Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. OK.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I regret, I object.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, what is the parliamentary situation at the moment?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, who has the floor?

Mr. BAUCUS. May I ask who has the floor?

Mr. BAUCUS. I was going to ask the Senator from Tennessee a question.

Mr. BAUCUS. Is it not true that the Congressional Budget Office stated in a letter, dated March 20, commented on the bill in a letter to the Speaker on page 13, where it states: The title as a whole--that is referring to the education title--states that the title as a whole would reduce budget deficits in both the 10-year projection period and in subsequent years. Is it not true that the Congressional Budget Office reached that conclusion and so states in their letter of March 20?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I will propose a unanimous consent. Following that, I will state my intention on the order of votes, which I have yet to clear with the leader's office. I ask unanimous consent that the total time on the bill be divided equally between the majority and minority leaders or their designees and that the offering of amendments not add additional claims to the time.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wish to finish up that business. It is something, I think, the Senator will appreciate. It is my intention--I am not asking for a unanimous consent agreement, but it is my intention that the order of amendments would be, beginning with the Gregg amendment, Medicare; McCain, target provisions; then the Crapo amendment on taxes; then the Enzi motion to commit, regarding employer mandates; the Barrasso amendment regarding premiums; and then, next, the Grassley amendment regarding executive personnel should be in the exchange.

Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct. I am not asking consent. That is my intention, but there is no unanimous consent request at this time. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from----

Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object, I might ask if the understanding be that the motion, as on the earlier amendments, that this motion be set aside until a time to be determined by the leaders.

Mr. BAUCUS. That would be fine.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Michigan, under the motion.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Warner, Begich, Burris, Tom Udall, Mark Udall, Shaheen, and Merkley be allowed to engage in a colloquy for up to 25 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wish to let Senators know that we intend to alternate blocks of time, roughly a half hour on each side. So I ask unanimous consent that the next half hour be under the control of the Republicans and the half hour thereafter be under the control of the majority.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, have Republicans used up their time?

Mr. BAUCUS. I don't mean to be picky, but I assume they will yield back that minute.

