John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I will. Amendment No. 3382

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today because the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works will soon be meeting to discuss the nomination of Mr. Arthur Elkins to be the inspector general at the Environmental Protection Agency. I support Mr. Elkins moving out of committee, and to date he has truthfully answered all the questions I posed to him. Before the full Senate votes, I do have some additional questions based on a report I am releasing today. As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I care a great deal about ensuring oversight over the agencies within our jurisdiction, the most important of which is the EPA. Over the last few months, the minority on the subcommittee has compiled a report. The report is entitled ``The Status of Oversight: A Year of Lost Oversight.'' This report details the severe lack of oversight by the majority of the committee and the administration. When the majority created the Subcommittee on Oversight, it was stated that they planned ``to use the subcommittee to explore ways to restore scientific integrity in the EPA, and other Federal agencies focused on the environment, and to strengthen environmental protections by once again making the regulatory process more transparent.'' I agree. One year later, as my report details, there have only been two subcommittee hearings, and, as the report concludes, ``The result of this is that the majority has let a year go by where they have failed to pursue their stated goals.'' Over the last year, my colleagues and I have requested a series of investigations and hearings into key matters related to whistleblowers being silenced, data being manipulated, and shadow czars holding meetings where nothing is put into writing to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests. We have asked for these hearings and investigations because we believe the public needs to have trust in their government. At the beginning of this administration, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson herself stated unequivocally: ``The success of our environmental efforts depends on our earning and maintaining the trust of the public we serve.'' As this report demonstrates, this administration and the majority have shown little interest in pursuing these matters. Let me read to you the findings and recommendations of the report: In 2009, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee majority chose not to conduct oversight over the relevant agencies within the executive branch. The lack of any oversight over the activities of the Federal agencies weakens the system of checks and balances and invites the potential for larger abuses. Action must be taken to investigate oversight issues from the last year, and further coordination within the committee regarding the oversight jurisdiction and responsibility is needed. I believe that finally receiving a nominee for inspector general at EPA gives the public another opportunity to get to the truth about the issues raised in this report. In his answers to my questions to date, Mr. Elkins has signaled that he is absolutely willing to chart a new course from where this administration and the majority have taken us. When I asked: Do you believe it is the responsibility of the EPA inspector general to investigate instances where whistleblowers are silenced by their superiors at the Agency, he said yes. When I asked: Will you pursue those instances, he said yes. When I asked: Do you believe it is the responsibility of the EPA inspector general to investigate and report instances where scientific procedures at EPA are circumvented, he said yes. When I asked: Will you investigate instances where agency employees are smeared publicly in the press by higher-ups in an agency or in the administration simply for providing their best advice and counsel, he said yes. All of these things are not hypotheticals; they all occurred over the last year. My colleagues and I in the minority have asked for investigations into each of these instances by the majority and the administration. The response we have received each time has been a resounding no. If the administration and the majority refuse to provide proper oversight, then someone else has to. That is why I plan to share this oversight report with Mr. Elkins, the nominee to be inspector general at the EPA. Before a floor vote, I will seek confirmation that he will give the matters I raise in this report due consideration. I am confident based on his response so far that he will answer in the affirmative. If so, we will have the sea change at the EPA that will restore the public's confidence in that Agency. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

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

Mr. BARRASSO. We are going to see that. We will see that across the board. I was at our hospital in Wyoming on Monday talking to physicians who take care of everyone, and they have great concerns because they say at that rate they can't afford to keep the doors open, if the Medicare cuts go through, the cuts the President says will have to go through if, in fact, he wants to hold up the numbers he continues to talk about.

