Floor Statements

Madam President, as the Senate fulfills its constitutional duty this week of providing for the common defense, it will also have an opportunity to fulfill its oversight responsibilities in the global war on terror and, more specifically, in the crucial theater of Afghanistan. Later today, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator McCain, will offer an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill that calls on our top commander in Afghanistan, GEN Stanley McChrystal, and the Centcom Commander GEN David Petraeus, to come to Washington to explain to Congress and the American people why they believe the situation in Afghanistan is so perilous, what they believe is necessary for our success, and why.

There is recent precedent for this. Many Americans will recall that 2 years ago, in accordance with a requirement contained in another Defense appropriations bill, GEN David Petraeus came to Washington to explain what had gone wrong in Iraq and what he and the rest of our forces were doing to turn things around. By providing a sober assessment of the situation that cut through the political cross- currents of the moment, General Petraeus's testimony, along with that of Ambassador Ryan Crocker, focused the national debate. It left us newly confident in their ability to lead us in Iraq. And it set us on a path of progress that continues today.

No one is arguing that the two situations are identical. They are clearly not. But it is hard to deny the urgency of the assessment that General McChrystal sent to the White House in late August, parts of which have been made public. And it is impossible to ignore his depiction of a grave and deteriorating situation on the very soil where al-Qaida terrorists plotted the 9/11 attacks. General McChrystal's assessment of the worsening situation in Afghanistan should be of concern to all of us, particularly its account of a resurgent Taliban and a resilient al-

Qaida. As the President told a Turkish audience in April, ``The world has come too far to let this region backslide, and to let al Qaeda terrorists plot further attacks.''

But there is also reason to be confident. At a time of worsening violence in Iraq, America was fortunate to be able to turn to General Petraeus, the man who literally wrote the book on counterinsurgency. And now, at a time of worsening violence in Afghanistan, we are just as fortunate to be able to turn to General McChrystal, who in reported previous combat experience supervised, planned, and executed counterterrorism operations.

No one is better equipped to assess the situation on the ground--and whether it calls for a new counterinsurgency strategy, or for a continuation of the same kind of counterterrorism strategy which the previous administration pursued, and which the current Vice President is reportedly urging the current administration to embrace.

Earlier this year, President Obama expressed his confidence in General McChrystal by appointing him to his current mission. Following the President's lead, the Senate expressed its confidence in General McChrystal by confirming him for his current mission without dissent. Now it is time for Congress and the President to work together on a plan for success.

Since no strategy will succeed without the support of the public, the President will doubtlessly want to explain to the American people why he plans to accept or reject the McChrystal Plan. This is especially true of a counterinsurgency strategy, which, by definition, requires a large commitment of troops and resources and great endurance on the part of the Armed Forces and the public alike.

Congress, for its part, has a responsibility to fund and to oversee our armed forces. Part of that is ensuring that we have the best information possible, and that we make that information available to the American people. And that is why it is crucial that we have an opportunity to hear General McChrystal's personal assessment of the mission that we confirmed him for, and that we give him an opportunity to explain why he has concluded that more troops are needed to avoid failure in Afghanistan.

General Petraeus's testimony served a necessary purpose during an earlier debate over strategy. General McChrystal's will do the same in this one.

We know he would be a willing witness. General McChrystal has spoken freely about his assessment on network television. And he recently told a visitor to Afghanistan that, if asked, he would welcome the opportunity to come to Washington to make the case for additional troops. He also said that it is his sacred duty to provide the unvarnished truth. With today's vote--which I urge our friends on the other side of the aisle to support--the Senate will give him a chance to do both.

Madam President, americans have been watching the health care debate play out in various committees in Congress, and they are wondering where it's all headed. I will make it easy for them. The final bill is going to cost about a trillion dollars. It is going to include $\1/2\ trillion in cuts to seniors' Medicare in order to create a new government program. It is going to raise hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes on individuals and businesses. And it is going to expand the government's role in the health care of every single American, whether they like it or not, limiting choices and leading to the same kind of denial and delay we have seen in other countries.

