Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to table the motion to commit and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, all things being equal, I choose to believe the President. Second, I choose to believe the Congressional Budget Office. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that premiums under this legislation will, all things equal, be reduced for big business as much as 3 percent. Small businesses will see a decrease of 11 percent if you factor in the small business tax credits for coverage. Individuals who receive tax credits in the exchange will find a 57-percent reduction in premiums; again, all things being equal. Will someone find an increase in premium? Somebody might buy a very expensive health insurance policy. Maybe that person's premiums might go up. Obviously, this is designed to kill the bill, and I strongly urge my colleagues not to support it. It prevents passage of the bill. It undermines the bill. It repeals the bill, in effect, that has already been signed by the President. So I move that this amendment be tabled, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I could be mistaken, but it is my understanding that the underlying amendment, which also includes Members of Congress in the exchange, is language that was drafted on a bipartisan basis in the HELP Committee. I don't see Senator Dodd here. It is an amendment Senator Coburn worked on and was agreed to in the HELP Committee. It covered Members of Congress and who all should be included. Frankly, I don't think it is wise at this point to try to negotiate who should additionally be covered in the exchanges and who should not. It was agreed to before. I say to my good friend from Iowa--he has been my very good friend--I don't think it is intended to embarrass the President and the executive branch people, but I think it is inappropriate.

Mr. BAUCUS. I say to my friend, he can be happy when Northern Iowa beats Michigan State this Friday. It will make him happy.

Mr. BAUCUS. I make a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I don't think this is really a serious amendment that requires all Members of Congress to withdraw from their Federal health insurance plan, and it requires all Members of Congress to be in Medicaid. Medicaid is a safety net for vulnerable Americans. It should not be the subject for political gamesmanship like this amendment. It is a slap in the face of vulnerable, poor Americans. Ironically, this killer amendment will have the effect of reducing payments to States which are in the underlying bill. It would take that away. I don't think that is the intent of the author of the amendment. Mr. President, I make a point of order the pending amendment violates section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, as a motion to commit, this clearly is designed to kill the bill. All motions to commit have that intent and effect. Let's remind ourselves, the underlying bill protects all Medicare beneficiaries. All statutory benefits are guaranteed in the underlying legislation. Second, the underlying bill reforms Medicare Advantage which rewards high performance Medicare Advantage programs, those providing value, whereas under current law that is not the case. In addition, if this amendment passes, fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries would have to pay a $90-a-year penalty to pay for the excess subsidy of Medicare Advantage plans. For lots of reasons, this motion should not prevail. I move to table the motion to commit and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this legislation is about filling the doughnut hole for seniors. It is about providing health care for working families, for children. It is about reducing our national debt. It is a serious bill. It deserves serious debate. The amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma makes a mockery of this Senate, the debate, and the American people. It is not a serious amendment. It is a crass political stunt aimed at making 30-second commercials, not public policy. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I move to table the amendment, and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is another in a long series of killer amendments. Clearly, allowing States to opt out of any or all provisions of the underlying health care reform bill would have that result. States could decide not to abide by health care market reforms, preexisting conditions, provisions against rescissions, et cetera. States could decide not to provide health care coverage to their citizens. One State versus the national program. States could decide they are not going to pay the fees, enact the fees that are required on State pharmaceuticals or insurance industries. States could make all kinds of decisions which basically would have the effect of killing this bill. So I urge my colleagues to not support the amendment of the Senator from Texas. I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment basically has the intent of creating a group of second-class employees. It is very similar to the issue of subminimum wage. It makes all the sense in the world to distinguish the two, between the HIRE Act and this amendment. The HIRE Act gave incentives for firms to hire new employees. This amendment creates a group of second-class employees. It says you can hire employees so long as they do not have health insurance. I think that is wrong. I do not think we should have a second class of employees, which is the effect of the amendment. I urge it be defeated. I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is an honest, straightforward amendment which is concerned about people making more than $200,000. The effect of some amendments prior to this moment have been trying to protect people making less than $200,000. This amendment is the exact opposite; it is only concerned about people making more than $200,000 in income. The bill itself also provides that people whose investment income is above $200,000 should contribute to the Medicare trust fund. Currently, they do not. Only taxes on wages contribute to the Medicare trust fund. The thought is that people with unearned income should also contribute. This tax only applies to those who make above $200,000. There is a passthrough exemption, subchapter S. Other passthroughs are exempted. Retirement income is exempted. It doesn't make sense that people making over $200,000 should be exempt. I move to table the motion to commit and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how have Kansas and Kansas State done lately? This is a very simple amendment. This health care bill is premised on the assumption that all groups should participate in finding the correct health care solution for our health care system. That includes hospitals, pharmaceuticals, and it also includes device manufacturers. This amendment would exclude one section: device manufacturers. How is it paid for? It is paid for by reducing the number of people who would otherwise get tax credits to help pay for their health insurance. I do not think that is what we want to do. We do not want to reduce the number of people who have health insurance. This amendment would reduce coverage for people who need help buying insurance. So I move to table this amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, two subjects. First, I wish to correct the record. I mistakenly stated that the Kansas Wildcats were not in the Sweet 16. That was an error. The Kansas State Wildcats are very much in the Sweet 16, and my apologies to coach Frank Martin of the Wildcats. I wish them very well in the tournament.

