Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to inform the Senate of the accomplishments of Mississippi's Sumrall High School varsity baseball team. Earlier this year, the Bobcats set a Mississippi record by winning 67 consecutive games and winning their third straight State championship, an impressive achievement worthy of recognition.

The team fell just eight wins shy of breaking the national record for consecutive wins and secured their spot as the team with the Nation's fourth longest winning streak. Some teams might have been discouraged after a loss ended such an impressive streak, but the Bobcats regrouped and went on to win their final 11 games and their third consecutive Class 3-A State Championship. The Bobcats' state title and 36-1 record earned them the top spot in USA Today's national high school baseball rankings.

Sumrall High's baseball staff consists of Head Coach Larry Knight and Assistant Coaches Steve Cooley, Andy Davis, Richard Broom, and Matt Thomas. The team members and coaching staff have demonstrated outstanding teamwork, discipline, and sportsmanship. I congratulate the Sumrall High School baseball team and wish them continued success both on and off the field.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent Senator Cardin and I be allowed to engage in a colloquy for 20 minutes.

Mr. President, I am appreciative that I am able to join today with my friend and colleague, Senator Cardin. I appreciate his joining me today to discuss an issue of great concern to both of us and to human rights advocates around the world. That is the ongoing trial in Russia of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and his business partner Platon Lebedev. In June of last year, Senator Cardin joined me in introducing a resolution urging the Senate to recognize that Khodorkovsky and Lebedev have been denied basic due process rights under international law for political reasons. It is particularly appropriate, I think, that Senator Cardin and I be talking about this this afternoon because in a matter of days, Russian President Medvedev will be coming to the United States and meeting with President Obama. I think this would be a very appropriate topic for the President of the United States to bring up to the President of the Russian Federation.

I can think of no greater statement that the Russian President could make on behalf of the rule of law and a movement back toward human rights in Russia than to end the show trial of these two individuals and dismiss the false charges against them.

Since his conviction, Khodorkovsky has spent his time either in a Siberian prison camp or a Moscow jail cell. Currently, he spends his days sitting in a glass cage enduring a daily farce of a trial that could send him back to Siberia for more than 20 years. Amazingly, Mikhail Khodorkovsky remains unbroken.

I think it appropriate that President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have committed to resetting relations with the country. I support them in this worthwhile goal. Clearly, our foreign relations can always stand to be improved. I support strengthening our relations, particularly with Russia. However, this strengthening must not be at the expense of progress on the issue of the rule of law and an independent judiciary. The United States cannot publicly extol the virtues of rule of law and an independent judiciary and at the same time turn a blind eye to what has happened to Khodorkovsky and Lebedev.

I urge President Obama and Secretary Clinton to put the release of these two men high on the agenda as

we continue to engage with Russia, and high on the agenda for President Medvedev's upcoming meeting here in Washington, DC.

I thank my colleague.

I will go on to point out that things started coming to a head when Mr. Khodorkovsky started speaking out against the Russian Government, led by President Putin, and his company that he headed, Yukos, came into the sights of the Russian Federation.

Mr. Khodorkovsky visited the United States less than a week before his arrest. He was in Washington speaking to Congressman Tom Lantos, the late Tom Lantos, a venerated human rights advocate from the House of Representatives, who had seen violations of human rights in his own rights. Mr. Khodorkovsky told Congressman Lantos that he had committed no crimes but he would not be driven into exile. He said: ``I would prefer to be a political prisoner rather than a political immigrant.'' And, of course, a political prisoner is what he is now.

Shortly after his arrest, government officials accused Yukos Oil of failing to pay more than $300 billion in taxes. At the time, Yukos was Russia's largest taxpayer. Yet they were singled out for tax evasion. And PricewaterhouseCoopers had recently audited the books of Yukos, and the government tax office had approved the 2002 to 2003 tax returns just months before this trumped-up case was filed.

The Russian Government took over Yukos, auctioned it off, and essentially renationalized the company, costing American stockholders $7 billion and stockholders all around the country who had believed Russia was liberalizing and becoming part of the market society. A Swiss court has ruled the auction illegal. A Dutch court has ruled the auction illegal. But even more so, they tried these two gentlemen and placed them in prison. Mr. Khodorkovsky apparently had the mistaken impression that he was entitled to freedom of speech, and we discovered that in Russia, at the time of the trial and even today, he was not entitled, in the opinion of the government, to his freedom of speech.

A recent foreign policy magazine called Khodorkovsky the ``most prominent prisoner'' in Vladimir Putin's Russia and a symbol of the peril of challenging the Kremlin, which is what Mr. Khodorkovsky did.

I would quote a few paragraphs from a recent AP story by Gary Peach about the testimony of a former Prime Minister who actually served during the Putin years:

A former Russian prime minister turned fierce Kremlin

critic came to the defense of an imprisoned tycoon on

Monday--

This is a May 24 article--

telling a Moscow court that prosecutors' new charges of

massive crude oil embezzlement are absurd.

What we now find is that when Mr. Khodorkovsky is about to be released from his first sentence, new charges have arisen all of a sudden. After years and years of imprisonment in Siberia, new charges have arisen.

Mikhail Kasyanov, who headed the government in 2000-2004,

told the court that the accusations against Khodorkovsky, a

former billionaire now serving an eight-year sentence in

prison, had no basis in reality.

This is a former Prime Minister of the Russian Federation.

Prosecutors claim that Khodorkovsky, along with his

business partner [who is also in prison] embezzled some 350

million tons--or $25 billion worth--of crude oil while they

headed the Yukos Oil Company.

That's all the oil Yukos produced over six years, from 1998

to 2003. I consider the accusation absurd.

He said that while Prime Minister, he received regular reports about Russia's oil companies and that Yukos consistently paid its taxes. Kasyanov, who served as Prime Minister during most of President Putin's first term, said that both the current trial and the previous one, which ended with a conviction, were politically motivated. So I would say this is indeed a damning accusation of the current trial going on, even as we speak, in Moscow.

Indeed, the second show trial of Mr. Khodorkovsky has entered its second year. We have celebrated the anniversary of the second trial.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial by the Washington Post dated June 9, 2010, at this point.