Mr. BARRASSO. It could not. According to the President's budget numbers and the way this bill is written and the financial gimmickry, they want to cut physician fees for Medicare by 21 percent and keep them frozen for the next 10 years. So it is cut and freeze for 10 years, and they use that as one of the additional financial gimmicks. Well, if you do that to the doctors in the country, who are already reluctant to see Medicare patients because the payment is so low--the Mayo Clinic said they are not going to see new Medicare patients because the reimbursement at today's rates is so low--if you drop them 21 percent additionally at a time when the Congressional Budget Office says one-fifth of the hospitals and one-fifth of the doctors' offices in this country will be unable to continue to be solvent 10 years from now if this bill goes into place--we know without a question that we cannot allow that to happen. Congress knows that, the doctors know that, the American people know it. Everybody knows it except, apparently, the people writing the health care bill, who say: Oh, this is actually going to save money in the long run. When people look at this in an honest way, they know this is going to drive up the cost of care and make the quality of care for our American citizens go down.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, there has been significant attention given to efforts by the United Nations to establish a global climate change agreement. The effort has been based, in large part, on information contained in reports prepared by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Supporters repeatedly cite figures and conclusions in the U.N. reports to justify a complete overhaul of the world economy. Supporters have been steadfast in claiming the report is conclusive, in claiming the scientific data is solid, and in claiming the integrity of the findings are above reproach. Any mistakes identified and pointed out are minimized and ignored. They have been singing this song for years. The U.N.'s top climate official is Dr. R.K. Pachauri, and the chorus of defenders of the U.N. reports have grown louder in recent months as the house of cards they have built is falling apart. There have been disclosures of e-mails that show scientists manipulated the sciences; there have been nonscientific materials utilized to reach scientific conclusions; there has been scientific conclusions that are not properly peer reviewed. Each week, the list of errors grows. The excuses from Dr. Pachauri, the man in charge of the U.N. climate change reports, well, they have been wearing thin. I come to the floor as a Senator who serves on both the Energy Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee. I come to the floor to tell you and our Nation the United Nations' scientists are manipulating data to further political goals--political goals of passing a climate change accord that will cost the world billions. This is not my accusation. The person making the charge is the person who verified the false conclusion. It is better to hear it in the person's own words: His name is Dr. Murari Lal. Dr. Lal is a retired Indian academic, now a consultant. He was one of the four lead authors of the Asia chapter of the U.N. report. He is also behind the bogus claim in United Nations climate change reports that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035. He admitted that this scientific ``fact'' as climate change supporters like to state, was included in the report ``purely to put political pressure on world leaders.'' Let me repeat--he said this so called ``fact'' was included in the United Nations report ``purely to put political pressure on world leaders.'' According to Dr. Lal, ``It related to several countries in this region and their water sources.'' ``We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.'' The so called ``fact'' in the report is just not true. On January 21, the Economist stated that when informed about the error the United Nations ``did nothing'' and the claims were ``airily dismissed by Rajendra Pachauri.'' The Times of the U.K. reports a second factually inaccurate conclusion. It reports that the United Nations wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters. In an article written by Jonathan Leake, he stated that: The United Nations climate panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods. The original link between climate change and natural disasters was based on an unpublished report. According to the Times the report ``had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny''--and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link was ``too weak.'' Despite the warnings once again, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change included the fiction in its report. Today the claim by the U.N. that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of natural disasters is a large part of the political debate across this country. How many politicians made the claim that Hurricane Katrina was the result of climate change? Well now they know the inconvenient truth. According to the Times of the U.K., the actual authors of the claim on natural disasters withdrew the claim--but the United Nations did not. Every day new scandals emerge about the so called ``facts'' in the U.N. reports. Claims that ice is disappearing from the world's mountain tops were apparently based on a student dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine. It was revealed that green activists with little scientific experience were the source for unsubstantiated claims that global warming might wipe out 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest. These revelations are in addition to the released e-mails by the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University. These are the e-mails that first raised serious questions about the conduct of U.N. and even U.S. scientists. These e-mails demonstrate a coordinated effort by trusted climate scientists to suppress dissenting views and manipulate data and methods to skew the U.N. reports to reach a politically correct view of the impact of climate change. Scientists at the Climatic Research Unit said that they ``admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.'' The lack of any raw data prevents other scientists from checking their work and raises additional questions about the accuracy of the data used in the U.N. reports. The actions by scientists and others to suppress data that contradicts their conclusions is misleading, unethical and unacceptable. Their conduct needs to be investigated. Senator Inhofe and I have written U.N. Secretary Moon to have the U.N. conduct an independent investigation into the original climate gate revelations. That request has not been acted upon. Revelations of ongoing scientific fraud at the United Nations Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change is disturbing. Concrete action by world leaders is needed. The integrity of the data and the integrity of the science has been compromised. Today, I call for government delegations of the U.N.'s general assembly and U.N. Secretary Moon to pressure Dr. Rajendra Pachauri to step down as head of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is time to conduct an independent investigation into the conduct