And then there is the issue of rushing through a bill and denying the American people the chance to read it. Imagine that, a trillion dollars out of the taxpayers' wallets for a bill that will affect the health care of every single American, and the majority has already voted to deny a mere 72-hours of public review before voting on it. This is outrageous, and hopefully this is not the way the majority decides to go forward.

One group that has become increasingly vocal in its criticism of this legislation is our Nation's Governors. Over the course of this debate, at least one in three of them have issued statements expressing their urgent concerns about a proposed expansion of Medicaid, which will force them either to cut services, raise taxes, or both. That is on top of the tax hikes that come about on the Federal level as a result of this bill.

One Democrat Governor had this to say of the Medicaid proposal: ``. . . it's very scary for governors to be saying as soon as the revenues get back there, the Federal Government is going to come in and say here's how you're going to spend your new money.''

Governor Schwarzenegger of California says he won't support Federal health care reform proposals that impose billions of dollars in new costs on California.

Governor Crist of Florida says the proposed Medicaid expansion would have a crippling effect on Florida's State economy.

Governor Linda Lingle of Hawaii says the proposed Medicaid expansion would be tantamount to mandating a tax increase on every resident of Hawaii . . . and further harm residents who are struggling to make ends meet.

Idaho Governor ``Butch'' Otter calls the proposal ``an . . . irresponsible effort to shift a substantial and unmanageable financial burden to the states.''

Those are just a few of the comments we have heard from Governors. They are issuing the same kind of dire warnings about the proposed health care legislation that Americans have been sounding for months.

The fact is, supporters of this legislation know that most Americans oppose it. That is why they are not listening. And that is why they are trying to rush it through without giving anybody a chance to study the details. The American people understand these proposals. They understand the strategy. And they are not happy about either.

I yield the floor.

If the majority leader will yield, I think it was 8 or 10 years ago. Interestingly enough, I believe who first suggested it was former Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire, and it was widely recognized on both sides of the aisle that this is something we should have been doing for a long time.

If the majority leader will yield, which Tuesday was the leader referring to?

We will be in. There would be a vote at what point on that Tuesday?

Let me reiterate further for the Members on this side of the aisle, what the leader indicated is, the week that includes Columbus Day, which is on a Monday, we will have Monday and Friday of that week off, and he has indicated the first vote will be on the Tuesday after Columbus Day, late in the afternoon.

Mr. President, the situation in Afghanistan is urgent, and we are told that action is necessary soon. But to better understand the need for action, the American people need to know all the details. And they should have those details explained to them by the man who knows them best.

It is hard to deny the urgency of General McChrystal's assessment, parts of which have already been made public. And it is impossible to ignore his depiction of a grave and deteriorating situation in the same part of the world where a group of terrorists plotted the 9/11 attacks. General McChrystal's assessment of Afghanistan should worry all of us. As the President told a Turkish audience in April, ``The world has come too far to let this region backslide, and to let al Qaeda terrorists plot further attacks.''

Earlier this year, President Obama expressed his confidence in General McChrystal by appointing him to his current post. Following the President's lead, the Senate expressed its confidence in General McChrystal by confirming him for his current mission without dissent. Now it is time for Congress to hear his detailed assessment of the mission that we confirmed him for, and to give him an opportunity to explain why he has concluded that additional troops are needed to avert failure.

Mr. President, Senators will continue to hash out a health care bill in committee today, and anyone who tunes in will hear a dizzying amount of detail about what is in and what is out.

But it is worth noting that the basic shape of this legislation is already clear: Any bill that makes it to the Senate floor will include a heavy dose of tax hikes. Any bill that makes it to the floor will include massive cuts to Medicare. Any bill that makes it to the floor of the Senate will be about 1,000 pages long, cost about a trillion dollars, affect about one-sixth of the entire U.S. economy, and impact the health care of every single American, whether they like it or not.