The editorial points out that Russia's Government is trying to think of ways to attract more foreign investment, and it juxtaposes this desire for more Western openness and investment with the Khodorkovsky matter and says that this trial has become a showcase for the Russian regime's cynicism, corruption, and disregard for the rule of law.

It goes on to say: The new charges are, as Mr. Putin's own Prime Minister testified last week, absurd. Mr. Khodorkovsky and his associate, Platon Lebedev, are now accused of embezzling Yukos Oil's production--a crime that, had it occurred, would have made their previously alleged crime of tax evasion impossible.

So the cynicism of these charges is that they are inconsistent with each other. Yet, in its brazenness, the Russian Federation Government and its prosecutors proceed with these charges.

The article goes on to say: Mr. Khodorkovsky is looking more and more like a prisoner of conscience who haunted the previous criminal regime.

It says:

Mr. Obama raised the case of Mr. Khodorkovsky last year,

and the State Department's most recent human rights report

said the trial ``raised concerns about due process and the

rule of law.''

I will say they raised concerns.

Let me say in conclusion of my portion--and then I will allow my good friend from Maryland to close--this prosecution and violation of human rights and the rule of law of Lebedev and Khodorkovsky has brought the censure of the European Court of Human Rights that ruled that Mr. Khodorkovsky's rights were violated. A Swiss court has condemned the action of the Russian Federation and ruled it illegal. A Dutch court has said it is illegal. It has been denounced by such publications as Foreign Policy magazine, the Washington Post, a former Prime Minister who actually served under Mr. Putin. It has been denounced in actions and votes by the European Parliament, by other national parliaments, by numerous human rights groups, and by the U.S. State Department.

I submit, for those within the sound of my voice--and I believe there are people on different continents listening to the sound of our voices today--it is time for the Russian President to step forward and put an end to this farce, admit that this trial has no merit in law, and it is time for prosecutors in Moscow to cease and desist on this show trial and begin to repair the reputation of the Russian Federation when it comes to human rights and the rule of law.

I thank my colleague and yield the floor.

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

I ask to be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, yesterday the Senate Armed Services Committee completed its markup of the Defense authorization bill. Normally, Senators are asked to wait for a period of days until the report can be issued and the specifics are made public. But yesterday the chairman clearly understood when we were finished with business that there were two items dealing with social policy that would be widely known immediately. I speak on those topics today with a clear understanding that the Chair knows that these items will be talked about, an exception to the general rule.

Yesterday, I believe, the committee made a very grave mistake with regard to the provision involving the repeal of the don't ask, don't tell policy. This has been the policy since the days of the Clinton administration. It has worked reasonably well. I am opposed to the repeal of the don't ask, don't tell policy.

In February of this year, Secretary Gates announced that a survey would be conducted with a view toward assessing whether this policy should be changed. There was a working group that was going to be established and a survey of servicemembers and their families would be conducted. This working group would report the results of this assessment by December of this year. At that point, the Congress and the administration would have additional information about how today's servicemembers and their families would feel about a change which would allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. This would, of course, be a dramatic change.

That was the policy. A number of us were skeptical about it, but that was the announced policy. Somehow, in the last few days that has changed, and a so-called compromise has been put forward and adopted now by the committee and apparently by the House of Representatives also that would say that while the assessment is going on--which, as I said, is to end in December--that we would vote on this bill this summer, possibly in the next few weeks, to go ahead and repeal the don't ask, don't tell policy and then to allow the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to review the assessment in December and see whether, indeed, the enactment of the bill by the Senate and House should go forward.

This seems to be getting the cart before the horse. I want to make several points.

This so-called compromise is not a compromise. It is, in effect, for all intents and purposes, a repeal of the don't ask, don't tell policy. Giving the President and the two military people who are most answerable to him the authority to make this decision and pretend they might decide against it is a mockery, and it is a figleaf.

Does anyone doubt what their decision will be? After all, the President of the United States campaigned that he wanted to do away with the don't ask, don't tell policy. There is no question he favors this. The Secretary of Defense answers directly to him. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff answers directly to the President of the United States. It is foolhardy for anyone in this Senate to suggest there will be any decision other than a repeal of the don't ask, don't tell policy.

It is said that these three people will wait for the assessment to see what military members and their families think. I think Congress has the authority to do this. Congress should wait for the assessment. We might be surprised. We might be troubled by what the assessment shows. But it is, as I said, a mockery to make the decision now in May or June or July and then look forward to an assessment which is due in December.

What has changed? I ask my fellow Members and the American people: What has changed? What has brought about this sudden compromise over the past weekend and attaching this bit of social engineering to the national Defense authorization bill?

Frankly, I think a lot of Americans are going to conclude that politics changed. We can look at RealClearPolitics that estimates Republicans may gain six seats in the November election. That would be before the December assessment is due. Some people say Republicans may gain 8 to 10 seats. That would change attitudes considerably with regard to don't ask, don't tell. It would allow the people of the United States to be heard on this issue.

Americans are justified in concluding that with this election looming, that is what changed. There has been no change in the national security needs to rush this process ahead and get the cart before the horse and make the decision before the assessment is made.

The point of view of those of us in the committee who voted against the Lieberman amendment yesterday is supported by the heads of the four branches of our service. They support the original plan of Secretary Gates announced in February to do an assessment and then to make a decision based on what we find out in the assessment.

I have a letter dated May 26, 2010, to Senator John McCain from George Casey, general, U.S. Army, the Chief of Staff of the Army. He says to Senator McCain that his views have not changed since his testimony.

I quote directly:

I continue to support the review and timeline offered by

Secretary Gates.

I remain convinced that it is critically important to get a

better understanding of where our Soldiers and Families are

on this issue.

Yesterday, in their wisdom, the members of the Armed Services Committee decided they knew better than our soldiers and their families.

General Casey said we need to know whether this ``impacts on readiness and unit cohesion.''

He concludes by saying:

I also believe that repealing the law before the completion

of the review will be seen by the men and women of the Army

as a reversal of our commitment to hear their views before

moving forward.

ADM Gary Roughhead, Chief of Naval Operations, in a letter to Senator McCain dated May 26 says, among other things:

I testified in February about the importance of the

comprehensive review that began in March and is now well

under way within the Department of Defense. We need this

review to fully assess our force and carefully examine

potential impacts of a change in the law.