of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Dr. Pachauri should be removed from any involvement with the investigation. Recent reports over the weekend raise questions about whether or not Dr. Pachauri knew of the false information in the U.N. report months prior to the disclosure. These claims, first reported in the Times of the U.K., stated that: Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. If proved true, this would mean that Pachauri failed to alert the world to this mistake before the December Copenhagen conference. Investor's Business Daily in an editorial stated: If we're serious about restoring science to its rightful place, the head of the UN's panel on climate change should step down. Evidence shows he quarterbacked a deliberate and premeditated fraud. Walter Russell Read, project director for Religion and Foreign Policy at the Pew Forum was quoted in Investor's Business Daily Tuesday February 2 as saying: After years in which global warming activists had lectured everyone about the overwhelming nature of the scientific evidence, it turned out that the most prestigious agencies in the global warming movement were breaking laws, hiding data and making inflated, bogus claims resting on, in some cases, no scientific basis at all. President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and U.N. Ambassador Rice need to apply all the necessary pressure to ensure that Dr. Pachauri is removed. I also call on President Obama to direct his cabinet to stop supporting any policies that relied in whole and in part on the fraudulent United Nations reports. It is time to have the scientific data behind such policies independently verified. Administration policies relating to climate change will cost millions of Americans their jobs. We need to get this right. To continue to rely on these corrupted U.N. reports is an endorsement of fraudulent behavior. It is a signal to the American people that ideology is more important than their jobs. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, during the 57th Congress, our predecessors passed the Newland Reclamation Act that changed the landscape of arid Western States. Part of the 1902 act, which created the Reclamation Service, included funding for a dam in a narrow, 70- foot gorge in the Shoshone Canyon, 6 miles from Cody, WY. The construction of the Shoshone Dam began in 1905. Workers used 78,576 cubic feet of rubble concrete to build the massive structure. When work was completed on January 15, 1910, the Shoshone Dam was the world's highest concrete arch dam at 325 feet. The total bill for the dam was $1,345,000. Water from the Shoshone River filled a reservoir that covered an area 10 miles long and 4 miles wide--over 300,000 acres of land. Promotional brochures published during the early years boasted that the dam and reservoir created a ``healthful, invigorating and enjoyable climate with an abundance of sunshine and irrigation water.'' Further, in an effort to draw enterprising farmers to the basin, they stated the area is ``immune from storms and that tornadoes and cyclones are unknown in the region.'' The 79th Congress once again passed legislation affecting the dam-- this time to rename it for one of the West's favorite sons: William F. Cody. In 1946, the Shoshone Dam formally became the Buffalo Bill Dam. While Buffalo Bill may be most famous for his Wild West Show in the early 1900s, he had the vision to harness the Shoshone River to open the area for development. Cody and his colleagues had big dreams to build more than 50 miles of canals and irrigate more than 150,000 acres. He was only able to bring water to 6,000 acres before his finances and stamina ran out. However, it was because he saw the region's potential that the dam was initially built. Those of us who are fortunate to call Wyoming home have a great appreciation for the opportunity to live with, utilize and benefit from the Buffalo Bill Dam. It is a positive presence in the world of the West. Last week marked the tremendous structure's 100th birthday. We remember the ingenuity, courage and foresight of the men and women who made the dam possible. It changed the near desert landscape into one that supports a wide range of agricultural and recreational activities. We often say Wyoming is what America was. The Buffalo Bill Dam is a great reminder of this.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. The article is headlined: ``Louisiana Purchase and Omaha Stakes.'' The editorial says: Politics: Mary Landrieu was the new ``Louisiana Purchase.'' Ben Nelson got the federal government to pick up his state's future Medicaid tab. And the article continues: Maybe we should just put Senate votes up on eBay. . . . Nelson won a permanent exemption from the state share of Medicaid expansion for Nebraska--forever. The world's greatest deliberative body has now become the most corrupt. So Uncle Sam is taking the hit for 100 percent of the Medicaid expansion for Nebraska forever. That is what this says. It goes on to say this is not what legislating is about; that this is not compromise, rather, it is about bribery. Mr. President, this is horrible for us as a nation to have these things written about this institution, when we should be way above any of these sorts of claims. I look at that map that my colleague from Mississippi has up, with just Nebraska on there as the special deal, and I do not believe that is the way legislation should be written. We should be looking at ways to improve health care for all Americans, improve the quality, make it more affordable, make it more available to people, and give them the access they need. I brought four amendments the other day, after Senator Reid brought his massive amendment to the floor, and each was rejected. They were things that would actually improve this bill and make it better for Americans. So I stand here, looking at this, and reading headline after headline and editorial after editorial about just how very bad is the way this bill is being pushed forward. We certainly wouldn't want any young child to know how this is happening in their country, as we try to get them involved in this process and learn and study and feel that maybe they should become involved in this. This isn't what legislating in America is all about. We are better than this. If you have to do these sorts of things to get a 60th vote, then the bill isn't good enough to pass. If the ideas aren't good enough to get the votes, then it shouldn't pass. In this country, we look for bipartisan solutions to the big issues of the day. That is what we did in the Wyoming Legislature. Major issues passed with overwhelming numbers. That is what has happened in this country throughout the course of history. The big bills have come forth with large numbers of supporters, and that is how you get the country to follow you, not by trying to force through a vote, buying a vote here and buying a vote there to just squeak by with the minimum amount of support. That is not the way to change policy that is going to affect everyone in the United States personally and affect one-sixth of our economy. That is not the way to do it. It has not been the way, it shouldn't be the way, and it should never be the way again. I am looking for some Democrat to stand up and say: This isn't the way, and I am going to not vote for this bill.

