Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. One final question, and I do appreciate the Chair's indulgence. The whole idea of the status quo being acceptable is not what we are talking about. None of us believes the current health care situation is sustainable. Medicare and Medicaid need to be reformed, but so do private health care cost increases. There are monopolies out there by insurance companies. To be able to buy across State lines makes a lot of sense to me. Briefly, if my colleague could, what does he see--I want to repeal the bill, not just to maintain the status quo, but to replace it with a bipartisan product that does improve quality and lowers costs. Is that the Senator's position, and how can we do that?

Mr. GRAHAM. If I may, I think the Senator is going to find this case going to the Supreme Court in a year or two--the sooner the better, as far as I am concerned. I don't know how the Court will rule, but I can understand why attorneys general would be arguing that requiring someone to do something to create activity is probably a real stretch of the commerce clause. Where does it end? There are two sides to that legal coin. My point is, I doubt if the attorneys general of these States, who are mostly elected--or I am sure all of them are elected--would be bringing a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality if they believed their constituents were really for the bill. Does that make sense to my colleague, that 26 attorneys general would be suing the Federal Government in court if they believed their own citizens felt as though this were the right way to go?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I congratulate and compliment my colleagues from Massachusetts and Arizona. This resolution represents the best of the Senate. We have two people who are very well versed in the ways of the world and understand America and what we stand for. They have crafted a document I would like to cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM. Tomorrow is a big day for the future of Egypt. Senator McCain said it well: To the Army, I doubt if they are watching C-SPAN, but they have a chance to bring order out of chaos and to continue to have respect throughout the world and within the borders of Egypt. Do not let this opportunity pass. An interim government should be formed quickly, as this resolution urges. When it comes to the Egyptian people, I have faith that the young women who are risking life and limb in the square tonight and tomorrow are not doing so to be required to wear a burqa in the future. I have faith that the young men who are risking life and limb tonight and tomorrow would not want such a fate for their daughters and their wives. I have great respect for Islam. Radical Islam, similar to any other form of radical religion, is a threat to all we hold dear. The Egyptian people have a chance to chart a new way for the future of the Arab world and the world at large. This resolution is a statement of principle by the Senate that we stand with you and all those who believe in tolerance and the dignity of mankind. This statement is bipartisan. It is well thought out. I think it reflects where the American people want to be in relation to Egypt. To those in Congress who want to act quickly about defunding our relationship with Egypt, please consider the consequences of such action. Give the Egyptian people a chance to work this out. Give the Army a chance to bring order out of chaos. It is in our national security interest that we have a stable Egypt. The army is the most respected institution.