Yesterday, the members of the Armed Services Committee said: No, we disagree with Admirable Roughead, the Chief of Naval Operations. We don't need this review. We, as the elected representatives of the 50 States, are going to punt that decision to someone whose mind is already made up.

Admirable Roughead goes on to say:

I have spoken with sailors and fellow flag officers alike

about the importance of conducting the review in a thoughtful

and deliberate manner.

In this quick reversal that occurred just yesterday in the Armed Services Committee, we abandoned the thoughtful review.

GEN James T. Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps, said to Senator McCain in a letter dated 25 May 2010:

During testimony, I spoke of the confidence I had as a

Service Chief in the DOD Working Group that Secretary Gates

laid out in the wake of President Obama's guidance on ``Don't

Ask-Don't Tell.'' I felt that an organized and systematic

approach on such an important issue was precisely the way to

develop ``best military advice.''

He goes on to say:

I encourage the Congress to let the process the Secretary

of Defense created to run its course.

That was the Commandant of the Marine Corps.

Finally, a letter from GEN Norton A. Schwartz, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, says:

. . . my position remains that DOD should conduct a review

that carefully investigates and evaluates the facts and

circumstances, the potential implications, the possible

complications, and potential mitigations to repealing this

law.

All four of our service heads were explicit in asking the committee to let the process continue. Yet, in our wisdom, with an election looming, the committee voted with a majority vote to go ahead and say: We really don't care to hear what the assessment says. We are just going to let three people make that decision on their own.

I have this question for Members of the Senate who will be asked to vote on this after the break: What if the assessment comes back and says that soldiers and marines in significant numbers are not willing to continue in a voluntary service under these conditions? What if that is the result of the assessment? Then it will be too late for the Members of the House and Senate to make a change in this policy.

The time to take a pause and the time to see what our members actually think is now. We can force this on the services, but in a voluntary armed force, we cannot force members to enlist. We cannot force marines, who are putting their lives on the line for what they believe is the American way of life and for our freedom and for the security of all Americans, to reenlist when their time is up. We need to know if they are going to be willing to stay in the service and to make that commitment and to put themselves in harm's way under this very drastic, dramatic change. We should not substitute our judgment for what the members of the service and their families think. And I regret that we have gone this far and regret the action of the Armed Services Committee.

There is one other issue that was regrettably voted on in the affirmative by the committee yesterday, and that is with regard to abortion policy. Since 1996, we have had a policy that abortions-- elective abortions--will not be performed on our military installations. This is a policy that was passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by a Democratic President, President Clinton. For the past 14 years, it has been our policy that elective abortions will not be performed in our military installations.

Yesterday, the committee decided to reverse this longstanding policy and to say that, indeed, abortions for whatever reason will be performed in these facilities that are paid for at taxpayer expense and are there for the care of our servicemembers, to keep them healthy and to repair their injuries. We are going to use those facilities for elective abortions.

I guarantee you this will be challenged on the floor of the House and Senate with separate amendments, and Members will be given a chance to vote on this separate issue. But if this amendment stands, the medical facilities of our military installations--Fort Bragg, Columbus Air Force Base, Keesler Air Force Base in my home State of Mississippi-- will be able to be used for abortions performed late term, abortions performed for purposes of sex selection, abortions performed for any reason, abortions at will. That will be the requirement for our military installations and the medical facilities on those installations--again, another piece of social engineering, another vast and serious and consequential departure from longstanding Department of Defense policy.

I regret these two positions. I call on my colleagues, Mr. President, during this Memorial Day break, when we are talking with those who have served, who have put themselves in harm's way, and when we are talking with the families of those who have served and who have given the ultimate sacrifice, that we seriously consider whether the committee has made the right decision and that we come back to Washington, DC, with a determination to reverse these two very harmful and, in my view, mistaken actions by the Armed Services Committee.

With that, I wish my friend, the Acting President pro tempore of the Senate, a happy and prosperous Memorial Day, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Would the Senator from Mississippi yield?

Mr. President, I would like to echo the sentiments of Senator Cochran relative to Walton Gresham being awarded NPGA's Bill Hill Award. Mr. Gresham has been exceptional in helping legislators on the Federal, State, and local levels understand the difficult issues confronted by the LP-Gas business. He has taken the lead in areas critical to the industry, and has unselfishly dedicated both time and resources for the betterment of the Mississippi and National Propane Gas Associations.

I am proud to know Mr. Walton Gresham. I am proud to have Gresham Petroleum headquartered in Indianola, MS. And I am proud to know that Mr. Gresham has been awarded NPGA's Bill Hill Award, the propane gas industry's highest award for governmental relations activities.

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

Mr. President, I had not intended to speak tonight, but having heard my friend, the Senator from Minnesota, speak about the problems with the rating agencies, I thought I would rise to say that in very many respects the Senator from Minnesota is correct. It is my understanding that the underlying bill as yet has no provision whatsoever dealing with the rating agencies. I think certainly if that remains, it will be a major flaw in the legislation.

I don't know the details of the amendment the Senator from Minnesota was referring to, but I certainly welcome debate about the rating agencies to make sure they are accurate and to acknowledge so many mistakes that have been made by those agencies in the past. So I wish to commend the Senator for his debate about this issue.

Mr. President, I have a couple more points I wish to make, and I don't have much more time. But I am happy to yield to the chairman.

Mr. President, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that. I think the Senator would also concede that there are many in this body and in this building who would make a case that the bill is far from adequate as regards to the rating agencies, and we will have debate about that.

I appreciate the Senator's statement. I hope we can strengthen the bill in regards to rating agencies. I also hope we can do this: We have an opportunity in some amendments later on in this debate--perhaps next week or perhaps the week after--to address this question of the GSEs, Fannie and Freddie. I think almost everyone would acknowledge that much of the problem that was caused in 2007 and 2008 stemmed from the GSEs. There has been an effort on the part of Senator Shelby and others over time to rein in and have some important regulations for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I would hope we could have an honest to goodness debate and include this very important aspect of financial reform in this legislation; otherwise, I think we haven't gotten to part of the problem.