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

Mr. BARRASSO. It is not. There have been a number of references to our friend and colleague, the late Senator Ted Kennedy. Let's take a look at the book his brother, John Kennedy, wrote, ``Profiles in Courage.'' As we have seen all this, it is time for one courageous Democrat to stand and say: This is about our country. This is about our country, not about a kickback. This is about health care, not about a hand in the cookie jar. That is what we need. We need one courageous Democrat to stand and say: I don't want to be part of this editorial that talks about the Louisiana Purchase and Omaha Stakes. I don't want to be a part of this that says this, the world's greatest deliberative body, has now become corrupt. I don't want to be a part of this that says this is about bribery. It needs one courageous Democrat, 1 out of 60, to stand and say: I am going to vote no; we need to back up; we need to think about this. We have 100 Members of the Senate who want to reform health care in this country, who want to get the costs under control, who want to improve quality, who want to improve access--100 Senators want to do that. That is the goal of each and every one of us here. We need one courageous Senator to say it is time, time now, to take a step back, let us go home over Christmas, let us think about this, let us talk to our constituents at home, let us hear what they have to say about this looking out for No. 1--$100 million. Dana Milbank's column in the Washington Post today, that is what we need now in the Senate. We need the kind of courage John Kennedy wrote about in ``Profiles in Courage.''

Mr. BARRASSO. I don't know how many of my colleagues have seen the editorial in today's Investors Business Daily. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article to which I am going to refer.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Regular order, Mr. President.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I just heard my colleague, the Senator from Ohio, say: I wish some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would understand families who don't have insurance. I practiced medicine for 25 years, taking care of families in the State of Wyoming. During that time, I took care of all patients, regardless of their ability to pay. I will tell you, I believe, as a physician who practiced medicine for 25 years--and as someone whom the Obama administration has decided to completely ignore, as he did the other Senator of this Chamber who is a physician--that I know specifically and personally about what happens to families who lose their insurance. My colleague and I know specifically what happens to families who are on Medicaid, a health care program which my colleague who is now leaving the Chamber after asking if anyone in this body understands people without insurance but not staying to hear the discussion for the next hour--making statements and then leaving--I understand those families. I understand the families on Medicare, I understand the families on Medicaid, I understand the families without insurance, I understand the families worried about losing their insurance, I understand about the families worried about disease. My colleague from Ohio said: Do people understand women with breast cancer? Well, my wife is a--

