get their 60 votes by Christmas. And every day we hear about some new idea they have come up with for creating a government plan by another name. This week's version would have the Office of Personnel Management running the program, an idea that was shot down almost as soon as it was announced by the former OPM Director who said it couldn't be done.

This is what he said: ``I flat out think that OPM doesn't have the capacity to do this type of role.''

This is precisely the kind of approach Americans are tired of in Washington, and this is precisely the kind of health care plan Americans did not want.

Seniors thought they could expect lower costs. What they are getting instead is an assault on their Medicare. Small business owners thought they could expect lower costs. What they are getting instead are higher taxes, stiff fines, and costly mandates. Working Americans thought they would get more efficiency, less fraud, cheaper rates. What they are getting instead are new bureaucracies and higher costs.

Business leaders from across the country enthusiastically support the idea of health care reform. They know better than anyone that costs are out of control and that something needs to be done. But they have read the bill Democrats in Congress have come up with and they are telling us this isn't it. This isn't it, they are saying. Not only won't this bill solve the problem, they say, it makes the existing problems actually worse.

The Vice President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was here yesterday. He said there is a desperate need for reform--reform that bends the cost curve down. He said, unfortunately, this bill fails the test. He says this bill will only lead businesses to lower wages, decrease working hours, reduce hiring, and cut jobs. He said it adds to the deficit; it adds to the debt. It includes massive new spending programs and entitlements and incredibly, as I have noted, it also borrows from existing entitlement programs. It borrows from existing entitlement programs that are already in trouble.

Businesses look at this bill and they see $\1/2\ trillion in new taxes, as many as 10 million employees at risk of losing coverage, and crushing new mandates. This is not reform. This bill doesn't solve our problems, it spreads them. That is why seniors don't like this bill. That is why job creators don't like this bill. That is why public opinion has dramatically shifted against this bill.

Americans want reform, but this is not the one they asked for. This bill is fundamentally flawed and it can't be fixed. There is no way to fix this bill.

Americans want us to stop, they want us to start over, and they want us to get it right. Democrats should stop talking at the American people and start listening to them.

Now, Republicans are prepared to provide a platform for the debate as long as it takes--as long as it takes. The majority leader said we would be working every weekend. We take him at his word. We expect to be here this weekend, and we look forward to it. Republicans are convinced there is nothing more important we could do than to stop this bill and start over with the kind of step-by-step reforms Americans really want.

We have amendments. We want votes. We have been waiting since Tuesday to have more votes. We are eager to continue the debate.

Here is what my good friend, the majority leader, said when we started the debate on November 30:

Debating and voting late at night. It definitely means the

next weekends--plural--we'll be working. I have events I'll

have to postpone, some I'll have to cancel. There is not an

issue more important than finishing this legislation. I know

people have things they want to do back in their States, and

rightfully so. I know people have fundraisers because they're

running for reelection. I know there are other important

things people have to do, but nothing could be more important

than this, and we notified everybody prior to the break that

we would be working weekends.

We took the majority leader at his word when we started this debate on November 30 that we would be working weekends. Actually, it is a week later--this past Monday of this week--he said, ``It appears we certainly will be here this weekend again.''

My Members understood we would be here on the weekends. We don't think there is anything more important we can do, and we are a little bit upset--maybe more than a little bit--that we were not able to vote on an amendment yesterday. We have been prepared to vote for several days. There are amendments that have been offered that we can't seem to get a vote on. The American people are expecting us to vote on this bill, and we are here and prepared to do it. We would like to get started voting on amendments today.

I say to my friend from New Hampshire, that is absolutely the case. We waited around all day to get a vote on the amendment by the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Crapo. We were told there would be a side-by-side, and it mysteriously has not yet appeared. But we are here ready to work. We share the view of the majority leader that this is an extremely important issue, and we want to vote.

Well, I think that is a good idea. Of course, we would prefer to vote today. We are going to be voting Saturday and Sunday too. I think the sooner the better. The American people are actually expecting us--they thought we were here voting and debating amendments on this bill, and we are going to continue to press forward and try to get that done.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Will the Senator from Arizona yield?

I recall our good friend, the majority leader, telling us on November 30 that we would be here the next two weekends. Then I recall our friend, the majority leader, saying Monday of this week we would be here this weekend.

My assumption was we were here to deal with this important issue that the majority has been indicating to everyone is so important, that we must stay here and do it. We are prepared to be here.

And vote. In fact, we have been trying to vote for a couple of days now, and it has been difficult to vote.