Then, I would say also, we are going to have debate over the next few days and perhaps weeks about this all-powerful consumer agency that would be created. Certainly, we need to protect the consumers. But as I understand this legislation which we will be asked to consider and to vote on and have an opportunity to debate, it creates one of the most important--one of the most powerful, all-powerful individuals in the entire Federal Government; someone who would not even have to answer to a board, as head of this all-powerful consumer protection agency. I think the fact that we are hearing more from Main Street rising up in dismay saying the Main Street agencies didn't cause these problems--the car dealers, the orthodontists who might finance payments over time, the medium-sized banks and credit unions--they say: Mr. Senator, we are not part of the problem. Why are we being penalized and brought into the purview of this all-powerful Washington, DC, regulator?

I think the concerns of Main Street can be addressed by the Senate, and we can still pass a bill that will cover the abuses of Wall Street which, after all, is what we are after.

So I wanted to use the remarks of the Senator from Minnesota as a springboard to begin to discuss a number of issues, including Freddie and Fannie, including dealing with too much power in the form of this regulator, as well as dealing with the issue which the Senator brought up of the rating agencies.

I thank the President, and I yield the floor.

I appreciate my colleague from Nebraska getting into the weeds because it is important that we know the details of the numbers here. I think there is also a sort of big-picture aspect to this. There are a lot of Americans out there who may not have read the details the Senator from Nebraska just outlined, but they instinctively know you can't do all this to one-sixth of our economy and save money for the Federal Government at the same time. They instinctively know this is going to turn out, as big entitlement programs always do, to be more expensive than has been estimated and it is going to cost the American taxpayer and future generations in terms of the national debt.

I would like to pivot and talk about what this is going to do to State governments because that is an additional aspect over and above the gigantic numbers the Senator from Nebraska mentioned.

Really, almost half of the additional coverage in this Senate bill, which the House is being asked to adopt lock, stock, and barrel without even changing so much as a semicolon, half of the coverage is going to be under Medicaid. We all know Medicaid requires a huge Federal investment, but Medicaid also always requires a State match. Under the provisions of this bill, if it is enacted, States will be told that the magnificent Federal Government has increased coverage, and now, Mr. State Legislator, Mr. State Governor, you figure out a way to pay your part of it.

I know this much: In my State of Mississippi, our legislators and our Governor have had to stay up late 2 years in a row figuring out a way to pay for the Medicaid match they are already being asked to pay, much less this new mandate of additional persons who would be covered under this Senate language. There is no way the State of Mississippi can stand this new Medicaid coverage without an increase in our taxes at the State level. I don't think we can cut teachers enough, although teachers might have to be cut to pay this Federal mandate. I don't think we can cut local law enforcement enough, although that might have to be cut too. It is just a huge, unfunded burden on the States. Quite frankly, even if all of the promises that are being made on the Senate side come true--that we will clean this up in reconciliation, which I frankly doubt can possibly happen--the States are going to be faced with this huge unfunded mandate.

You don't have to take our word for it on this side of the aisle. Democratic Governor after Democratic Governor has had press conferences, they have sent letters, they have sent messages, they have made themselves available to the press. Governor Bredesen of the State of Tennessee said this bill is the ``mother of all unfunded mandates'' and has urged, even at this late date, that we not go down this road.

So I appreciate my friend from Nebraska pointing out what this is going to do to the Federal budget, and I would simply commend the bipartisan State officials who have been talking to anyone within the sound of their voices saying that State governments cannot afford this mandate at the State level, and it will inevitably result in an increase in taxes at the State level--something we certainly don't need at this time of economic hardship.

Perhaps Senator Brownback has some thoughts he would like to add, and I know others may be joining us, too, Mr. President.

The people back home want health care reform, but they certainly want the kind that is going to lower health care costs and lower health care premiums. The Senator mentioned CMS. It may be that some people within the sound of our voices do not realize this is a part of the administration. This is not some outside business group that has an ax to grind. The actuaries at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are called on to tell us the numbers as they see them. They had no choice but to answer the question accurately and the question is not one that lends itself to getting public support for this plan. I think that is why the poll numbers Senator Brownback mentioned are there. There is only about 25 percent of the American public that believes at this point we should pass this huge Senate bill lock, stock, and barrel and send it to the President for his signature.

Senator Barrasso mentioned the $\1/2\ trillion cut in Medicare. We spent a little time in December debating whether actually there was a cut in Medicare. Some of our friends on the other side of the aisle suggested this--the programs that were cut should not be considered part of the Medicare Program.

Obviously, there is one Democratic Senator who thought so much of these cuts in Medicare that he got an exemption for his State. That is what the minority leader has been calling the ``Gator aid.'' Florida, under the Senate bill--the bill the House is being asked to pass in its entirety without changes--the Senate bill says we are not going to cut Medicare Advantage for the State of Florida.

Why the people of the State of Florida are more deserving of Medicare Advantage and Medicare benefits than the people of Wyoming or Mississippi or Kansas or Nebraska, I do not know. But somehow the majority, 60 Members of this Senate, in their wisdom, believed Medicare was a good program and Medicare Advantage was a very good program for the people of Florida.

By the same token, I guess the Democratic Senator from Nebraska has now repudiated what was known as the ``Cornhusker kickback,'' which was basically saying Nebraska would not have to pay for their share of this huge Medicaid mandate; all the other States would. Somehow that State was singled out. Apparently, the people of Nebraska rose in horror at being singled out for some sort of favor the other people in America were not getting, so that is being proposed to be changed.

I ask Senator Johanns, if the House votes on this next week, they will not have a chance, will they, to take that out? The only choice the House is going to have is to vote for the ``Cornhusker kickback,'' the ``Gator aid,'' the ``Louisiana purchase,'' these special deals for labor unions, and all that will be sent to the President to be signed into law and will be part of the statute.

That is the way I understand the Democratic procedure. I ask Senator Johanns, am I correct?

If I can interject, I think that was a very telling remark from the Speaker of the House yesterday, and if someone didn't catch that, she said we need to pass the bill so we can then find out what is in it. The comments are out there on the Internet for the American people to see. I would like to quote Senator Lamar Alexander about this entire process. He said:

What the President is doing is asking House Democrats to

hold hands, jump off a cliff, and hope Harry Reid catches

them.