Mr. BARRASSO. When you take a look at what the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has done, which is the group that oversees Medicare, they have said that 10 years from now, if this goes through, you are still going to have 24 million uninsured, you are going to have 18 million more on Medicaid, the program the Senator from Tennessee appropriately referred to as having a bus ticket for a bus that is not going to come, because that is what has happened. Half the doctors in the country do not take care of patients on Medicaid because the reimbursement is so low that they cannot afford to continue to care for those people. Five million people will lose the insurance they get through work, and health care costs will go up. The cost curve will go up instead of going down. But the whole purpose of this was to help drive the cost down. Then, additionally, they said that 20 percent of providers--20 percent of the providers--of health care in this country--and that includes physicians, nurse practitioners, medical clinics, hospitals-- 20 percent of the providers in this country, under this plan, 10 years from now, will be unprofitable, unable to keep their doors open. So we have heard about sweetheart deals. We have heard about taxes going up. We have heard about Medicare cuts. And what we have seen is one promise after another made by the President that has been unfulfilled and actually reversed by the bill we see ahead of us. So I ask my friend from Tennessee, wouldn't he agree that in the next 2 days, the best thing for the country would be to have this bill not pass the Senate and instead go back in a step-by-step way and regain the trust of the American people?

Mr. BARRASSO. Our friends at the University of Minnesota said that if people were allowed to shop across State lines, shop around for insurance that is better for them and their family and their personal situation, we would have 12 million more Americans insured today than we have now, without a single page of legislation. That is all we need to do: allow people to shop across State lines. But when we talk about and look at this bill, which has mandates, there is going to be a mandate for people to buy insurance. One of the amendments I tried to offer yesterday that I thought made a lot of sense for young people was that for individuals under the age of 30 or for those making less than $30,000 a year, they would be exempted from the mandate, the individual mandate that they have to buy insurance. I was involved in a discussion on a college campus in a debate on this topic, and in talking to the students, they were astonished to learn--because they were not focused on this; they were focused on their studies and working--they were astonished that they are all going to have to buy, as a matter of law, if this passes, health insurance immediately, and if they do not, they are going to have to start paying a tax or a fine, depending on how you describe it. So in my amendment, I said, for those up to the age of 30 and making under $30,000 a year, let's exempt them from the mandate. That amendment was rejected. Then I said, well, if they are going to do this and force these people to buy insurance, and if they do not buy insurance, they have to pay these excessive fines or taxes--or however you want to define it--I said, how about that the penalties these people would have to pay, if they choose not to buy insurance--because it is going to be a lot cheaper to not buy insurance and to just pay the tax--what if that money could go into a personal account so that person can then use the money to then buy insurance? So it would be kind of like a savings account, so the money would be there for them to buy insurance. So individual mandate penalties would accrue not to the government but in a personal account, so they could purchase health insurance within a 3- year period. The money would accumulate. That amendment was rejected as well. So we have lots of ideas, good ideas, to help people with affordable care, available care, and yet one after another they have been rejected in a step-by-step process to try to find ways to solve the health care crisis we know faces the country. All 100 Members of the Senate know we need to find ways to make health care more affordable and to work on high-quality care. It has been fascinating to see the dean of the Johns Hopkins Medical Center and the dean of Harvard and those who have looked at this bill closely say that the people who are supporting this are living in collective denial, that this bill is doomed to fail, that it will raise the cost of care, not lower the cost of care, and will do nothing to improve quality.

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Another amendment--I see my colleague from South Dakota is here--is an amendment I offered on the floor of the Senate yesterday to protect individuals from skyrocketing insurance premiums. You may recall the President of the United States said premiums--families in Wyoming and other States, families across the country--health insurance premiums would go down $2,500 per family. Yet what I read and studied, and as I look at this, it says to me it looks like premiums will go up instead of going down. Instead of going down $2,500, they will go up $2,100. I think for 90 percent of the families in this country, their insurance premiums will either stay the same or go up more because the bill is passed than if we did nothing. I ask my friend from South Dakota--I know he has been bringing forth information; I know he put a chart together on it--would there not be some value in allowing the Senate to discuss an amendment because this amendment basically said let the State insurance commissioners--because every State has an insurance commissioner--let the State insurance commissioner take a look at what happens to insurance premiums in their State. If the insurance commissioner finds that the premiums have gone up faster than the Consumer Price Index, then in that State where those premiums have gone up faster than the Consumer Price Index, all of these laws and regulations and rules would no longer apply. The mandates, the rating rules, the benefit mandate, all of those included in the Reid bill would not apply. Wouldn't that make sense, I ask my colleague from South Dakota? What is the Senator's understanding of this and should not we be allowed to at least discuss and debate that as a Senate when we have been promised as citizens of this country that premiums would go down? (Mrs. HAGAN assumed the Chair.)

