Floor Statements

Mr. President, over the past several days, Americans have seen in vivid detail what some supporters of this plan plan to do for the Medicare Program for seniors. They plan to use it as a giant piggy bank to pay for an entirely new government program. Yesterday, we heard floated, for the very first time, that they want to radically expand Medicare. So what is becoming abundantly clear is that the majority will make any deal, agree to any terms, sign any dotted line that brings them closer to final passage of this terrible bill. They entertain adding new experiments without any assessment of the impact this backroom deal-making will have on the American people or our economy. They are, for lack of a better term, winging it on one of the most consequential pieces of legislation affecting our country in memory.

Let me suggest to the majority, Americans would much rather we get it right than scurry around, throwing together untested, last-minute experiments in order to get 60 votes before Christmas. Let me say that again. Americans would much rather we get it right than scurry around, throwing together untested, last-minute experiments in order to get 60 votes before Christmas.

Over the past several days, our friends on the other side repeatedly voted to preserve nearly $\1/2\ trillion in Medicare cuts to finance their vision of reform, a vision that includes cutting nearly $8 billion from hospice care, $40 billion in cuts to home health agencies, $120 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage, $135 billion in cuts to hospitals that serve Medicare patients, and nearly $15 billion in cuts to nursing homes. What these cuts really illustrate is a lack of vision because cutting one troubled government program in order to create another is a mistake. I will say that again: $\1/2\ trillion in cuts to Medicare for seniors is not reform.

But Medicare cuts are just one leg of the stool holding up this misguided vision of reform. Let's take a look at another. Let's look at how this bill punishes not only seniors but how it kills jobs at a time when 1 in 10 working Americans is looking for one. This bill doesn't just punish seniors, it punishes job creators too.

That is the message we got yesterday from small businesses across the country. They sent us a letter opposing this bill because it doesn't do the things proponents of this bill promised it would. It doesn't lower costs, it doesn't help create jobs, and it doesn't help the economy. Here are just some of the groups that signed that letter: the Associated Builders and Contractors, the Associated General Contractors, the International Food Service Distributors Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Wholesale Distributors, the National Retail Federation, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Here is what these groups had to say about this bill. I am reading from their letter dated December 7, 2009, a letter that was addressed to every Member of the Senate:

In order to finance part of its $2.5 trillion price tag, HR

3590 imposes new taxes, fees and penalties totaling nearly

half a trillion dollars. This financial burden falls

disproportionately on the backs of small business. Small

firms are in desperate need of this precious capital for job

creation, investment, business expansion, and survival.

The letter goes on to detail all the ways in which this bill punishes small businesses, thus making it harder for them to retain or hire workers. These groups point out that under this bill, small businesses in the United States would see major cost increases as a result of new taxes on health benefits and health insurance, costs that would be passed on to employees and which would make health insurance more expensive, not less.

Under this bill, self-employed business owners who buy coverage for themselves could see a double-digit jump in their insurance premiums. For other small businesses, the bill won't lead to a significant decrease in cost--something they were promised as a result of the bill.

Under this bill, jobs would be lost and wages depressed as a result of a new law that would require businesses either to buy insurance for their employees or to pay a fine.

Needless to say, this is not the kind of legislation the American worker needs or wants at a moment of double-digit unemployment. Perhaps that is the reason that poll after poll after public opinion poll shows that the American worker opposes this bill.

Some business groups may have supported this plan earlier in the year because they thought it was inevitable.

They didn't want to be critical of a bill they thought they had no power to stop. But something happened between then and now: The American people realized what this bill meant for them. They realized what it would mean for seniors, for business owners, for the economy, for our future as a country. Americans stood up, they made their voices heard, and now the tide has turned. The American people oppose this bill. They want us to start over. They want us to make commonsense, step-by-step reforms that everyone can support, not some backroom deal to have the government take over the health care system that is then forced on the American people without discussion.

Our friends on the other side can read the writing on the wall. They know the American people oppose this bill. But they have apparently made a calculation to force it through Congress over the next several days before the American people even have a chance to absorb the details. The only thing that can stop them is the realization by Democrats themselves that this plan would be a tragic mistake for seniors, for the economy, and for our country and that a better path would be the kind of step-by-step reforms Americans have been asking of us, reforms Americans really want. Americans don't think reform should come at the expense of seniors, and they don't think it should come at the expense of jobs. They don't think it should make current problems worse.

Mr. President, all of the Commonwealth of Kentucky has suffered a great loss with the recent death of Albert E. Dix. A fourth- generation journalist, Al Dix moved to Frankfort, Kentucky's State capital, to become publisher of The State Journal in 1962, a post he would keep until his retirement in 1996. Known for being a mentor to aspiring journalists, Al Dix helped train scores of individuals who went on to work at papers with much larger circulations. But he was more than just one of Kentucky's finest journalists. As one of his former press foremen put it, ``He treated all employees really well, just like they were his family. He was a really good person all around.''