And here is the other thing we know: Democrats don't want to give the American people the time they need to review all the details. We saw this last week when they rejected a request for a simple 72-hour review, which is hard for anyone who grasps the scope of this legislation to understand. Nor would they pledge to wait until we understand the full cost of this bill, before acting on it.

There is important work going on in the Finance Committee this week, but no one should lose sight of where the work is headed. What we know for sure is higher taxes when American families and businesses are struggling just to make ends meet, cuts to seniors' Medicare when the program is already going bankrupt, more spending and more debt when we are about to end the fiscal year just today with an annual deficit roughly equivalent to the deficits of the last 5 years combined--the deficit this fiscal year, ending today, will be roughly as much as the last 5 years combined--and a government intrusion into health care of every single American at a time when Americans are asking us to lower costs and lower premiums, not add new burdens to the system or wreck the care they already have and like.

We know the essentials of the health care bill already. Americans have every reason to be concerned.

I yield the floor.

I would say to my friend from Tennessee that is absolutely correct.

Certainly, well above 1,000 and probably 2,000.

It is my understanding it is the intention of the majority leader and the administration to

merge the bill that came out of the Health Committee on which the Senator from Tennessee serves and the bill that is in the Finance Committee now.

Apparently, the Finance Committee will actually go to a final vote on a concept paper, not an actual bill--which I think will inevitably produce a dilemma for the Congressional Budget Office in trying to assess the cost of a concept bill. Then, apparently, they will turn that into a bill, and then the Congressional Budget Office will have to score, once again, the final bill, and the number there may be different from the number of the concept paper.

I would think for an accurate score we would have to ask them. What a challenge that will be. But I assume it will take a while.

I think we can add, the American people, I think correctly, could only assume there is some effort to try to hide the true impact of this rush effort to reorganize one-sixth of our economy, a $1 trillion bill, well over 1,000 pages that nobody has taken the time to read. It is not even produced in final bill language.

The American people begin to get the drift that this is a process that is going to, I think, enrage them. It enrages them already. I think the rage about it is only going to escalate in the coming weeks.

Madam President, this afternoon we resume consideration of the Defense appropriations bill, and among our most immediate concerns are the protection of our troops and allies in Afghanistan and the success of our mission there.

The President's pick to lead our efforts in Afghanistan, GEN Stanley McChrystal, has made clear that more forces are necessary to accomplish the mission. And while the administration has not yet reacted to General McChrystal's report, in my view, the President must soon explain to the American people his reasons either for accepting The McChrystal Plan or for taking a different course.

Timing is important. A failure to act decisively in response to General McChrystal's strategy, and his anticipated request for additional forces, could serve to undermine some of the good decisions the President has made on national security.

That said, no President decides to commit troops lightly; all such decisions have far-reaching consequences. And that is why General McChrystal and General Petraeus should also come to Washington to explain to Congress and to the American people how their strategy will work. A counterinsurgency strategy will require a significant investment in time, troops, and resources. We need an explanation from our generals why that investment is needed.

The recent disruption of an alleged al-Qaida plot against America was a reminder to all of us of the seriousness and urgency of our efforts in Afghanistan. There should be no doubt that al-Qaida remains a serious threat. We cannot allow al-Qaida to establish a safe haven in the very place where it plotted and planned the 9/11 attacks.

The Taliban is gaining ground in Afghanistan. And our commanders in the field are in the best position to tell us what is required to complete their mission. General McChrystal says that without adequate resources, we will likely fail. In my view, we should listen to his advice. And hopefully, we will be able to get that advice in person in a timely manner.

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

Mr. President. I would like to recognize a courageous Kentuckian, David C. Parrish, Jr., for his induction into the Kentucky Aviation Hall of Fame on October 17, 2009. Sixty-five years ago this past August, Mr. Parrish undertook brave actions during his service as a fighter pilot during World War II. A native of Paris, KY, Mr. Parrish represented the very best in courage, gallantry, and self-sacrifice in defense of this Nation in the skies west of Paris, France. Like many of America's ``greatest generation,'' Mr. Parrish was willing to disregard his own safety for the safety of his fellow airmen and the protection of his country.