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, what you are hearing is what we are noticing as Republicans take a look at the bill. I saw the majority whip come onto the Senate floor a few minutes ago. Yesterday he was on the floor and said the Republicans have not offered amendments to this bill, so I brought four amendments yesterday. The chairman of the Finance Committee objected. One had to do with letting people on Medicare keep their own doctors or choose who they want to go to see for a doctor. The purpose of this what was called ``Medicare Patient Freedom to Contract'' is it ``allows Medicare patients the right to privately contract for medical services with the physician of their choice.'' I ask my friend from Tennessee, who has just spoken about Medicare, wouldn't he think that patients who have been promised that they can keep the health care they want should be able, or at least this Senate ought to be able to debate an amendment about allowing Medicare patients the right to privately contract for medical services with the physician of their choice? Wouldn't that seem fair?

Mr. BARRASSO. My wife was a breast cancer survivor, and her breast cancer was discovered in her forties by a screening mammogram. It was that screening mammogram that saved her life because the cancer had already spread. It had already spread to a lymph node. She had three operations, two bouts of full chemotherapy, radiation--35 treatments and all--all--because of the screening mammogram that saved her life. Yet because of this bill that was brought to the Senate floor--with the government knowing better than the rest of America, knowing what health care ought to be given and shouldn't be given--all of a sudden what we see is the government knows best, people don't know--her life would have been lost because she is one of those 1,900. So I understand, having practiced medicine, having lived that life as a physician--taken care of people without health insurance and on Medicaid and Medicare and those worrying about losing their insurance when they lose their job--the implications. Yet I took care of all of them, as did all my partners. We dealt with all these people, trying to help each and every one of them, regardless of their ability to pay. It is why we need health reform in this country that actually works on availability of care, affordability of care, access to care, and quality care. This bill that I voted against last night doesn't address the needs of the country. It fails time and time again. The President made a number of promises--a number of promises--to the people of this country. He said people would see their insurance premiums drop by $2,500. Instead, the budget officers say: Oh, no, it is going to go up $2,100 for a family. Has the President not read the bill, not read the responses that have come from the Congressional Budget Office? Does he not see the difference there of $4,600 per family? The President said this wouldn't add a dime to the deficit. Well, it is going to add a lot of dimes to the deficit. This is going to add $1 trillion to the deficit. He said: Oh no, will not at all. Yet they didn't do the doctor fix--the Medicare doctor fix. Now the Speaker of the House says: Oh, we will handle that in January or February for $250 billion, since they are not going to pay for it here. The President said: Taxes will not go up on anybody making under $250,000 for a family. There are a dozen taxes in the bill that will be passed on to the American people. Now any teenager who goes to a tanning salon is going to get taxed 10 percent. I don't think any of those people are making over $250,000 apiece. The President said: People will not lose their coverage. Oh, they are going to lose their coverage. Many will lose the coverage they have, coverage they like, because they have cut 11 million people on Medicare Advantage--a program people like, a program my patients like. People whom I have taken care of like it because there is actually an advantage to the program. It is a program that deals specifically with preventive care. It is coordinated care. That is what happens with Medicare Advantage. The President doesn't like. They will lose their coverage. Of course, the President said we wouldn't see any cuts to Medicare. Yet the bill says $500 billion of cuts to Medicare for the seniors who depend upon Medicare. The President said we would have an open, honest debate. He said C- SPAN would be there covering the debates. Those of us with the most experience--the two physicians, with 50 years in the practice of medicine and taking care of families in this country--were completely excluded--completely excluded--even though we offered to go to the White House and read the bill with the President. So what do we have? What is the verdict of the American people on the vote that was taken in the dark of night--at 1 a.m. in the morning--a Monday morning vote, taken at 1 a.m. so the American people, hopefully, according to the Democrats, would be asleep and not see what they were doing to the American people? The verdict is the American people are overwhelmingly opposed--opposed--to the bill the Senate last night voted 60 to 40 on cloture and decided to move ahead on. The deals in the bill are absolutely astonishing: $100 million for a hospital in a State we still can't identify and no one is claiming, a payoff to one State, a payoff to another State, and then the cuts in Medicare for our seniors who depend on Medicare, a program that is going to go broke in the year 2017--not to save Medicare. Instead of saving Medicare, to start a whole new government program. I see my colleague from the State of Tennessee is standing, and he has worked closely with people on Medicare in his home State. He is familiar with that and with Medicaid and he knows how difficult it is for patients to get to see a doctor. With the cuts in Medicare, it is going to make it harder for those hospitals to stay alive and open in your community, and for patients to get the kind of care they need. So I would ask my friend from Tennessee: Are there concerns you have about the cuts to Medicare and how they are going to impact on the care of people in your home State?