Indeed, Al Dix leaves behind a legacy as not only a superb publisher but as a pillar of his community. While I could say much more about my friend Al Dix, I think it appropriate for me to share with my colleagues a recent account of Al's life, which was published by The State Journal on December 3, 2009. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, first, I wish to extend a welcome to the President, who is coming to the Capitol today to meet with Democrats on the subject of the health care bill.

So far, they have voted to cut Medicare three times--cuts they previously described as immoral and irresponsible; cuts that made it impossible for the President to keep his pledge that people who like their plans can keep them; cuts that will reduce the quality of home health care; cuts that will reduce benefits for nearly 11 million American seniors on Medicare Advantage; cuts that raid Medicare instead of fixing it; and cuts the American people vehemently oppose.

Democrats are in a tough situation on this bill. They want to expand the government's reach into health care, but they do not have the money, and they don't have the support, more importantly, of the American people. So

what did they do? They decided to take the money they need out of Medicare, and that has only made their health care plan even less popular with the American people.

The Gregg amendment, which we will vote on later this afternoon, will help reverse the damage of last week's votes. The Gregg amendment says Democrats can't raid Medicare, which is already in serious trouble, in order to pay for their $2.5 trillion bill. The money going out of Medicare's hospital insurance trust fund already exceeds its annual income. It is already drying up. By 2017, the hospital insurance trust fund will not be able to pay full benefits, and that is before our colleagues get their hands on it. This program needs to be fixed, not pillaged to create another one.

So the Gregg amendment prohibits using money from Medicare to pay for any new government programs, for expanding existing programs, or for subsidies. Instead, it directs that any money from Medicare be put back into Medicare to strengthen and preserve it for future generations so we can keep our promises. Frankly, this is common sense.

Americans don't want this bill to pass, and they certainly don't want it to pass at the expense of the roughly 40 million American seniors who depend on Medicare. The Gregg amendment would keep that from happening. A vote for the Gregg amendment is a vote to keep our promise to seniors.

We are also going to have a vote today on the Ensign amendment. The amendment is simple: It is designed to ensure that injured patients-- not their lawyers--receive the vast majority of any settlement in a medical malpractice suit. It says that since lawsuits should benefit patients, not lawyers, lawyers can't take more than one-third of the recovery their clients receive. In other words, the lawyers can't take more than one-third of what the client gets.

These are responsible limits. Moreover, they were written by a Democrat and supported in the past by 21 of our current Democratic colleagues, as well as the Vice President, and they would drive down costs, which was the original purpose of reform.

The independent Congressional Budget Office has said comprehensive liability reforms would save the taxpayers more than $50 billion. The Ensign amendment is a step in that direction.

We will offer a better, step-by-step reform to end junk lawsuits against doctors and hospitals later in the consideration of this bill. I am hopeful my Democratic colleagues will support it again, since so many of them have supported it in the past.

I yield the floor.

I would say to my friend from Arizona, normally we would be watching the Redskins game today, but we are here and ready to sit down with the President and ready to discuss with the American people this issue.

You know, it was said at the beginning of the debate, if they wanted to come up with a bill that would pass with 80 votes, the way to do that is not to craft a bill that no Republican can support and end up in the position they are in now, trying to get every single Democrat in line so they can pass this bill, even though they know the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to it. All the surveys indicate the American people do not want us to pass this bill. They would like for us to stop, start over, and get it right, with some of the suggestions that have been made here on the floor today and other days during this debate.

Mr. President, I thank the majority leader. I did suggest yesterday that, since the President was not meeting with us, we had nothing constructive to do during that hour. I suggested that we be allowed to speak. We worked that out in our first bipartisan moment on this bill, as he indicated.

With regard to the agenda tomorrow, as the majority leader indicated, we have the Gregg amendment, the Pryor amendment, and the abortion amendment. We will have an additional amendment on this side as well. That is up to four.

No.

Yes.

Mr. President, I am going to proceed on my leader time, which I assume will not be charged on this side.

Mr. President, we all know the U.S. health care system is in serious need of reform. Costs are too high, they are rising, and if we do nothing, they will continue to consume a larger and larger share of Federal dollars and of the budgets of millions of middle-class American families, of young workers trying to get their start in life, and, of course, of seniors.

For months, the administration and its allies in Congress promised a solution to these problems, a solution they said would lower costs and help the economy. They assured us that under their proposal anyone who likes the health care plans they have would be able to keep them, and they said their proposal would save Medicare.