Valor and sacrifice are words that describe the nature of Mr. Parrish, and patience would also describe his character. Although he was recommended for the Silver Star in August 1944, lost records and bureaucratic delays meant it would take 60 years for Mr. Parrish's heroism to be officially recognized. It was my deep privilege to work with Mr. Parrish in this effort and to personally present him with his Silver Star in his hometown in 2004. I believe Mr. Parrish's story is a timely reminder of the sacrifices that so many American men and women have made in the name of freedom.

Mr. President, I would like to share with you a retelling of Mr. Parrish's actions in defense of this Nation that earned him the Silver Star and his induction into the Kentucky Aviation Hall of Fame. On August 8, 1944, 1LT David C. Parrish, Jr., was flying in the area of Mortain, France. His flight was part of an eight-plane squadron that became separated from the lead flight while on patrol. Lieutenant Parrish and three others were on their way home when the controller reported 100 enemy fighters flying above him and toward American bombers. His wingman had to fly home because he was low on fuel. Lieutenant Parrish and the remaining two fighters climbed toward the enemy planes.

Lieutenant Parrish was also low on gas and would have normally returned to base, being so outnumbered by enemy fighters. However, recognizing the danger to the friendly bombers, Lieutenant Parrish dove his three fighters into the heart of the enemy formation. The enemy fighters dispersed and Lieutenant Parrish and his fellow airmen gave chase. Lieutenant Parrish pursued one enemy fighter at 4,000 feet and destroyed it. He then turned toward another enemy fighter flying at tree top level and eventually was able to force the enemy pilot to bail out. These pursuits were extremely hazardous, and even more so because Lieutenant Parrish was perilously low on fuel.

It is my great pleasure to recognize Mr. Parrish for the sacrifices and risks he has made for this country, and I would like to congratulate him on his well-deserved induction in the Kentucky Aviation Hall of Fame. He has made Kentucky very proud.

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

Mr. President, Senators are still hashing out the details of the Democrat health care proposal that they plan to bring to the floor, and it isn't getting any better.

Americans wanted us to work together on reforms that improve the system we have. What they are getting instead is a bill that creates an entirely different system in which government plays a bigger and bigger role in people's health care decisions. They are slapping this plan together as quickly as possible, and then they are going to force it on the American people whether they like it or not. That is what is going on this week in the hearing room of the Finance Committee.

Supporters of this bill are watching the clock. They know the longer it sits out there, the more Americans will oppose this trillion-dollar experiment that cuts Medicare, raises taxes, and threatens the health care choices that millions of Americans now enjoy. That is why they struck down a commonsense amendment this week that would have given the American people 72-hours to look at the details of this legislation.

They are rushing it through, hoping no one gets to see the fine print. Why else would they deny this 72-hour amendment that gives people the time they need to read a 1,000-page bill? Why else would they be dismissing anyone who raises a peep of opposition? Why else would they be asking people to forward fishy e-mails to the White House? And why else would the administration order an investigation into a private company for telling its clients the truth about what this legislation would mean for them?

More and more, it seem like supporters of this legislation just don't believe that the American people know what is best for themselves, so they want to keep them in the dark about the details. But that is not the way democracy works. And that is why Republicans sent a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services yesterday calling on the HHS Secretary to rescind the gag order that it placed on companies that want to tell seniors how health care legislation will affect them. Seniors deserve to know what is in this bill, and insurers should be free to tell them.

But until that gag rule is lifted, we will tell seniors ourselves, because it hits them hard. It cuts services that millions of seniors currently enjoy. It could force seniors off the plans they have with nearly $140 billion in cuts to one popular Medicare plan; it calls for nearly $120 billion in Medicare cuts for hospitals that care for seniors; more than $40 billion in cuts to home health agencies; and nearly $8 billion in cuts to hospice care.