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, that is why I am not surprised when I read polls that say negatives abound in polls about this bill, written in secret, brought to us just a little over 24 hours ago with a 383- page amendment, one that is now not going to be allowed to have any amendments offered. I just offered four different amendments aimed to strengthen the health care system of the country. Each time, the chairman of the Finance Committee is not even interested in hearing what the amendments are about. The people of Wyoming say: Don't cut my Medicare, don't raise my taxes, don't make things worse for me, especially in these economic times. This is a bill that is going to cut people's Medicare by $500 billion, it is going to raise their taxes, and it is going to make things worse for the people of Wyoming and this country. That is why the front page of a local newspaper has a story, ``Doctor Shortage Will Worsen.'' Great concerns. Even the Actuary of Medicare and Medicaid says that if all of this goes through--and this is before we had the 383 new pages--if all of this goes through, one in five hospitals is going to have significant problems within the next 10 years and one in five doctors' offices may have to close. That is why this health bill is scary. For anyone who has not had an opportunity to read Dr. Coburn's, Senator Coburn's article in the Wall Street Journal, an editorial, Thursday, December 17, I recommend the editorial to them. It is titled ``The Health Bill Is Scary.'' I ask unanimous consent to have this editorial printed in the Record.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, here you have it. We have a bill that is going to be voted on at 1 in the morning on a Monday morning. Why? Because the people who are proposing the bill are scared to let the American people know what is in it. That is why public opinion has soured on this proposal to the point that it is at the lowest level ever, with just 32 percent of Americans in favor, just less than one in three. Less than one in three Americans supports what is being proposed. I believe each one of my amendments would have raised the level of support, would have made this better for American taxpayers, for American citizens, for American patients, for the patients who depend on our health care system, for the providers who give the care, and for the people who pay for it. I see my colleague from North Carolina ready to rise. I am so happy to be joined on the Senate floor by these two wonderful colleagues who have a great bill of their own that has gotten very little hearing, very little opportunity, certainly no opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor. As my Senate colleague from North Carolina gets his microphone ready to go, I will say that to be held to a false deadline of Christmas Day on something as important as a bill that is going to impact the health of every person in this country, impact one-sixth of the economy of the United States--it is much more important that we get it right than that it gets rushed through with speed and secrecy, with not being able to offer amendments when a 383-page amendment by Senator Reid is dropped on the table yesterday and a vote is going to be held at 1 in the morning on a Monday morning. It is astonishing that we do not have bipartisan support, people working together to find solutions. It is astonishing when you have a body such as this of 100 Members, 2 of whom are physicians with 50 years of experience practicing medicine, working with the system, fighting against insurance companies and fighting against the government, two physicians who know that you do not want anybody between you and your physician, you do not want a government bureaucrat, you do not want an insurance bureaucrat, you do not want anyone. But what we are looking at is the worst of all possible worlds. I ask my colleague from North Carolina if he has some additional thoughts.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I just heard my colleague from Montana talk about jobs that are going to be lost, and the jobs are going to be lost if this bill passes. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal that quoted the Federation of Independent Business, a wonderful organization that works so well with small businesses in this country. Their prediction is that if this passes--if this passes--the mandates in this bill will mandate that employers provide health care. This is going to cost 1.6 million jobs by 2013. Then I got an e-mail from a friend in Dubois, WY, who says that if this bill passes, he knows he is going to lay off workers--quite to the contrary of what my colleague from Montana says when he says it is going to help keep people working. At a time when the country is experiencing 10 percent unemployment, at a time when the people's No. 1 concern is jobs and the economy of this country, we are now embarking on an additional spending spree when our national debt is at the highest levels ever. I disagree with my colleague from Montana. I think, contrary to what he suggested--he said: I am not just blowing smoke--I believe we will lose jobs if this passes.

Mr. BARRASSO. When I am finished with our comments on this side.