Mr. GRAHAM. Well said. It is now time for the United States to say what we are for and urge the Egyptian people to realize their hopes and dreams and that we want to be their partner. Now is not the time to sever the partnership. Now is the time to stand by a future partnership that would be beneficial to both countries. This resolution is a statement of principle that I hope the Egyptian people will see as an acknowledgment by the Senate that we are with them when it comes to their best hopes and dreams.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the country is debating a lot of issues. We passed the health care bill last year. Now there is an effort in the House to repeal and replace it. I join my House colleagues with the idea that we should start over and come up with some product that is truly bipartisan that will lower costs. All the information we received about this bill since it was passed is showing it is going in the wrong direction. In May 2010, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf stated: Rising health care costs will put tremendous pressure on the Federal budget during the next few decades. In CBO's judgment, health legislation enacted earlier this year does not substantially diminish that pressure. We are getting more and more input about the effect this bill has on cost because there are over 700 waivers now in terms of the mandates. Forty percent of all the waivers given are to union health care plans, and the union workforce is 7 percent of the total workforce. The idea that more and more people are asking for waivers indicates that the cost component of this bill is a real problem for the country. The whole goal of health care reform is lower cost and improved quality. I am afraid what we have done with the health care bill is we have increased costs, consolidated power in the Federal Government, and Medicare and Medicaid already are unsustainable when it comes to Federal financial obligations. The Obama health care bill, if fully enacted by 2014, would extend Medicaid coverage in the State of South Carolina to 29 percent; 29 percent of South Carolinians would be covered by Medicaid. That is a substantial increase over the number of people on Medicaid today. That would require my State to come up with $1 billion more of State matching money, in the next 7 years, to get the Federal Government Medicaid dollars. The second largest expense in South Carolina today is the State's matching requirement to get existing Medicaid dollars from the Federal Government. If you expand Medicaid, you are going to bankrupt South Carolina. I think there is a better way to deliver health care to low-income Americans. I was on a bipartisan bill with Senators Wyden and Bennett that did cover everyone, but it allowed people to buy health care in the private sector with tax credits that took deductions away from employers. That is a lot of money. It took that pool of money and allowed individuals to buy their own health care in a more competitive environment. At the end of the day, it looks like we are going to be taking a vote here soon in the Senate, I hope, to repeal and replace the health care law that was passed last year. If it is repealed, it should be replaced. The way you replace something this complicated, that affects one-fifth of the economy, is you do it deliberately, you do it in a bipartisan manner. Let's remember how this bill became law. It got exactly 60 votes, a party-line vote in the Senate. It was passed on Christmas Eve more than a year ago. At the end of the day, the process I thought was not befitting of the Senate. There were a lot of provisions given to Senators in particular States. Such as in Florida, the Medicare Advantage participants had a lot more Medicare Advantage availability than other States. Ohio, Michigan--some health care companies in those States got special deals. At the end of the day, it was done in a backroom, partisan fashion, not transparent, not negotiated before C-SPAN, as President Obama promised. It reinforced the worst of politics, and it is no surprise to me that something that came out of that process is not going down well. What I say today with Mr. Barrasso, a physician, a Senator from Wyoming, is allow States to opt out if they choose to. If this is such a good deal, let the State legislatures throughout the country decide whether they want to be covered by the individual mandate, the employer mandate or Medicaid expansion. I know the answer in South Carolina. My Governor, my legislators, want to opt out of expanded Medicaid because it will bankrupt the State, and they do not want any part of the employer mandates. I will challenge the Congress, if repeal and replace doesn't work, let the individual States have a say about whether they want to be in the system. I do hope we can repeal it and replace it. That vote is coming up soon. But the amount of tax increases in this bill--$17 billion in individual penalties, $52 billion in employer penalties, $500 billion taken out of Medicare to help pay for the uninsured--at the end of the day, the formula, the construct of this bill I think is going to grow the size and scope of the Federal Government when it comes to health care at a time we need more private sector competition in medicine. It is going to increase taxes on businesses at a time when we should lower their taxes. It is going to make it very hard in the future for senior citizens to find doctors to take Medicare because, at the end of the day, the more you consolidate power in the Federal Government, the more obligations the Federal Government has when it comes to health care, the less we can pay because we are so broke. I hope this vote will happen soon. To my colleagues who want to keep this bill, I respectfully disagree, but that is what debate is all about. We can have a civil debate about the future of health care. I think the Congress would be wise to start over and come up with a new product. It does put pressure on Republicans, if we do repeal this bill, to replace it with something that makes sense. What makes sense to me is to lower cost and make sure people have access to health care and that the uninsured are taken care of. But one size does not fit all. I look forward to casting my vote to repeal and replace. If that does not work, I look forward to having my amendment, along with Senator Barrasso, on the floor of the Senate, allowing States to opt out if they choose. My guess will be that a majority of the States would opt out of the individual mandate, the employer-mandated Medicaid expansion, and some Democratic Governors are going to be talking to the Members of this body about how their States will be devastated by Medicare expansion. I think you are going to have some big States in the hands of Democratic Governors that are going to feel the impact of this Medicaid expansion. They are going to petition this Congress to do something about it, and I hope we listen to them. This vote should happen soon. We are in a new Congress. There are new people here with new ideas and now is the time to allow the American people to participate because most of this bill was passed in secret, without a whole lot of bipartisan give and take. Now is the time to start over, take the idea of health care reform, a blank sheet of paper, and see what we come up with in a bipartisan, incremental fashion. The only way we can do that is to replace the bill we have before us. I look forward to this debate. I look forward to the vote. This issue is not going away. Between now and 2012 we are going to have a very serious debate about the future of health care in America. I would argue that anybody running for Governor between now and 2012 should be asked the question: If you could, would you opt your State out of the provisions I just described, the individual mandate, employer mandate, and Medicaid expansion? Those are good questions to ask and answer and maybe they would have a good answer why they would say no. But anybody running for the statehouse throughout the country should have a genuine debate about whether their State should be included in Obama health care. That is why I hope, if we do not repeal and replace the bill with the current amendment that will be offered by Senator McConnell, that we not abandon this debate. Debating policy in a civil way is the essence of democracy. At the end of the day, I do believe there is a better way to come up with health care reform than that chosen by our Democratic colleagues in the last couple years. Having said that, the status quo is unacceptable. I am very much for eliminating the preexisting illness exclusion that denies Americans the ability to buy health care when they get sick. I am very much for shopping around and buying a plan that is best for you and your family and, if you are a low-income person, helping you make that purchase but I don't want to consolidate any more power in the Federal Government when it comes to health care because the health care obligations of the Federal Government, Medicare and Medicaid alone, in 20 years, are going to cost as much as the entire Federal Government does today. This is an unsustainable course. Entitlement reform has to be embraced. But until we get to that day, I would like to restart the debate, have a new dialog with new Members of Congress who heard, loudly and clearly in the last election, the displeasure the American people have for the process--a bill that was passed in the dead of night on Christmas Eve, with a lot of chicanery, replace it with a new process that leads to a better bill. That puts us all on the hook to try to find middle ground. There was no middle ground found last time. Frankly, I don't think a lot of people looked for middle ground. Those days are behind us. There is a new Congress. If this election said anything to us in Washington, it ought to be that the country does not like what we are doing-- Republicans or Democrats--and the health care bill, the way it was passed, is the worst of Washington, not the best. I look for better days. I know the Senate president tonight has genuinely tried to reform this institution to make it more reflective of the American people's hopes and dreams. The health care bill was passed in a way that none of us, quite frankly, should be proud of. If we start over, the obligation exists for all of us to find some middle ground to move the debate forward. The vote will be soon. It will probably be less than 60, but that doesn't mean the debate ends. There are other ways to address this issue. I can assure the people in South Carolina that this fight will continue, that I will do the best I can as a Senator from South Carolina to make sure the Obama health care bill, President Obama's plan that was passed by the Democratic Congress, is dramatically changed and altered before it takes hold and becomes irreversible. We have a chance, in the next year or so, to fix this before it gets out of control. I hope we will take advantage of it. I look forward to the debate. I look forward to offering solutions. I look forward to more than just saying no, but I do look forward to a genuine debate, where I do have a say and hopefully people on the other side will listen. With that, I yield. The Senator from Pennsylvania is next.