Everyone agrees Medicare needs reform. This isn't reform. Lawmakers want to use Medicare as a piggy bank to pay for their experiment, and seniors are going to suffer for it. The response we keep getting from the administration is that hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare won't affect services. Who can blame seniors for scratching their heads over that one? How do you cut half a trillion dollars from something without anybody noticing the difference? Seniors, rightly, just aren't buying it.

Americans want reform. They want lower costs. They want greater access for people without insurance. And they want Congress to deliver commonsense solutions to all these problems. What they are getting instead is a trillion-dollar experiment that cuts Medicare, raises taxes, and threatens the health care options that millions of Americans now enjoy. And they are being told it all has to be done as fast as possible to meet some artificial deadline that no one can explain.

Americans want us to slow down, and Congress is putting its foot on the accelerator. Americans want to know what this bill would mean for them, and Congress won't let them read it before a vote, won't even allow them 72-hours to look over the details of a 1,000 page piece of legislation that will affect one of the most significant aspects of their lives. Americans have concerns about what they're hearing, and they are being told to shut up, sit down, and take the health care we give you.

This is precisely the kind of condescending attitude from lawmakers in Washington that ordinary Americans are tired of. This is the kind of thing they are protesting and speaking out against across the country. And over the last few months, Congress hasn't given them any reason to believe that their concerns aren't exactly right.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, over the past several months, the American people have made their voices heard in the debate over health care. Everyone is frustrated at the high cost of even routine services and procedures. But the good news is this: everyone agrees that these are real and pressing issues and that Congress can and should do something to help.

Unfortunately, the Democrat plan being contemplated here in Congress is not content simply to address the problems at hand. Instead, this plan uses these problems as an excuse to dismantle the current health care system, slap together a new one as quickly as possible, and force it on the American people whether they like it or not.

That is what is going on this week in the hearing room of the Finance Committee.

The U.S. Congress is hashing out the details of an enormously complicated bill that calls for a massive expansion of Washington's role in the health decisions of every single American. And when they are done, they plan to rush this so-called reform through Congress and force it on a country that is overwhelmingly opposed to it.

But there is really only one thing Americans need to know about this legislation: When all the talking is through, what is left is this: a trillion dollar experiment that cuts Medicare, raises taxes, and threatens the health care options that millions of Americans enjoy.

The administration has been telling Americans for months and months that if they like the coverage they have, they can keep it. Whoever believes this apparently is not familiar with the bill that Democrats in Congress want the President to sign. If they were, they would realize that it creates a new government standard for coverage, and that anyone who falls below that standard will be forced to buy a different health plan.

Government would tell you which plans you can have and which ones you can not, and if you do not like the plan they suggest, then you will have to send a check to Washington. You will get taxed. That is government expansion. Americans do not want it.

Americans are worried about spending. It seems like every time they turn around they are hearing about another trillion-dollar spending bill coming out of Washington. Well here is another. Once again, it is being rushed through Congress, and once again, we will not have enough time to read it. They made sure of that yesterday. My Republican colleague from Kentucky, Senator Bunning, offered an amendment to give senators the time they need to study the details. Democrats struck it down.

Taxes are already high enough. They are about to get higher. This legislation will lead to significantly higher taxes on just about everybody in America. If you have health insurance, you are taxed. If you do not have health insurance, you are taxed. If you need prescription medicine, you are taxed. If you need a medical device, you are taxed.

All these taxes would be bad enough if they were not so hard to understand.

For months we have been hearing that the goal of reform is to lower costs. Yet any school kid in America can tell you that raising taxes on something raises its cost. And every nonpartisan, independent study we have seen confirms this basic economic principle. Despite all the talk of lowering costs, all these higher taxes mean that, as a result of this legislation, health care costs are headed in one direction, and that is up.

What is worse, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office say that some of the worst taxes would fall squarely on the backs of consumers: not on the rich, but on ordinary Americans who are already struggling through a recession.

Seniors take a serious hit from this legislation, either through cuts in services that millions of them currently enjoy, or by being forced off the plans they have. All told, this bill calls for nearly $140 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage; nearly $120 billion in Medicare cuts for hospitals that care for seniors; more than $40 billion in cuts to home health agencies; and nearly $8 billion in cuts to hospice care.