My friend is entirely correct. I can only quote the majority leader himself who said we were going to be here this weekend. We expect to be here this weekend. If he tries to leave, we will have a vote to adjourn, and I am confident every Republican will vote against adjourning. This either is or it isn't as important as the majority says it is. If it is that important, we need to be here. More importantly than being here, equally important to being here is to vote. We tried to get a vote all day yesterday on a motion by Senator Crapo. What we heard from the other side is: We are working on a side- by-side. That is kind of parliamentary inside talk for delay. We are ready to vote. As several of our colleagues have suggested, we keep hearing about these new iterations of this bill. It reminds me of the end of a football game, trying to throw a ``Hail Mary'' pass, just somehow, some way find a way to pass this bill. I think it important to remember what happens to most Hail Marys. They fall to the ground incomplete. You get the impression they are far less interested in the substance of the bill than just passing something.

When the President came up here last Sunday, he said: Make history. Make history? The American people are not asking us to make history by passing this bill. They don't believe it is about the President. They believe it is about the substance. We are out here prepared to talk about the substance of this measure, offer amendments, and we fully intend to do it for as long as it takes. As the Senator has suggested, if the majority leader pivots to a conference report, which he is able to do under our process, we will spend all the time it takes to deal with the conference report.

I say to my friend from Arizona, he made reference today to the senior Senator from Maine and her very insightful and thoughtful and correct speech a couple weeks ago about how an issue of this magnitude was historically dealt with here and how it was not being dealt with this way. She pointed out, major domestic legislation in modern U.S. history was, without exception, done on a largely bipartisan basis. That whole process, as the Senator from Maine pointed out, has been entirely missing, as we have moved along toward developing this 2,074-page monstrosity of a bill, designed to entirely restructure one-sixth of our economy on a totally partisan basis.

I don't think that is what the American people had in mind. They want us here, as we have all indicated, debating, discussing, and amending this proposal. That is what we would like to do for as long as it takes.

My friend from Tennessee is entirely correct. Right before we got here--right before we got here--in 1964 and 1965, the Democrats had overwhelming majorities, as they do now, and the civil rights bill of 1964 and the voting rights bill of 1965 passed on an overwhelming bipartisan basis. The leader of the Republicans, Everett Dirksen, was every bit as much involved in that, if not more involved in it, than even the Democrats. Republicans supported it. On a percentage basis, a greater number----

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

An even greater percentage of Republicans ended up supporting the civil rights bills of 1964 and 1965 than Democrats. But it was a truly bipartisan landscape for our country--a landmark, important. It was widely accepted by the American people because of the broad bipartisan support it enjoyed. That is what has been lacking here from the beginning.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed for a moment here prior to the vote.

Mr. President, I say to my good friend the majority leader, we have been anxious to have health care votes since Tuesday, and we have had the Crapo amendment pending since Tuesday. You have said repeatedly, and I agree with you, that the health care issue is extraordinarily important and that we should be dealing with it and debating it.

So it is my hope that somehow, through our discussions both on and off the floor, we can get back to a process of facilitating the offering of amendments on both sides of the aisle at the earliest possible time and we can get back to the health care bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to respond briefly.

Mr. President, I reiterate to my good friend from Nevada, all I said was the Crapo amendment has been pending since Tuesday. We would like to vote on amendments. There has been some difficulty, apparently, in coming up with a side by side to the Crapo amendment. I understand that. But I am perplexed that it would take 2 days to come up with a side by side.

This, as has been stated by my good friend the majority leader, is the most important issue--some have said in history. It has been equated with a variety of different monumentally important pieces of legislation in American history. All we are asking is the opportunity to offer amendments and get votes. I said it in a most respectful way and meant it in a most respectful way. I think it is pretty hard to argue with a straight face that we are not trying to proceed to amend and have votes on this bill. That is what we desire to do.

The majority leader certainly has the right to move to the conference report. He has now done that--or we are about to vote on doing that. All I suggested was we would like to get back on the health care bill as soon as we can, resume the debate process on what has

been described on an issue of historic importance, and let Senators vote, which is what we do here in this body.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

As I stated earlier today, and as the majority leader has indicated, we have waited since Tuesday to vote on additional health care amendments, including the pending Crapo motion to commit on taxes. Finally, tonight the other side gave us language on their alternative to Senator Crapo's motion.

Senator Crapo's motion would ensure that the bill does not raise taxes on the middle class. I understand that their alternative is sense-of-the-Senate language on that subject. This consent request now has us voting on two drug reimportation amendments from the other side--not one but two on the Democratic side--one of which we just received less than an hour ago and is 100 pages long.

We are prepared to return to the health care bill and proceed to the two tax-related votes tonight. After those votes, I would suggest we continue to work on the bill and other amendments. I assume there could be votes on the drug reimportation issue and a whole host of other amendments we have all been anxious to offer at a later time. But at this stage, regretfully, I object and propound the following alternative.

Is my objection registered?