But, in the end, what matters is not what we say. It is what we do. This week, the proponents of this plan did more with a single vote than they did all year in talking about all the things their health care plan would do.

How? Because in voting to cut a $\1/2\ trillion from the Medicare Program for seniors, our Democratic friends undercut not only the roughly 40 million seniors who depend on Medicare, they also undercut their own promises about reform.

As I said, the President and congressional Democrats have noted, again and again, that under their measure those who like their plans will be able to keep them. After Thursday's vote, even Democrats are admitting that is no longer true.

Here is how one of our Democratic colleagues put it:

We're not going to be able to say that ``If you like what

you have, you can keep it.''

Then he added:

. . . and that basic commitment that a lot of us around

here have made will be called into question.

As for the oft-repeated pledge to save Medicare, well, nobody buys that one after the vote on Thursday to cut it by $\1/2\ trillion.

These Medicare cuts will impact the quality of care for millions of American seniors. Nearly 11 million seniors on Medicare Advantage will see a reduction in benefits. Hospice care will see massive cuts. Hospitals that treat Medicare patients will see massive cuts. Nursing homes are cut. More than $40 billion is cut from home health care agencies--agencies that provide an appealing alternative to seniors who would rather receive the care and attention they need in the comfort and privacy of their own homes.

I hear from seniors all over Kentucky worried about the impact these cuts will have.

Anita, from Hebron, KY, says she is worried about the impact these cuts will have on her husband, a Vietnam vet with multiple sclerosis. Every 2 weeks, she writes, a home health care nurse visits her husband to perform procedures prescribed by his doctors. Now Anita is worried those visits might be limited or curtailed under this bill. It is not clear they will not be because cutting $40 billion from a benefits program is bound to affect the benefits that people such as her husband receive.

Joy, from Somerset, KY, works for a home health care agency. She wrote my office because she is also concerned about cuts to home health care. She asked me to protect the rights of the chronically ill, elderly Medicare population that she and her colleagues care for every day in Kentucky through cost-effective home health care.

Robin, from Independence, KY, writes that her father is almost 80 and receives home health care twice a week. She says he depends on a walker and a wheelchair to get around and that it is hard for him to get out of the house. Robin's father is the kind of person home health care is meant to help. Frankly, I do not know what to tell her--I literally do not know what to tell her--except that $40 billion in cuts to this program is not a very encouraging sign for people such as her dad.

I noticed that some years ago one of the top Senators on this issue on the Democratic side used the very same image I have used to decry these cuts. Back then, he warned, as I have in recent months, not to use Medicare as a piggy bank. Yet that is precisely what our friends are doing with Medicare. They are not fixing it. They are raiding it-- raiding it--to create an entirely new government entitlement program, raiding Medicare not to help save Medicare but to create an entirely new entitlement program. In fact, one of the largest single sources of money for this 2,074-page bill is the money they get from Medicare.

I am not sure what has changed since our friends decried cuts to Medicare as immoral and irresponsible. But today I would, once again, urge them to reconsider their vote from earlier this week. They have voted now to cut Medicare, and they have now voted twice to cut the important Medicare Advantage Program for nearly 11 million seniors.

Today we will have a chance to restore the cuts they authorized to home health care. A vote in favor of the Johanns amendment is a vote in favor of the men and women who have been writing our offices, sharing their stories about the benefits of home health care. Americans never expected that health care reform would mean that they would have to give up the health care they have and like. They didn't expect it because they were told it wouldn't happen. Unfortunately, that pledge was broken this week. That pledge was broken this week. Today our friends have an opportunity to help repair some of that damage.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would ask the Senator from Arizona if I may ask a question. I would ask the Senator from Arizona, is this the same AARP that I recall opposed a $10 billion reduction in the rate of increase in Medicare spending back in 2005?

Could I ask my friend one more question? Is this the same bill that back in 2005 my counterpart, the majority leader, decried as immoral?

Will the Senator yield for an observation? Senator McCain has pointed out where the lobbyists are on this bill. Senator Isakson has pointed out where the people of Georgia are on this bill. Senator Barrasso has pointed out where the people of Wyoming are on this bill. We also know where the American people are.

I have not seen a survey in months--in months--by anybody that indicates the American people are for this bill. It is not in doubt. We have heard that President Clinton came up to their lunch. The President may be coming back himself. The argument they are making on the other side? Ignore the American people, make history. Make history? What I hear the American people saying to us is: Vote for this bill and you will be history.

This is not in the gray area. The American people are asking us to stop this bill and start over. They do not want a 2,074-page monstrosity of complexity and Medicare cuts and tax increases and higher premiums for everybody else. They want us to stop and start over and get it right.

I say to my friend from Arizona, at the risk of being repetitious, what we all know is going on here is there is a total disconnect between inside-the-beltway lobbyists who cut their special deals and the American people who are speaking loudly to all of us in all of the surveys saying: Please stop this thing.