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

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, it is a week before Christmas. I don't know where we will be next week. All I can say is, the Senate is taking up some very important matters--the don't ask, don't tell repeal. The Marine Corps Commandant said he believes changing this policy this way would cause distraction among the Marine Corps to the point that he is worried about increased casualties. Let's hope he is wrong. But you have to ask yourself, is he crazy to say that and is he the kind of man who would make such a chilling statement without having thought about it? My advice to my colleagues is that the Marine Corps Commandant is a serious man who is telling this body and this Nation that repeal, as being envisioned today, could compromise focus on the battlefield, and we are in two wars. The review from the military is positive in one area, negative in the other. The Army, the Air Force, particularly the Marine Corps have cautioned us not to do this now this way. Other people have said now is the time. I can only tell you that those in close combat units have the most concern about repealing this policy. Some will say this is a civil rights issue of our time, the day has come, we need to move forward as a nation. The Marine Corps does not have that view. They have a different view, that this is about effectiveness on the battlefield at a time of war, not about civil rights. It is up to the Members of the body to determine who is right and who is wrong; to be cautious or to boldly go forward. But to those Senators who will take the floor today and announce this as a major advancement of civil rights in America, please let it be said that you are doing it in a fashion that those who have a different view cannot offer one amendment. We are doing this in a way that the Senate, those of us who want to maybe speak for the Marine Corps and have some amendments and ideas that may make this less distracting, have zero ability to offer an amendment on a policy change that the Commandants of the Marine Corps, the Air Force, and the Army say is problematic. To those who are pushing this process, it is not appreciated. It is not appreciated by your fellow Senators, and I don't think it is going to be appreciated by the men and women who are going to have to live under this kind of change. Does that matter? Apparently not. That says a lot about the Senate. That says a lot about modern politics. To the DREAM Act, I have been involved in comprehensive immigration reform for many years. Senator Durbin and I have talked about how to make the DREAM Act part of comprehensive immigration reform. To those who have come to my office, you are always welcome to come, but you are wasting your time. We are not going to pass the DREAM Act or any other legalization program until we secure our borders. It will never be done stand-alone. It has to be part of comprehensive immigration reform. There is a war raging in Mexico that is compromising our national security. I would argue that the best thing for the Senate to do, the House to do, the administration to do, is work together to secure our borders before we do anything else. To those who are bringing up this bill today, I know why you are doing it. You are not doing it to advance the issue. You are doing it to advance your situation politically. It is not appreciated. You are making it harder. You care more about politics in the last 2 weeks than you care about governing the country. This will not help America do the things America does. It is not appreciated. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I think Senator McCain asked I be recognized for 5 minutes. If that is correct, I would like to proceed.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. So one thing that has happened is we have been trying to make sure there was not a vote on the Defense authorization bill in a fashion where there could be no amendment by the Republicans. I think we were successful in beating that; is that correct?