I don't know that Harry Reid will be able to catch them. I will say this. If there are budget points of order that need to be waived in this scheme the majority leader has about cleaning up this statute in conference, I am not going to be a part of 60 votes to waive that point of order. It will all be on Mr. Reid and his teammates over there to get this done because I will not be a part of waiving points of order, helping them get to a supermajority to clean up something, even if it needs to be done.

This process needs to be stopped, and I would say the next 10 to 14 days are going to tell the tale. The American people do not want this bill, and it is up to the House of Representatives and to us, saying what we can on the Senate side, to see if we are going to listen to the people and stop this bill, go back to the drawing board and try something that works.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Barrasso and I and others be allowed to enter into a colloquy for the next 30 minutes.

Thank you, Madam President.

I come from a background of having earlier been in the State senate and then, after that, the U.S. House of Representatives. Sometimes when I was a State legislator and it looked as though we were making a hash of legislation on the senate side, someone would say: Well, let's pass the bill anyway, and we will clean it up in conference. It was always tempting to send it to conference and hope that cooler heads would prevail and we would get a better work product. Sometimes that happened and worked out well, and sometimes it turned out that we didn't clean it up in conference.

I am reminded of that when I hear about what is being discussed and what now seems to be the clear plan for this Democratic majority and President Obama in moving forward with health care legislation. The House has passed a flawed bill with $\1/2\ trillion in cuts to Medicare, with huge mandates to the States, with tax increases--the largest increase, really, in entitlement big government, in my memory-- and the Senate has passed its flawed version not only with those flaws I just mentioned in the House version but also special deals: a special deal for Nebraska, a special deal for Florida and Louisiana, and on and on and on. That is where we are now.

The plan now seems to be that this mistaken bill--the flawed bill the Senate passed on Christmas Eve--is now at the desk at the House of Representatives, and leadership over there is tempted to take that flawed product, pass it without any changes whatsoever, and send it to the President for his signature. The plan there is not the old legislative trick of we will clean it up in conference; the plan is we will clean it up in reconciliation.

As I mentioned, sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't. The problem with cleaning it up in reconciliation is that if this Democratic scheme goes forward and we do that, we will not only have a bill in conference to be worked out where if a mistake is made we can vote against it in the end, we will have a statute.

The plan is for the President to sign this flawed Senate product with all the taxes, with all the mandates, with all the special deals and purchases, sign it into law, and then hope the Senate can correct all of those mistakes in reconciliation. If that scheme fails, we will be stuck with a very bad product, and it will be the law of the land and up to some future Congress to deal with. Certainly, it will be the key, top, paramount election issue for the next several months.

If the plan works, if the Democratic scheme works, we will still have this. Maybe the ``Louisiana purchase'' will be taken out, the ``Cornhusker kickback,'' the ``Gator Aid''--all of the special deals, and then we will have the President's additional taxes and additional Federal regulation that he has recently proposed. So when it is all said and done, even at their best, most optimistic predictions, we will have massive funding mandates to the States. We will have a $\1/2\ trillion cut to Medicare. We will have huge tax increases and a large new entitlement program.

The people don't want this. I heard a Democratic Member of the House of Representatives very articulately stating this on television just this morning. He said people must be out of their minds. This is wrong, according to this Member of the House of Representatives, a Democrat who says he has voted against it before, and he is not going to be one of those who is willing to change his mind.

So I don't want to spend the rest of this year with this flawed legislation as the only campaign issue. It may be our only choice. But I can assure everyone within the sound of my voice of this: If this scheme goes through, if the flawed Senate version is signed into law and we have this reconciliation debate, this will be the No. 1 issue, if not the only issue, and there will be devastation for my friends on the other side of the aisle if they persist in thumbing their noses at the American people and defying the clear will of the American people on this issue.

I am glad to be joined by my friend, Senator Barrasso, a legislator in his own right with considerable experience, and a physician. So I am happy to hear the comments of my colleague from Wyoming.

Madam President, I think Senator LeMieux and I agree on this point. We owe a debt of gratitude to our colleagues, our two physicians, for making it clear on national television over the course of 7\1/2\ hours last week that Republicans have positive ideas, ideas that will work and, frankly, ideas the American people believe in.

I am astonished that after we had such a clear demonstration of ideas not only that are popular, but ideas that need to be given a chance to work, the whole thrust of that 7\1/2\-hour discussion has been cast aside, and we are back at this proposal of passing the flawed bill with all of the mistakes that people on the other side of the aisle agree we have made and signing it into law before we do anything else.

I have some comments I want to make about what Senator Coburn called ``shenanigans,'' the reconciliation process.

Let me say this: ``Never intended for this purpose.'' ``An outrage.'' ``A nonstarter.'' ``I will not accept it.'' ``Ill advised.'' ``A real mistake.'' ``Not appropriate.'' ``Undesirable.'' Those are all comments of Democratic Members of the Senate about the concept of cramming this bill through and this procedure I have described and coming back with reconciliation. It is not simply a Republican objection. It is an objection where we have our Democratic colleagues on record.

I hope they will recall their words. I hope there is not some pressure that is going to be issued against my colleagues in the House and in the Senate to do something they do not believe in simply because someone in the White House wants it and is exerting pressure.

The comments I have read were all made by Democrats. I happen to agree with them. We have never under reconciliation attempted something of this magnitude and this substance. It would forever change the legislative process in the House and Senate of the United States if we begin with health care.

I will be happy to yield.

Mr. President, on December 2, 2009, retired Air Force COL Jack Pitchford died at the age of 82 after a long battle with a brain tumor. The Natchez, MS, native was a decorated fighter pilot, a survivor of the Hanoi Hilton, and a true hero. Our country will miss him.

John Joseph Pitchford was born in 1926 in Natchez. The second of 12 children and the eldest boy, Pitchford enlisted in the Army Air Corps after graduating from high school in 1944. He served as an aircraft and engine mechanic through the end of World War II.

He then attended Louisiana State University from 1949 to 1952, graduating with a bachelor of science degree in forestry and receiving a Reserve Officer Training Corps commission in the Air Force. After entering pilot training in August 1952 at Bartow Air Force Base, Pitchford went on to receive his wings in September 1953.