Mr. BAUCUS. I will yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the half hour under the majority's control, at about roughly 11:21, the Republicans control the next half hour and the majority control the half hour after that, starting at about 11:51.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to take a couple moments to speak on two amendments, one offered by, I think, Senator Hatch, with respect to Medicare Advantage. Off the topic, it is important to remember that health care reform will reduce excessive overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans, while at the same time rewarding high- quality, efficient plans for providing care to seniors. Medicare Advantage plans that achieve high-quality rankings under this legislation, let's say, for regular checkups for blood pressure, diabetes, will receive an increase in payments. That is very important because, today, Medicare Advantage plans are paid the same amount regardless of the quality of care they provide. For the first time, under this legislation, payments to plans would be based on performance. I think that is something all seniors would prefer. That makes this Medicare Advantage plan more fair, more reasonable. This will enable plans to participate everywhere in the country, both urban and rural, while eliminating overpayments that plans receive today. According to MedPAC--MedPAC is that bipartisan commission that advises Congress on Medicare payments--that organization says Medicare Advantage plans are paid 13 percent more than traditional fee-for- service plans, on average, and in some parts of the country overpayment is as high as 20 percent. They strongly recommend that we reduce that overpayment because it causes great inefficiencies. I might also say that, today, because of the overpayments, all seniors on Medicare--I am talking now especially about seniors who take fee for service--all seniors on Medicare pay for these overpayments, even if they are not in Medicare Advantage plans. How? Well, it is basically because every senior pays $3 more per month in Part B premiums, that totals about $80, on average. So seniors in traditional fee for service are paying for the overpayments for Medicare Advantage plans. Medicare Advantage overpayments drain resources for the Medicare trust fund. If they are overpaid, that means they are draining excessive resources from the Medicare trust fund. In fact, the government estimates that Medicare Advantage overpayments speed up insolvency of the Medicare trust fund by about 18 months. After that, there is no evidence that overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans--do not forget these are private insurance plans--even though they say Medicare, they are private insurance plans. There is no evidence that overpayments to them lead to better quality for Medicare beneficiaries. In fact, seniors can end up spending more out-of-pocket dollars under Medicare Advantage plans than under traditional Medicare, even if they have certain conditions. The bill eliminates these overpayments by decreasing the statutory rates in place today and giving quality performance payment increases to high-ranking plans. We are paying more than we do today to high-ranking plans. No senior in Medicare Advantage will lose access to any of their Medicare benefits under this proposal. We hear all these false claims across the aisle that these cuts, which cause more efficiency, prevent waste, prevent overpayments, are going to cut beneficiaries, Medicare Advantage beneficiaries' payments. That is not true. It is misleading. Plans will not be allowed to lower or drop their basic Medicare benefits that seniors are entitled to under the Medicare Program. So there are no cuts in basic Medicare benefits. In fact, they are guaranteed. The reforms in this bill will ensure that the dollars for the Medicare trust fund go toward improving the quality of care for seniors, rather than to support the operations of private insurers. I think that is something the vast majority of seniors would prefer. I wish to make that clear because some of the statements made on the other side of the aisle are quite misleading, which leads me to another point. Americans probably are a little confused about what is in health care reform because they hear all kinds of claims, both sides. Well, now health care reform has passed. The President signed the bill yesterday. This is sort of to help, a fixer-upper around the edges a little bit. Americans can look for themselves as to who is telling the truth. They will want to look more closely than they have in the past because now it is law. Now it affects people. Some people are going to ask: Gee, how does it affect me? I better find out. When people start to find out, they are going to learn--I say this somewhat presumptuously, but I believe it very strongly--they are going to find out that those who are claiming all the bad things that are going to happen, all the bad things about this bill, are basically not true. They are also going to start to realize that all the good things in this bill, that a lot of proponents have been mentioning, from the President on down, they are pretty much true, the good things are pretty much true. I think once people start thinking closely, separating the wheat from the chaff, they will start to realize that not only are the Medicare Advantage charges false, but a lot of the other charges that some make about why the bill is so bad are also false. Again, I say, somewhat presumptuously, the prevention provisions, I think are very good and help seniors, are basically accurate. One small, final point. The Senator from Florida offered an amendment basically requiring all Members of Congress to enroll in Medicaid. Now I ask you, that clearly is not a serious amendment. Medicaid is a very vital program for vulnerable Americans. It should be treated very seriously and should not be used for political games. I now yield the remainder of our time in this half hour to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I now wish to yield to the Senator from New York. I have already said we are going to divide the time in half-hour segments back and forth. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield to the chairman of the HELP Committee--I yield to another distinguished chairman, this one not of the HELP Committee but the Energy Committee, Senator Bingaman.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, that is a good introduction to the next speaker, the distinguished chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Harkin.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about how much this underlying legislation helps small business. We hear a lot of claims to the contrary, and I wish to set the record straight. Essentially, small business people in America today spend about 18 percent more than the large businesses for the same health care coverage. Why is that? Because of high broker fees--small businesses have to buy insurance through brokers--because administrative costs are higher for them compared to big businesses, and adverse selection hurts them much more than big business. There are a lot of reasons why small businesses pay 18 percent more for health care than big business. This legislation contains $37 billion in small business tax credits-- $37 billion in small business tax credits--most of which go into effect this year, not later but this year, tax credits for a businessperson who wants to offer health insurance for his or her employees. Add to that insurance reforms, which are very much going to help small business. What are they? Preventing insurance companies from discriminating against small employees based on preexisting conditions, preventing discrimination on the basis of older or sicker employees, discrimination based on the size of the plan or discrimination against those whose employees work in dangerous industries. All these insurance reforms are going to help small business. I might say the Congressional Budget Office also estimates the Senate bill will lower premium costs by nearly 7 percent for small businesses--lower premium costs, not increase them, as has been suggested, but lower premium costs for small business. The bill also provides for State-based exchanges. That is going to help small business because that will require more competition among insurance companies. That will help give better rates and better quality insurance to small businesses. I might say this as well. The legislation exempts small businesses-- that is a business with 50 or fewer employees--from the requirement that employers that do not sponsor health care insurance pay a fee for their employees receiving premium tax credits. That is an exemption for small businesses with fewer than 50 employees from paying any penalty if they do not provide insurance. So I wished to make it very clear that this bill very much helps small business--and I repeat--with $37 billion in small business tax credits, along with the other reasons I gave. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?