Mr. GRAHAM. I say to Senator Kyl, I do believe, in addition, you are our whip on the Republican side; is that correct?

Mr. GRAHAM. I apologize.

Mr. GRAHAM. OK. And those negotiations have resulted in a vote in the House last night. What else have we done? Was there an effort to pass the Defense appropriations bill without any ability to amend it, I ask Senator McCain? Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM. But the Senator was deeply involved?

Mr. GRAHAM. You were our lead negotiator on the taxes; is that correct?

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you. That has been counterproductive to overall immigration reform, and I don't think it is immigration reform more than it is politics. So, in conclusion, it has been a week from hell. It has been a week where we are dealing with a lot of big issues, from taxes to funding the government to special interest politics. I have had some time to think about START but not a lot, and it is wearing the body. This is a major piece of legislation. My good friend, John Kerry, whom I respect, I know has tried to get this debate going in a way we could--to find a conclusion we all could vote on and go home and explain to our constituents. Senator Kyl laid that way out. Unfortunately, everything you hoped to have happen from Wednesday to this Friday has, quite frankly, just been unacceptable to a serious debate on START. Here we are, the week before Christmas Eve, and we have talked about a lot of stuff--some important, some politics--and that is the first time I have had the chance to talk about START. So I am not blaming anybody. But please don't blame me, that I have somehow ignored START, because we have been pretty busy around here stopping some bad ideas or at least trying to. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM. Let me know when 9 have expired, if you do not mind.

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I think I am recognized for 10 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you. Feelings are getting a bit raw here and there is no use blaming anybody. It is hard to reach a consensus on how to fund the government. There was an effort to do it that fell apart that I thought was against the mandate of the last election. Thank God we defeated that, but it took a lot of effort. There is an effort to pass the DREAM Act that I think is unseemly and counterproductive.

Mr. GRAHAM. To my friend from Arizona, Senator McCain, are you aware of an effort to repeal the don't ask, don't tell policy, that would allow no Republican amendment, that could be as early as tomorrow or this weekend?

Mr. GRAHAM. As of right now, do we have a deal to fund the government that is firm?

Mr. GRAHAM. Did that take much of your time?

Mr. GRAHAM. Let's stop there. The Omnibus appropriations bill was defeated last night; is that correct?

Mr. GRAHAM. Here is the problem, and correct me if I am wrong. If we enter into this treaty and the preamble is not clarified or stricken, there could come a point down the road, as we develop these systems to defend against what we all agree is a real national security threat to the United States, what damage would it do to our relationship and what kind of conflict would it create or anxiety in the world at large if the Russians say: We are going to back out of the treaty, because that is the one thing you do not want to happen. You do not want to sign a treaty where you are going to do A, and if you do A, they back out because you put the world in a state of confusion and danger. The idea that all the papers in the world would one day read: Russians back out of strategic arms limitation treaty because of U.S. deployment of missile defense--to me, that is something we need to deal with with certainty because if that day ever came, it would really be an unnerving event. It is clear to me that the Russians have taken the preamble language to mean that we have limited ourselves. It is clear to me that the President is trying to say we have not limited ourselves. Senator Kerry says it, I say it, you say it. But if the Russians do not agree with that, it would be better not to do the treaty, in my view, than it would be to create an illusion that the world is safer and have that illusion destroyed. Just think this through. No matter how much you want a treaty, the worst thing that could happen, in my view, is that two major powers with nuclear weapons sometime in the future have a falling out. That is where we are headed if we do not get this right. To my colleagues, this is a big event. It is a big moment in terms of our relationship with Russia. But you should not sign a treaty when there is a high likelihood, if we do what we think we need to do, that it will put them in a spot of having to withdraw. That has to be settled. Taking the preamble out--if we took it out and they still signed the treaty, that would make sense. If you leave it confusing, then you are asking yourself for a heartache down the road. Do you agree with that?