I have never been involved in an issue in all the years I have been here, I say to my friend from Arizona and other colleagues, on which people spontaneously stop me in the airport and say: Please stop this bill.

I am sure there are people in Kentucky who are for it. I have not met one. There must be a doctor in Kentucky who is for this. I have not heard from one.

This is an incredibly unpopular bill. Thus, their only rallying cry: Make history, ignore the American people. What an act of arrogance. What an act of total arrogance. We know better than you. Why don't all you American people, all 300 million of you, shut up, sit down, and we will do it for you. We will restructure one-sixth of the economy. We know what is best for you. This is an act of total arrogance.

As the Senator from Utah pointed out, we just need one Democratic Senator to say no: No, I am not going to do this. I know the President would like me to make history, but this is wrong for the country, and I will not participate in it. Just one can make a difference.

Reserving the right to object, and I will not be objecting, I also wish to make clear that the majority leader and I have an understanding that we will actually have four votes tomorrow-- not just two, four. Bearing that in mind, I do not object.

Mr. President, we had a very clarifying vote on the Senate floor about the direction of our friends on the other side with regard to our health care system. Yesterday, all but two of them voted to preserve nearly $\1/2\ trillion in cuts to Medicare, the health program for our seniors. In the runup to that vote, they said these cuts were not cuts and that Medicare Advantage in particular is not a part of Medicare, arguments plainly contradicted by the text of the bill itself, by the Department of Health and Human Services, by the independent Congressional Budget Office, and by the experience of seniors themselves.

Seniors do not want Senators fooling with Medicare. Let me say that again. Seniors do not want Senators fooling with Medicare. They want us to fix it, to strengthen it, to preserve it for future generations--not raid it like a giant piggy bank in order to create some entirely new government program.

Yesterday's vote was particularly distressing for the nearly 11 million seniors on Medicare Advantage. So today Members will have an opportunity to undo the damage they voted to do to this program. With yesterday's vote, proponents of this measure authorized $120 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage and in the process they expressly voted to violate the President's pledge that seniors who like the plans they have can keep them. The President has said seniors who like the plans they have can keep them--because you can't cut $120 billion from a benefits program, obviously, without cutting benefits.

The Congressional Budget Office has been crystal clear on this matter. When asked about the effect these cuts would have on Medicare Advantage, the Director of CBO was unequivocal. He said that approximately half of Medicare Advantage benefits will be cut for nearly 11 million seniors enrolled in this program under this bill.

This is the Director of the Congressional Budget Office being unequivocal. He said that approximately half of Medicare Advantage benefits will be cut for nearly 11 million seniors enrolled in this program under this bill. That is what our friends on the other side voted for yesterday and they know it.

One Democrat last night was explicit. He admitted that after yesterday's votes, Democrats will not be able to say that ``if you like what you have you can keep it.'' This is one of our Democrat colleagues yesterday saying: ``If you like what you have you can keep it'' can no longer be said.

He went on to say ``that basic commitment that a lot of us around here have made will be called into question.'' I think that is highly likely.

Our friends have a couple of choices here today. They can reaffirm their plan to cut benefits for nearly one-fourth of all seniors enrolled in Medicare, they can admit that the President's pledge about keeping the plan you like no longer applies, or they can reverse part of yesterday's vote later today by voting with Republicans to restore those cuts to Medicare Advantage.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not be objecting, I see the assistant majority leader on the Senate floor. I think it would be helpful, as soon as the majority leader or someone on that side can do so, to indicate at what point during the day tomorrow and at what point during the day on Sunday we might be having additional votes. It might be helpful to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle in terms of planning for the weekend.

So am I correct in assuming that the votes are most likely going to be in the afternoon tomorrow, or both morning and afternoon?

I think we are going to need some debate time. Oh, we will have that in the afternoon.

Then on Sunday, obviously, we would not go in until noon on Sunday, and the votes will be----

Mr. President, I am here today to remember the life of a dear friend, MG Charles Beach Jr., of Beattyville, KY. General Beach passed away this past Veterans Day, at the age of 90. He was a genuine servant to his country, his hometown, and the Commonwealth of Kentucky. While General Beach will be greatly missed, the contributions that he has made to Kentucky, and the sacrifices that he has made for this Nation, will surely live on as his legacy.

Charles Beach knew from a young age that he wanted to serve his country, and in 1940, he graduated from the Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, VA. Shortly after graduation, he completed his special training and began his active service. While in Italy in 1944, Charles became severely wounded during battle. He spent the next 8 months recovering in a military hospital and was awarded the Purple Heart.