Everyone agrees Medicare needs reform. This is not reform. This is a massive raid on a program millions of seniors depend on in order to cover the cost of another new government program. This bill uses Medicare as a piggy bank to pay for this experiment.

There is no question that Americans want health care reform. They want lower costs. They want greater access. They want commonsense reforms, like a plan to get rid of junk lawsuits on doctors and hospitals and to level the playing field when it comes to taxes on health plans. But what they are getting from Congress instead is a trillion-dollar experiment that cuts Medicare, raises taxes, and threatens the health care options that millions of Americans now enjoy. And here is the worst part: they are being told that all this has to be rushed through Congress on some artificial timeline.

Americans have been asking us to slow down. Congress is doing the opposite.

This is not how Americans expect us to do their business. We need nonpartisan groups like the Congressional Budget Office to tell us how much this legislation will cost and how we would pay for it, and we need to slow down and get it right. We need to give Members of Congress the time they need to understand what they are going to be voting on. And we need to give the American people the time they need to understand this legislation too. This bill is too big, too costly, and too important to allow anything less.

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

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

Mr. President, yesterday afternoon I came to the floor to speak out against one of the tactics that supporters of the President's health care proposal have resorted to in recent days.

It appears that a particular Senator has encouraged the administration to use its powers to clamp down on an opponent of the administration's health care policy--to clamp down--to use the administration to clamp down on an opponent of the President's health care policy. What is more, the administration snapped to attention at the Senator's request. It followed the Senator's advice and almost immediately the government clamped down on a private health care company in my home State that had been sharing its concerns about the administration's health care proposal with seniors on Medicare.

Yesterday, we saw how legitimate those concerns were when the Director of the nonpartisan, independent Congressional Budget Office said the administration's proposed Medicare cuts would indeed lead to significant cuts in benefits to seniors.

Let me say that again. We had the Director of the Congressional Budget Office just yesterday confirm that what was said by this health insurance company to its customers was true. Yesterday, we saw how legitimate those concerns were when the Director of the nonpartisan, independent Congressional Budget Office said that the administration's proposed Medicare cuts would indeed lead to significant cuts in benefits to seniors. So a part of the administration is putting a gag order on a company for telling the truth to its customers.

First and foremost, this episode should be of serious concern to millions of seniors on Medicare who deserve to know what the government has in mind for their health care. But it should also frighten anyone-- anyone--who cherishes their first amendment right to free speech, whether in Louisville, Helena, MT, San Francisco, or anywhere else. It should concern anyone who is already worried about a government takeover of health care. Why? Because it seems that in order to advance its goals, the administration and its allies are now attacking citizens groups and stifling free speech.

Let's review. At the instigation of the chairman of the Finance Committee, the author of the health care legislation now working its way through Congress, the executive branch, through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, has launched an investigation--believe it or not, an investigation--into Humana for explaining to seniors how this legislation would affect their coverage.

One more time: A private health care provider told its elderly citizens how its health care legislation might affect their lives. Now the Federal Government is putting its full weight into investigating that company at the request of the Senator who wrote the legislation in question. Now we find out the concerns the company was raising to its clients were perfectly legitimate, according to the Director of CBO. So, for telling the truth to your clients, you get investigated by the government. This is so clearly an outrage it is hard to believe anyone thought it would go unnoticed. For explaining to seniors how legislation might affect them, the Federal Government has now issued a gag order on that company and any other company that communicates with clients on the issue, telling them to shut up--shut up or else. This is precisely the kind of thing Americans are worried about with this administration's health care plan.

They are worried that handing government the reins over their health care will lead to this kind of intimidation. They are worried that government agencies, which were created to enforce violations evenhandedly, will, instead, be used against those who voice a different point of view.