As the war in Vietnam escalated, Pitchford volunteered for the Wild Weasel program, tasked with flying low-altitude missions to hunt and destroy surface-to-air missiles. On December 20, 1965, during his third combat mission of the war, Colonel Pitchford's F-100F Super Sabre aircraft was hit by a North Vietnamese missile. He suffered a dislocated right shoulder during his ejection from the aircraft and three gunshot wounds to his right arm when his captors opened fire. Colonel Pitchford was the first Wild Weasel to be taken prisoner in Vietnam. He spent the next 7 years in various North Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camps, including the infamous Hanoi Hilton. After 373 weeks of hellish captivity and torture, Colonel Pitchford was finally released on February 12, 1973.

In recognition of his tremendous service and sacrifice, Colonel Pitchford was awarded the Purple Heart, the Silver Star, and Legion of Merit. Upon retirement from the Air Force, he returned to Natchez where he became an active member of the community. In discussing his time as a POW, Colonel Pitchford once said:

The one thing I would like to convey to the American people

is that no matter what happens in one's lifetime, one must

never lose faith in the United States of America. Ours is a

great country indeed. We must continue to rededicate

ourselves to the principles that have made it great. I, as a

POW, was maintained by my faith in God, country and by the

hardships much worse than my own that were endured by many of

my fellow POWs.

I recently returned from Afghanistan. Many of the qualities Jack Pitchford exhibited in his life can be seen in our men and women who are serving our country there today. Their service and sacrifice ensures that Jack Pitchford's legacy will live on.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that several Republican colleagues and I be allowed to engage in a colloquy for the next hour.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Washington for commending and complimenting the staff. That is a bipartisan sentiment for this Christmas season. I am sure every Senator on the floor feels the same way and expresses that appreciation to the hard-working staff.

I want to start off by saying there is still an opportunity for this bill to be amended to change some of the very harmful ways that this will affect our people back home and, particularly, our State governments.

I was on the Senate floor several days ago pointing out the objections that most of the State Governors have with regard to the Medicaid mandates. I want to read from a letter dated December 10, from my Governor, Haley Barbour of Mississippi, who reminds Senators that:

This bill continues to place a huge unfunded mandate on

States, while harming our small businesses and seniors

through budget gimmicks and increased taxes.

And he says this:

If the current bill, which would expand Medicaid up to 133

percent of the Federal poverty level, were enacted into law,

the number of Mississippians on Medicaid would increase to

1,037,606, or 1 in 3 citizens, in Mississippi. Over 10 years,

this bill would cost Mississippi taxpayers $1.3 billion.

I was on the Senate floor a few days ago also with this map, which shows in red the number of States that are facing this unfunded mandate because of the increased Federal mandate for Medicare coverage coming from this bill, should it be enacted into law. I was pointing out that only the two States--Vermont and Massachusetts--because of a formula that has been worked out, would be exempt. Every other State will have to come up with the extra money either through cutting education programs, cutting mental health programs or other vital services or by raising taxes. They will have to come up with the extra money under this legislation so that half of the people covered by this new act will be covered by Medicaid.

I want to make an amendment to that chart today and add one other State. I think it has become quite a well-known fact that we need to put one other State up there in yellow, and that is the State of Nebraska.

We know pursuant to an agreement that was made before Senator Nelson announced his support as the 60th vote for cloture on this very important legislation, a deal was cut--the minority leader said a cheap deal, and I agree--that the State of Nebraska would be exempt in perpetuity from its requirement to pay the State match. The Federal Government, according to this legislation that we will be asked to vote on in the next 2 days, will pick up all of the extra expenditures for the State of Nebraska.

The poverty level in Nebraska is not quite as bad. I don't know how the powers that be felt they should or could justify this expenditure, but I will tell you the people in the State of Mississippi are going to have to come up

with another $1.3 billion over the next 10 years to pay for what we are going to be required to do by Congress--in its wisdom.

How is it fair that one Senator from Nebraska goes behind closed doors with the majority leader and cuts this deal so that his citizens don't have to pay this extra tax, and they don't have to do without services in other State programs to come up with the money? No one in this building--nobody within the sound of my voice--can come in here and explain why that is fair.

The fact is, the majority leader needed that vote, and that was part of the deal that was cut. Now citizens in Arizona, citizens in Wyoming, citizens in Mississippi, in Arkansas, and in Louisiana--we will have to come up with the extra Federal tax money on our part, but the Federal Government can cover all of the additional costs--State and Federal--in Nebraska.

What would happen, then, after 2016 under current legislation?

The Senator yielded to me the other day, and I appreciate that. We have a number of Republicans who want to speak during our hour.

The fact is, after 2016, every State in red has to tax their own citizens and pay their State share, except Vermont, Massachusetts, and Nebraska. And I still challenge any colleague in this Senate to come before this body and say that is fair. I do not believe they will say that is fair.

I will say to my friend, I am afraid. I am afraid for my country. We are going to have a vote sometime between now and Christmas Eve on raising the debt limit. It will just be a short-term thing. I doubt if a single Republican will vote for that. Then we will have to come back again in February and do the same thing.

The debt that is piling up on our country is something to be frightened about. It is something we need to fight against and be resolute about. We are not shedding crocodile tears, but I am frightened by this debt, and we should be, if we want our economy to stay strong. The fact we are adding $2.5 trillion in an entitlement program, which apparently the majority has the votes for, is simply going to add to this enormous debt.

So it is no wonder, when you add the Medicare cuts, the taxes that most States are going to have to pay--unless they cut a special deal-- on top of the tremendous national debt that we are facing, the American people are frightened. They have a right to be frightened and worried.

I would echo what the Senator from Nebraska has just said. I know my friend from Arizona has been one of the most outspoken critics of special deals and special earmarks. This is not some catchall appropriations bill to get us through the end of the year. This is one of the most major pieces of legislation on which any Member of this Senate currently serving will ever vote. This is one-sixth of the American economy, and the American people are learning about these special carve-outs where the citizens of one State will be treated differently not because of a formula, not because of the poverty level, but because of political power.

It would just seem to me that one Member of the majority party, in these next 2 days, might step forward and say: You are right, and I will not be a party to this.

The Senator mentioned the Florida carve-out. Perhaps I should have it on my map. The reason I did not is it involves Medicare Advantage and not Medicaid. The map was about Medicaid, but he makes a good point about the Florida carve-out.

