Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. 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.

Mr. WICKER. 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?

Mr. WICKER

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. 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. WICKER. 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.

Mr. WICKER. 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.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. 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. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER. 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.

Mr. WICKER. 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.

Mr. WICKER. 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.

Mr. WICKER. 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.

Mr. WICKER. 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.

Mr. WICKER. What would happen, then, after 2016 under current legislation?

Mr. WICKER. 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.

Mr. WICKER. How much time remains?

Mr. WICKER. 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.

Mr. WICKER. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER. Will the Senator yield briefly?

Mr. WICKER. 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----

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

Mr. WICKER. 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.

Mr. WICKER. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. 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.

Mr. WICKER. 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.