I would say to my friend, the majority leader, could we just get in the queue the Crapo amendment and the, I believe, Baucus side by side to the Crapo amendment? I ask unanimous consent that we do that, which would give us a way to go forward on two measures that both sides seem to want to vote on.

Mr. President, could I just say, at the risk of being redundant--and I do not want to get into

a spirited debate with my friend and colleague over this--the facts are we were just handed a 100-page Lautenberg amendment about an hour ago. I have 39 Members here, all interested in that issue. It is simply impossible for me to clear voting on an amendment of 100 pages in duration that I just got an hour ago.

The reason I had suggested--and I was hopeful that maybe it would be a good way forward--we vote on the Crapo amendment, which everybody understands has been out there since Tuesday, and a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that is fairly brief, I assume--a very brief sense of the Senate that Senator Baucus was going to offer--is because both sides fully understand those two measures. They are not 100 pages long and enormously complicated. We did not just receive them.

So I do not want to get into an extensive back and forth with the majority leader, but I would say to him through the Chair, sincerely, it strikes me a good way to just get started would be to vote on these two issues, the Crapo motion and the Baucus amendment that both sides fully understand.

Mr. President, I guess I will have to prolong it just a little bit further.

I just learned something from the majority leader, that in fact this is an amendment that has been around before. We just learned that from his comments, having just received it a short time ago. Nevertheless, we will continue to talk and see if we cannot move forward and make progress and give both sides votes they are clearly interested in having.

Mr. President, the American people have now seen what Democrats in Congress plan to do with seniors' health care. They have looked on in total disbelief as the majority voted again and again to slash Medicare by nearly $\1/2\ trillion.

Incredibly, these cuts represent just part of the pain caused by this bill. In addition to punishing seniors, it would punish businesses. At a time when 1 out of 10 working Americans is looking for a job, this bill would hit employers

with job-killing new taxes and mandates, and it wouldn't do anything to lower long-term health care costs. This is the very last thing business owners expected from this bill. It is the last thing America needs in the midst of a recession. And it is just one of the reasons more and more business groups are stepping forward and speaking out against this job-killing bill.

Yesterday, I mentioned a letter signed by 10 major trade groups pleading with us not to approve this bill because of the effect it would have on business. Later in the day, the National Federation of Independent Business, one of the leaders in the small business community, released a letter explaining why they opposed the bill. They said any health care reform faces two tests for small businesses: Does it lower insurance costs, and will it increase the overall cost of doing business. According to them, the Senate bill fails both of these tests and therefore fails small business. They have seen the CBO conclude that this bill would lead to higher premiums. They have seen the billions of new taxes that would fall unfairly on small businesses. And they have seen the mandates and the fines that would kill jobs. They have concluded that this bill would actually be worse for small business than the current situation.

It is abundantly clear that the more Americans learn about this bill, the more they oppose it. Now we know the same goes for business. Businesses that can't insure workers face stiff fines resulting in lost wages and jobs, according to the independent Congressional Budget Office.

What is more, studies suggest that this so-called employer mandate would have a disproportionate impact on low-income, entry-level workers. At a time of 10 percent unemployment, we should be doing everything we can to create jobs. This bill would only lead to more lost jobs.

Medicare cuts are bad enough, but this bill doesn't just hurt seniors, it hurts the economy as well. That is why Americans overwhelmingly oppose it.

Speaking of how people feel about this bill, we see signs of opposition everywhere. Public opinion is overwhelming. In all the polls across the country, the American people are saying: Don't pass this bill.

Last month's gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia were a stinging rebuke to the Democratic approach of more spending, more debt, higher taxes, and endless bureaucracy.

There is a new development. Just yesterday--just yesterday in my home State--there was a special election for the State senate. Why would that be worthy of commentary on the Senate floor? Let me describe the situation. It is a 3-to-1 Democratic district. Because of State issues, the Democratic State administration was intensely interested in winning that seat. They spent $1 million cumulatively--the candidate, the Democratic State party, and an outside interest group--in support of the Democrat--$1 million on one side of a State senate race in a rural area of my State.

On the other side was a Republican candidate, who was outspent 5 to 1--outspent 5 to 1 in a 3-to-1 Democratic district. The Republican candidate for the State senate won by 12 points. How did that happen? He had one message--one message: oppose the Reid bill, oppose what Pelosi is doing, oppose what the Democrats in Washington are doing.

In other words, the candidate who was outspent 5 to 1 in a district where he was outregistered 3 to 1 made the sole issue in the State senate race what is happening here in Washington on this bill that is on this floor.

That ought to tell you on the heels of the Virginia and New Jersey elections what is happening in this country. People have seen enough and heard enough, and they want it to stop.

The message is simple. This health care bill is a losing formula all around. That is the message Americans are sending loudly and clearly. The signs are everywhere. We saw it yesterday in my home State. It is time to stop this bill and start over.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.