Charles Beach joined the Army Reserves after he was released from active duty. After a short time in the Reserves, Beach was recommissioned into the U.S. Army, this time with the rank of major. In 1976, he was promoted to major general after becoming the 18th Commander of the 100th Division, where he commanded the Kentucky Army Reserve Training Division.

General Beach's contributions extended beyond his military service; he was an active member of his beloved hometown of Beattyville. The general served his community through many organizations including, as chairman of People Exchange Bank and Insurance, president of the Beattyville/Lee County Chamber of Commerce, president of September Place Retirement Village, and cofounder of a scholarship program to aid eastern Kentucky students wanting to pursue careers in medicine.

This scholarship has increased the number of doctors in eastern Kentucky.

For his service to the community, General Beach received several awards, including the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce Volunteer of the Year and the Community Bankers of Kentucky Outstanding Community Banker of the Year awards. The Beattyville/Lee County Chamber of Commerce recognized General Beach for his 58 consecutive years as president. And, Beattyville Mayor Joseph Kash described Beach as ``a true gentleman and a hero of this community. It is appropriate that his passing was on Veterans Day. He was a true patriot.''

The positive impact that General Beach has made on Kentucky and this Nation has certainly not ended with his passing. His legacy will continue to live on through the individuals and the communities he so lovingly helped lead. Known nationally for his leadership and service to our country, I know all Kentuckians join me in grieving the loss of Charles Beach.

Would my friend yield for a question before making his opening remarks?

I would say to my friend, since it is Thursday, my Members are prepared to be here Saturday and Sunday, but many would like to know whether there will be an opportunity to go to church Sunday morning.

I would say to my friend, obviously, I assume we are going to continue to proceed with your side offering one and my side offering one.

All right.

Madam President, this measure was in the majority leader's office for 6 weeks. It has only been on the floor of the Senate for 3 days. I think it is clearly not the case that the Republicans want to delay a process that we have only now gotten an opportunity to participate in, since this has been a strictly partisan venture from the beginning. But we will have an opportunity over a number of weeks to offer amendments. We will have four votes today and hopefully we can proceed at a more rapid pace than we got off to in the first couple of days. Of

course the reason we didn't have votes last night was because there were objections on that side of the aisle. But hopefully we are now into a process where we can go forward without the kind of delay that we had generated by both sides over the last couple of days.

Yesterday some of our friends on the other side were at great pains to explain one of the core pieces of their health care plan. I am referring of course to the massive cuts in Medicare they plan to make as a way of expanding government's reach even further into the lives and, more specifically, into the medical care of every American.

I have no doubt that our friends were reluctant to call for these cuts. But in the middle of a recession, and at a time when more than 1 in 10 working Americans is looking for work, it isn't easy to find $1/2 a trillion lying around. They had to find the money somewhere. And so they set their sights on Medicare.

Republicans have been entirely consistent in this debate: Medicare is already in trouble. The program needs to be fixed, not raided to create another new government program. We have fought these senseless cuts from the outset. And we will continue to fight them.

Democrats, meanwhile, have taken a novel approach. They have apparently decided there is no way to defend these Medicare cuts, so they will just deny they are doing it. It hardly passes the smell test.

Here are the facts. According to this bill: Medicare Advantage is cut by $120 billion; hospitals that treat Medicare patients are cut by $135 billion; home health care is cut by more than $42 billion; nursing homes are cut by nearly $15 billion; hospice care is cut by $7.6 billion.

These are the cuts that our friends on the other side claim not to be cuts. This is the plan that our friends on the other side have said will ``save Medicare''--a talking point so plainly contradicted by the facts, it is almost impossible to repeat it with a straight face.

One Democrat took this strategy to a new level yesterday when he declared on the floor that it wasn't even accurate to describe cuts to Medicare Advantage as cuts because Medicare Advantage, he said, is not a Medicare Program.

Well, that is apparently news to the Department of Health and Human Services, which states on its Web site, in words as plain as the alphabet that ``Medicare Advantage plans . . . are part of the Medicare program.'' And it is news to the millions of American seniors who depend on this popular program for their care.

At the moment, Medicare Advantage has nearly 11 million enrollees looking at it another way, or nearly one-fourth of all Medicare beneficiaries are on Medicare Advantage.

In recent years, this program has proven to be particularly popular with seniors in rural areas who would otherwise have limited access to care. Seniors have shown they want this plan. And I daresay that if you had asked seniors earlier this year what they expected health care reform would look like, it wouldn't have involved massive cuts to a program that they have shown they like and want.

Medicare Advantage has also been proven to help in a particular way low-income and minority seniors. That is one of the reasons minorities are more likely to enroll in it. So this program has given a boost to historically disadvantaged populations and helped give them a greater measure of dignity toward the end of their lives.