That is apparently what is happening here, and to many Americans it is a preview of what is in store for everyone under the administration's health care plan. It is hard to imagine any justification for this. But if people behind this latest effort believe they have some legal justification for shutting up a private company, then they need to explain themselves to the American people. More specifically, they need to explain to 11 million seniors on Medicare Advantage why they should not be allowed to know how the cuts to this program will affect their coverage.

Yesterday, my office called CMS to ask for the legal authority that would warrant them imposing an industrywide gag order on an issue of public concern. We are still waiting for a response. So this morning I am asking the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to provide my office with its justification for telling a company it cannot communicate with its seniors.

Over the past several months, we have seen a pattern of intimidation by supporters of the administration's health care proposals, including efforts to demonize serious-minded critics at townhall meetings across the country. Now we are seeing something even worse, the full power of the Federal Government being brought to bear on businesses by the very people writing the legislation. This was troubling enough in itself. It is even more troubling now that we are told that Humana was exactly right--exactly right in what it was telling its clients. Americans are already skeptical about the administration's plan. They should be even more skeptical now.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, the Senate Finance Committee will start to amend the health care proposal that its chairman, Senator Baucus, released last week. Before that work begins, I think it is important to remind Americans what this plan would mean for them.

Put simply, this plan calls for more and more government intrusion into the health care system and pays for it with $350 billion in new taxes and hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare cuts. So in the name of cutting costs, this plan raises taxes on virtually every American who uses our health care system.

Here are some of the tax increases in this plan: If you have insurance, this plan taxes you in the form of a new tax on insurance companies, which will then be passed on to consumers.

If you don't have insurance, this plan taxes you, too, by saying that the consequence of not maintaining insurance is an excise tax that could run as high as $3,800 a year.

If you use a medical device--such as a hearing aid or an artificial heart--this plan taxes you, and it also includes new taxes on everything from MRIs to contact lenses.

If you need laboratory tests for prevention, screening or diagnosis, this plan taxes them too.

If you are an employer who can't afford to provide health insurance to your employees, this plan taxes you--a tax that businesses across the country have warned could kill more jobs in the middle of a recession.

If you, similar to tens of millions of other Americans, take prescription drugs, this plan taxes you too.

This plan also increases taxes on about 1 in 10 family insurance policies, according to one policy group, and this tax will extend to more and more plans over time.

In short, if you have health insurance or you don't, you are taxed. If you seek preventive care, you are taxed. If you need a medical device, well, that is taxed too. At a time when Americans are demanding lower health care costs, this plan would drive them even higher.

As I said earlier, this plan also contains hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare cuts, which will hurt America's seniors. It contains $130 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage, a program that gives 11 million seniors more choices and options when it comes to their health care. One Democratic Senator described these cuts as ``intolerable.''

The President recently said that seniors currently on Medicare Advantage would be able to get coverage that is ``just as good.'' Seniors, however, want to keep the insurance they already have.

This plan contains nearly $120 billion in Medicare cuts for hospitals that care for seniors--cuts that organizations such as the Kentucky Hospital Association have warned against because of the negative effect they would have on services to seniors in Kentucky and in other States.

This plan includes more than $40 billion in cuts to home health agencies that let seniors receive care in their homes rather than having to go into a nursing home. This plan contains $8 billion in cuts to hospice care, a service that provides dignity and comfort to seniors at the end of life.

Everyone agrees that Medicare needs reform but, instead of trying to address the problems at hand, this plan uses Medicare as a piggy bank to pay for new government programs that could very well have the same fiscal problems Medicare does.

Americans want reforms that make care more affordable and keep government out of health care decisions. They do not want a so-called reform that would actually make care more expensive and would put government bureaucrats in charge of health care decisions.

Americans have sent a clear message to lawmakers in Washington over the past months: No more trillion-dollar programs, no more debt, and no more taxes. This plan for health care fails all these tests. That is why it is so important for the Finance Committee to give this proposal serious and careful consideration. I have listed just a few of the things that concern people about this plan. With 564 amendments filed from both Democrats and Republicans, it is clear we need to slow down and take the time necessary to address the serious bipartisan concerns about the plan.

I yield the floor.