I had a discussion with some of the leadership on the Democratic side on the floor of the Senate the other day about Medicare Advantage. The strong assertion over on that side is, Medicare Advantage is not Medicare. As a matter of fact, some of the leadership in this very body said the booklet the Government puts out that says Medicare Advantage is part of Medicare should be changed. Those words should be stricken from the handout because it is not part of Medicare. The Web site the Federal Government has saying Medicare Advantage is part of Medicare, that should be changed because it is just an insurance company masquerading as Medicare.

Let me just take a second. This is Betty. Betty represents--she is from Louisiana. I don't know if she was one of the 60 percent of Louisianans who voted for Senator McCain in Louisiana, but she enjoys Medicare Advantage. She was told during the election that if you like your coverage, under any plan that the Obama administration would approve, you get to keep that coverage. She gets hearing aids, vision coverage, dental care, and she likes her Medicare Advantage.

If Betty is 1 of the 150,000 seniors in the State of Louisiana who enjoy this benefit, she is at risk of losing it. But if she happens to be in the State of Florida, in any of these counties with the $100 million carve-out, she is fortunate enough to be able to keep her Medicare Advantage.

In other words, it may not be guaranteed, but she sure likes it. Obviously, one of the Senators from Florida believes his constituents like it--again, a carve-out so this nonguaranteed, non-Medicare benefit that is not very good, they can keep it in Florida. That is in the bill and no one can deny that special treatment is given to that one State under Medicare Advantage. Again, I challenge any American to come onto the floor of this Senate and tell me how that is fair.

Let me tell my friend from Idaho about some courageous Democrats. When the House version of this was being considered at the other end of this building, a number of Democrats stepped forward and said: I can't vote for this. It was very close. They have a huge majority, 40 votes over there. As a matter of fact, one Member of the House today basically said: I can't take any more. He switched parties. A Member from Alabama is now joining the Republican conference. But there are a number of loyal Democrats who have no intention of switching parties and they have stepped forward and said: I can't vote for it. Don't count me in on this.

Bart Stupak is a Representative, a courageous pro-life Representative from Michigan. He did vote for the bill. I do not impugn his motives. He did what he thought was right. But before he voted for it, he made sure legislation was included in the House version to make sure the Hyde language, which

has been the law of the land for almost two decades, was included.

Here is what Representative Stupak said yesterday or the day before yesterday about this so-called pro-life compromise that was included in the version we will have to vote on in the Senate. He said it is ``not acceptable . . . a dramatic shift in Federal policy that would allow the Federal Government to subsidize insurance policies with abortion coverage.''

That is a release actually on December 19.

I appreciate the courage of someone from a Democratic State, from a district that has long been Democratic, who is a member--chairman of a committee and a member of the leadership over there--stepping forward and saying: I can't go this far. Unless this language is changed--and we are told by Members of the Senate there better not be much of a conference. What we vote on, on Christmas Eve, it better sort of stay like it is or it will not be passed by the Senate when it comes out of conference.

Bart Stupak is stepping forward and saying, if that is the case, then I am switching from a yes to a no. I appreciate that kind of courageous Democrat.

That is exactly correct. I commend my former House colleague for taking that principled stand.

How much time remains?

Unless my colleagues want to join in, I thank them for joining us and certainly thank Senator McCain, one of the most distinguished public servants, someone who sacrificed for his country and who has been on this floor hour after hour.

The bill we will be asked to vote for on Christmas Eve by the administration's own Chief Actuary increases health care costs, threatens access to care for seniors, forces people off their current coverage, and actually increases the amount of the gross domestic product that will be spent on health care rather than decreasing it. These are not statements I have made; these are assessments made by the Chief Actuary for the Obama administration.

There is still time. Even if this bill passes, we will go home for Christmas, for the holidays. We will hear from our constituents. I hope we listen to that over 60 percent of Americans who say: We advise you not to vote for this legislation.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield briefly?

I think the Senator has really answered his own question. As a matter of fact, Senator Grassley and Senator Enzi met for hours and hours, weeks upon weeks with my friend from Montana in good faith, hoping to come up with a program that could get that 80-vote support we usually get on matters of----

And then eventually, it dawned on them that my friends on the other side of the aisle wanted to Europeanize the health care system of the United States of America.

I thank the Senator for yielding.

Yes, and I appreciate so many of our colleagues being here today because I am glad we are getting into the Medicaid aspect of this bill. There has sort of been a feeling around this building the last couple of days that if we could only take care of the Medicare buy-in and the government-run option this bill would be OK. So I think today we are bursting that myth and pointing out the huge unfunded mandate the Medicaid portion would put on almost all the States.

Every State in red as shown on this chart would be required under this bill to increase their Medicaid spending. Only Vermont and Massachusetts would not have to be mandated by us in Washington to do this additional spending. Of course, with the unfunded mandate, what the Federal Government is saying is, We think this is a great idea. We think people should be covered with additional Medicaid Programs and, by the way, you folks at the State level should come up with the funds to pay for it. That is the very nature of an unfunded mandate.

I am not a Governor nor have I been a Chief of Staff of a Governor, but I have a letter from my Governor, Gov. Haley Barbour, who says:

If the current bill, which would expand Medicaid up to 133

percent, were enacted into law, the number of Mississippians

on Medicaid would increase to 1,037,000, or one in three of

our citizens. Over 10 years this bill would cost

Mississippi's taxpayers $1.3 billion--

The generosity of this Congress would be to tell the

legislators and taxpayers of my State of Mississippi:

Congratulations. We get more coverage and, by the way, you

have to pay an additional $1.3 billion--

necessarily requiring Mississippi to raise taxes in order to

continue vital programs such as education and public safety.

As has been pointed out, our State governments don't have a printing press. They have to balance the budget and make the numbers come out at the end of every year. We are putting a new burden, if we pass this legislation unamended, a tremendous burden on our Governors.

One other comment. There has been mention of the Governor of Tennessee who is a two-term, respected Democrat who knows a little something about health care. I think the actual quote last summer from Gov. Phil Bredesen was that he feared ``Congress was about to bestow the mother of all unfunded mandates on the State of Tennessee.''