These cuts are bad enough. But despite what our friends have said, the Democrat plan for Medicare Advantage doesn't stop here because their bill also gives the Medicare Commission explicit new authority to cut even more from this popular program in the years ahead.

The President has repeatedly said that people who like the plans they have will be able to keep them under his plan. He has said people currently signed up for Medicare Advantage will have the same level of benefits under his plan.

Well, common sense tells us that you can't cut $120 billion from a benefits program without affecting benefits, and the independent Congressional Budget Office confirms what common sense tells us, and they actually quantify it.

CBO says the bill we are debating will cut extra benefits that seniors receive through Medicare Advantage by more than half. The fact is, cuts to Medicare Advantage are cuts to Medicare. And if it is true of Medicare Advantage, it is true of the other Medicare cuts in this bill. Democrats can deny these cuts all they want. Seniors aren't buying it.

Later this afternoon we are going to have a Bennet amendment, Bennet of Colorado, as a side-by-side to Senator McCain's motion, which would send back to committee the Medicare cuts in this bill and ask the committee to report it back without them. I want to comment briefly on the Bennet amendment and we are going to have more to say on that during the course of today's debate.

This amendment is a shell game, a shell game designed to hide the $\1/2\ trillion in cuts I have been talking about. The Bennet of Colorado amendment is a shell game designed to hide the $\1/2\ trillion in cuts I have described. If the Bennet amendment passes, the bill will still cut $\1/2\ trillion from Medicare.

Let me say that again. If the Bennet of Colorado amendment passes, the bill will still cut $\1/2\ trillion from Medicare. It does not protect Medicare. There is only one way to protect Medicare and that is to support the McCain motion.

I yield the floor.

I will be happy to yield to the Senator from New Hampshire.

I say to my friend from New Hampshire, we know this bill was produced by Democrats in committee. Then it went to the majority leader's conference room and stayed there for 6 weeks. There were no Republicans in those meetings, not a one. So after being in the majority leader's conference room for 6 weeks, it has been on the floor of the Senate for 3 days. This will be the fourth day.

To suggest that Republicans don't want to offer many amendments to this massive 2,000-page bill that seeks to restructure one-sixth of our economy is nonsense. The American people will not stand for not having a free and open amendment process during the course of this debate. This is a debate, I say to my friend from New Hampshire, the American people deserve to have for a considerable period of time. For goodness' sake, we spent 4 weeks on a farm bill in the last Congress. F

I say to my friend from New Hampshire, nobody is going to buy outrage over a mere 40 Members out of 100 Members of the Senate having an opportunity, for the first time, to offer amendments. The majority, by the way, has the right to do this, and I don't complain about it. They are going to offer an amendment for every amendment we offer, so not only did they have the bill in their conference room in secret for 6 weeks, out here on the floor they are going to get 50 percent of the amendments we vote on. I don't think they will be able, with a straight face, to convince the American people that somehow the 40 of us who are asking for an opportunity to amend a bill that all the surveys indicate the American people don't want us to pass is somehow unfair.

It was George Washington who presided over the Constitutional Convention who was asked: General, what do you think the Senate is going to be like?

He said: I think it is going to be like the saucer under the tea cup and the tea is going to slosh out of the cup down into the saucer and cool off. That is precisely the point the Senator raises, which is the Senate is the place viewed to be a body that ought to and correctly takes its time. The House of Representatives passed this massive restructuring of one-sixth of our economy in 1 day with three amendments--1 day. That is not the way the Senate operates. I can remember when our friends on the other side were in the minority. Specifically, I can remember the now-assistant majority leader saying the Senate is not the House--praised the procedures in the Senate. If ever there were a measure, if ever in the history of America there were a measure that the Americans expect us to take our time on and to get it right, it is this one, this massive 2,000-page effort to restructure one-sixth of our economy and have the government take over all of American health where we see, in all of the public opinion polls, people are saying please don't pass this--they want to try to rush it.

They want to try to rush it, try to get it through here in a heck of a hurry, back it up against Christmas. I have said to the majority leader, we are happy to be here. We are going to be here Saturday and Sunday. I did ask for an opportunity for Members to go to church Sunday morning, if they want to, and the majority leader indicated that would be permissible. But after that, we will be here and ready to vote.

The American people expect and deserve no less than exactly what we have been discussing.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, with the apologies to my good friends from Montana and Connecticut, I was unavoidably detained at the opening and would like to now, on my leader time, give my opening remarks.

Mr. President, the challenges of the ongoing war in Afghanistan are immense, but Americans believe in the mission. They trust the advice of our commanders in the field to see that mission through.

So I support the President's decision to follow the advice of General Petraeus and General McChrystal in ordering the same kind of surge in Afghanistan that helped turn the tide in Iraq.

These additional forces will support a counterinsurgency strategy that will enable us to begin the difficult work of reversing the momentum of the Taliban and keeping it from power.

The President is right to follow the advice of the generals in increasing troops, and he is also right to focus on increasing the ability of the Afghan security forces so they can protect the people.

By doing both, he has made it possible for our forces to create the right conditions for Afghanistan--the right conditions for them to defend themselves, create a responsible government, and remain an ally in the war on terror.

Although our forces are in Afghanistan to defend our security interests, the people of Afghanistan must assume a greater burden in the future. The President's plan recognizes that.

Once we achieve our objectives--an Afghanistan that can defend itself, govern itself, control its borders, and remain an ally in the war on terror--then we can reasonably discuss withdrawal, a withdrawal based on conditions, not arbitrary timelines.

But, for now, we owe it to the American people, to those who died on 9/11, and to the many brave Americans who have already died on distant battlefields in this long and difficult struggle, to make sure Afghanistan never again serves as a sanctuary for al-Qaida. We owe it to the men and women who are now deployed or who will soon be deployed to provide every resource they need to prevail.

health care reform

With every passing day, the American people become more and more perplexed about the Democratic plan for health care, and they like it less and less.

Americans thought reform meant lowering costs. This bill actually raises costs. Americans thought reform meant helping the economy. This bill actually makes it worse. Americans thought reform meant strengthening Medicare. This bill raids it to create a new government program that will have the same problems that Medicare does. Americans wanted reform. What they are getting is the opposite--more spending, more debt, more burdens on families and businesses already struggling to get by.

One of the biggest sources of money to pay for this experiment is Medicare. This bill cuts Medicare Advantage by $120 billion. It cuts hospitals by $135 billion. It cuts home health care by $42 billion. It cuts nursing homes by $15 billion. It cuts hospice by $8 billion.

Reform shouldn't come at the expense of seniors. The McCain amendment guarantees it wouldn't. The McCain amendment would send this bill back to the Finance Committee with instructions to remove the language that cuts Medicare. The McCain amendment also says any funds generated from rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse should be used to strengthen Medicare, not to create an entirely new government program.

A vote in favor of the McCain amendment is a vote to protect Medicare. Let me say that again. A vote in favor of the McCain amendment is a vote to protect Medicare. A vote against the McCain amendment is a vote to raid this vital program in order to create another one for an entirely new group of Americans. So a vote against the McCain amendment is a vote to take money out of Medicare to create a program for an entirely different set of Americans. A vote against the McCain amendment is a vote against our seniors, and it is a vote against real health care reform.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I would just like to point out we have had some difficulty actually on both sides getting to the two votes that are designated in this consent agreement.

Our side of the aisle, the Republican side of the aisle, was prepared to vote on both of those amendments tonight. Then a problem developed on the other side, which I understand because we had had a problem on our side earlier. But I do just want to make it clear that Republicans were prepared and fully ready and willing to vote on the two amendments in the consent agreement tonight.

Mr. President, I do not object.

Mr. President, today I rise to honor the life of a Kentucky heroine, Ms. Mary Josephine Oberst of Owensboro. Ms. Oberst passed away on November 13, 2009, at the age of 95. A native Kentuckian, she proudly served her country as a member of the Army Nurse Corps beginning in 1937. In July 1941, Ms. Oberst was sent to the Philippines, and in early May the following year, when Bataan and Corregidor fell to the Japanese during the Battle of the Philippines, more than 60 nurses, including Ms. Oberst, were taken as prisoners of war, POWs, by the Japanese. These nurses, later christened the ``Angels of Bataan,'' were held as POWs for 33 months. During this time, Ms. Oberst continued her duties as a nurse, caring for fellow prisoners, even though she herself suffered from malaria and significant weight loss. In early February 1945, the 44th Tank Battalion rescued the POWs who were later brought back to the United States.

After overcoming the medical conditions which resulted from her imprisonment, Ms. Oberst was appointed captain and continued to serve as a member of the Army Nurse Corps. She worked in hospitals in Louisville, KY; Fort Knox, KY; and Ashford, WV, until her retirement from the Corps in 1947. Ms. Oberst was honored for her duty with several military service awards, including the Bronze Star Medal. Mary Josephine Oberst was a woman of high character, who faithfully served our country. Today, I wish to honor her life and her service, as well as give my condolences to her family for their loss.

Mr. President, certainly in a country of 300 million people there are differences of opinion, and you will see them on full display in the Senate on this monumental 2,074-page scheme that would expand the reach of government deeper into our lives, raise taxes, increase health care premiums, and cut Medicare for seniors.

On the other side are the American people. We know, from all the surveys we have seen, the American people are opposed to this bill. They are astonished that we are trying to pass a bill that is clearly opposed by the American people in every survey that has been published.