I have here in my hand--and we don't have time because we have so many

people who want to speak--I have 13 quotes, not from Republican Governors such as Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, but Democratic Governors all across this Nation, including the newly elected Democratic Governor's Association chairman, Gov. Jack Markell, and 12 others saying, we cannot afford, we cannot accept, we cannot bear at the State level this unfunded mandate upon this number of States.

Here is the problem there. If they take care of the Governors down the road by saying we are going to send the money from Washington to cover this, then all of this talk about the program cutting costs at the Federal level goes out the window. Something is going to have to pay for it. Either we are going to have to gin up the printing press here, borrow some more money from China and send it to the States, which I guess is what the Senator was referring to, or we are going to pass the unfunded mandate on to the taxpayers of 48 of our States.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator yielding to me. I think it is important for us all to understand where we are now. We have had a debate about the Medicare issue. The Senate had an opportunity, with the McCain amendment, to protect Medicare from the almost one-half trillion dollars in cuts the Reid bill proposes to do to Medicare. We said no to that opportunity and instead passed the amendment offered by Senator Bennet of Colorado which in sum total does absolutely nothing. What we have done now with the Bennet amendment is say that along with apple pie and motherhood, we also love Medicare, and we want everybody to know that. But the substantive effect of what we have now done is nothing.

I have this challenge to the managers of the bill on the other side and to the Democratic leadership: Now that Bennet has passed and McCain has been defeated, I challenge them to take this bill, send it back to CBO and CMS and have the independent analysts there look at it again. They will be duty bound to come back with the facts. The facts will be that the almost one-half trillion dollars cut in Medicare is still there.

Now that the McCain motion to commit has been defeated, and the sham of the Bennet amendment has been passed, there are still the same cuts to hospitals, there are still the same cuts to Medicare Advantage and to all the senior citizens who depend on that and who were told during the campaign their coverage would not be taken away from them if they liked it. The cuts to nursing homes are there. The cuts to home health are there. And the cuts to hospice are still there.

Send the bill back to CBO. We can continue debating it. We will not have to miss out on one bit of rhetoric that we have already had. But ask the independent analysts: Are the Medicare cuts still there? They will be duty bound to come back to us and say: Yes, the same cuts that were there before are current in the bill now.

We have accomplished absolutely nothing today to protect Medicare.

I thank the Senator for yielding.

If the Senator would yield on that point.

We have three Republicans standing now saying this, and we have had quoted some official independent sources. Let me quote a Democrat, Representative Michael McMahon of New York:

Medicare Advantage, which serves approximately 40 percent

of my seniors on Medicare, would be cut dramatically.

That is why that Democrat from the State of New York voted no on the plan when it was before the House of Representatives. So you don't have to take our word for it, from a partisan standpoint. Democrats are saying no because of the Medicare cuts and the cuts to Medicare Advantage--drastic cuts.

Mr. President, if I could just maybe take 1 minute of that time and then y colleagues can wrap it up.

I wish to emphasize what a devastating effect these Medicare cuts are going to have on rural America. Once again, I wish to quote some of my colleagues from the other end of the building because it shows the bipartisan opposition we have against these cuts from rural America.

Mike Ross, a Democrat from Arkansas, said:

With more than $400 billion in cuts to Medicare, it could

force many of our rural hospitals to close, providing less

access and care for our senior citizens.

Representative Larry Kissell of North Carolina:

From the day I announced my candidacy for this office, I

promised to protect Medicare.

So he voted no on the bill in the House of Representatives.

Ike Skelton said:

The proposed reductions to Medicare could further squeeze

the budgets of our rural health care providers.

Finally, Representative Boucher, a senior Democrat from Virginia, said:

The plan could place at risk the survival of our regions'

hospitals.

Unless these Medicare changes are taken out of the bill, this bill devastates health care for senior citizens in rural America.

I thank my colleague for yielding me the time.

Madam President, will my friend yield for a question?

I realize we do not have much time. I have a quick question. I was listening to the debate on television. I understood the Senator to say Medicare Advantage is not part of Medicare. My question is: I have here the Medicare handbook for 2010, ``Medicare and You.'' It says right on page 50:

Medicare Advantage Plans (Part C). A Medicare Advantage

plan . . . is another health coverage choice you may have as

part of Medicare.

My question to the Senator is--to my friends on the other side of the aisle: Is the Medicare handbook inaccurate and, if so, will you be calling CMS, Medicare, and be asking them to change what they say explicitly on page 50 of the Medicare handbook?

Even though Medicare put it in their handbook, has had it for several years, it is wrong?

Isn't it in part of the Medicare legislation?

I know this. It is in the handbook. I want my two friends of the majority party to get it out of there. We thought all along it is part of Medicare and the millions of senior citizens who rely on this and who were told in the campaign, if you are satisfied with your coverage, you don't have a thing to worry about, they are going to be able to keep their coverage. Under the Democratic legislation, they would not be allowed to keep their coverage under this bill.

The question I had was: Is this a part of Medicare?

I realize my friends have a difference of opinion. The authorities for Medicare who put this publication out year after year say Medicare Advantage is part of Medicare. It is Part C. I think it is disingenuous for my friends to say it is not.

One other question. Is it a semantic question to ask: Are the American seniors who are currently enjoying Medicare Advantage going to be disallowed from this program? The answer is yes, under this bill.

Will the Senator yield?

The chairman, when he is calling HHS to change the handbook, also needs to tell them to change their Web site, where it says Medicare Advantage is part of Medicare.

Can the Senator from Connecticut guarantee that under this legislation, the benefits to Medicare Advantage recipients will not be cut? Can he make this guarantee?

The reason he cannot make this guarantee--

It is clear the Senator does not like Medicare Advantage. It is also clear no guarantee can be made that Medicare Advantage benefits will not be cut under this legislation. It is also clear there are tens and tens of millions of American senior citizens who like their Medicare Advantage, notwithstanding the Senator from Montana, and they stand to lose those benefits under this legislation.

This segment of debate will end at the bottom of the hour, so it is almost over. I appreciate my friends yielding. This debate will continue for days, weeks. I say to my friends, there are Members on their side of the aisle who have come before this body and said these Medicare Advantage cuts are unacceptable. I think they are going to have to have a lot of convincing too. Democratic Members of the House have also come forward. I am not convinced. I don't think they are convinced.