Americans do support reform, but this isn't the reform they were asking for, and it is not the reform they were told they could expect. In fact, it is pretty clear by now that the American people were sold a bill of goods when the administration and its allies in Congress said their health care bill would lower costs and help the economy because the plan that has been produced, that is before the Senate, will not do either.

The debate is no longer about improving care by reducing costs. We are past that. This plan will raise costs on American families, and it will make an already struggling economy even worse. The only question now is how we got to a point where we are actually considering spending trillions of dollars on a brand new government entitlement at a time when more than 1 in 10 Americans is looking for a job and when our debts and deficits are well past the tipping point.

For many, the answer to that question is quite clear. We know that some here in Washington have wanted government-run health care for many years. It is hard to escape the conclusion that these same people saw the current economic crisis as their moment. Earlier in this year, some in this administration said that ``a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.'' Americans are hoping this bill is not what they meant, but they are concerned that it is.

Americans already know this bill will make our economic problems worse, not better, without even addressing the serious health care problems we already face--and they would be right. That is why they want us to start over and accomplish the real mission of lowering costs.

That is precisely what the McCain amendment would allow us to do. The McCain amendment would send this bill back for a rewrite. It would send it back to the Finance Committee with instructions to give us a new bill that does not include $\1/2\ trillion cuts to Medicare. It would send the bill back to committee; send us a new bill without $\1/2\ trillion cuts to Medicare, one that does not pay for the bill on the backs of seniors; that is, if you pass the McCain amendment.

Here is a program, the Medicare Program, that is already struggling, a program that needs help. Yet, in order to finance their vision of reform, our friends on the other side want to use Medicare as a piggy bank to create an all-new government program that is bound to have the same problems as Medicare. As written, their bill would cut nearly $\1/ 2\ trillion from Medicare--not to make the program stronger but to fund more government spending. In the process, millions of seniors would lose benefits. Literally millions of seniors would lose benefits.

The McCain amendment would not let that happen. The McCain amendment tells the committees: Don't cut hospitals. The McCain amendment tells the committees: Don't cut hospice. The McCain amendment tells the committees: Don't cut home health care. The McCain amendment tells the committees: Don't cut Medicare Advantage. It would allow us to focus our efforts, instead, on the prevention of waste, fraud, and abuse, which we know to be rampant in this program. It would ensure we are not cutting one government program just to create a new one. That is what a vote in favor of the McCain amendment would be, it would be a vote to preserve Medicare, not weaken it. That is the message America's seniors want to hear in this health care debate, that improving health care in America doesn't have to come at their expense.

Some may argue that they need to cut Medicare to create a new government program. That is their call. But it is not the call Americans are asking us to make. I haven't gotten a call yet from anybody in Kentucky or around the country saying: Please cut Medicare so you can start a new program for somebody else--not my first call.

The American people want us to start over from the beginning and craft a bill they can actually support, and we know they don't support this bill. All the surveys indicate that. Then we could start over and end junk lawsuits against doctors and hospitals that drive up costs, something the majority didn't find any room for in their 2074-page bill--not a word about controlling junk lawsuits against doctors and hospitals. Then we could encourage healthy choices such as prevention and wellness programs, something the majority somehow couldn't squeeze into their 2074-page bill. Then we could lower costs by letting consumers buy coverage across State lines, something the majority must have overlooked in their 2074-page bill. Then we could address the rampant waste, fraud, and abuse, something our friends didn't think was important enough to seriously address in their 2074-page bill.

The McCain amendment would allow us to vote with seniors. That is what the McCain amendment is about. It would allow the Senate to say we are not going to finance a new government program on the backs of seniors, we are not going to use Medicare as a piggy bank to fund a new government program. It would allow us to vote with the American people. Most important, it would allow us to start over and get this right.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will have to object, I wish to say to my good friend, the majority leader, I thought over the last couple of hours we would be able to get consent to have votes on the Mikulski and Murkowski amendments. But I had indicated to him, and I want to say publicly, that we have a number of speakers interested in speaking on the Medicare issue and the McCain motion. So I will not be able to lock in the McCain motion or the side- by-side that I gather under this consent request my good friend, the majority leader, may offer.

I would still like to be able to get the two votes earlier referred to--the Mikulski and Murkowski amendments--but regretfully I cannot even lock those in right now. But I want to do that as soon as possible so at least we can get those two votes at some point reasonably early in the day and turn back to debate on the McCain motion.

I might say, we want to vote on the McCain motion. We certainly have no desire to delay that vote. But we do have a number of people who want to speak to it. With that understanding and with the point I want to make to my good friend that I want to get the two amendments by Mikulski and Murkowski locked in as soon as possible, I must object.