Mr. BAUCUS. Well, I don't have much time, but I will do my very best.

Mr. BAUCUS. I would say to my good friend, he isn't nearly as sorry as I am. Basically, this is like the last amendment--two flaws. It exempts a certain group from the shared responsibility in helping to finance health care reform. The second flaw is that it reduces coverage by changing the income threshold. This is not a way to do business. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment is very similar to the past two amendments we voted on. It seeks to exempt a sympathetic group of individuals from the excise tax on medical device manufacturers. The amendment is misplaced. We already exempt retail purchases of medical devices, such as Band-Aids, glasses--all those kinds of items. The tax only applies to large manufacturers. The government negotiates with the large manufacturers. The government is large enough to exact a better price. It does not pass that on to individuals, not on our military, not on our vets who already receive prescribed health care coverage. Second, this amendment is paid for by increasing the number of uninsured. I do not think we want to increase the number of uninsured. We want to decrease the number of uninsured. I reserve the remainder of my 15 seconds so the Senator from Utah can finish.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, very simply, this will not be passed on. The government is a large payer. They will be able to negotiate for better prices. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire and I kid each other about this. The fact is, this is another killer amendment, and it is apparent it is designed to kill this bill. Why do I say that? Because on October 21 of last year, the sponsor of this amendment, and every other Senator on the other side of the aisle, voted against invoking cloture on a bill to accomplish the very same thing they profess to desire at this point. Also, we have been advised by the Congressional Budget Office that it is not paid for. According to CBO--they recently sent us a note--the Gregg amendment would increase the deficit by $65 billion over the next 5 years. We will solve the SGR problem at the appropriate time. This body will then decide at that time the degree to which we want to pay for the SGR. This is not the time or the place. This is a killer amendment. According to CBO, it increases the deficit by $65 billion over the next 5 years; therefore, I raise a point of order that the Gregg amendment violates section 310(d)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I give a prize to the Senator from Louisiana. This is very transparent. It is very straightforward. It is totally honest. It is not dressed up. It is not camouflaged. It is straight repeal of health care reform. Therefore, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I agree--Kansas, Montana, anywhere-- critical access hospitals should be treated the same way as other hospitals. And when we get to that point, I say to my good friend from Kansas, I will work with him, and I know he will with me, so we can exempt critical access hospitals from this commission. However, the Parliamentarian tells us it is not permissible to amend programs subject to fast-track rules such as this commission in a reconciliation bill. Critical access hospitals are not in. It is a technical error, oversight--there are all kinds of reasons why it should be in, but they are not, and I cannot, at this point, agree with my friend to take them out now. I will at a later date, but we cannot now.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, surely I have to do the right thing. The right thing is to raise a point of order. I raise a point of order that the Roberts amendment violates section 313(b)(1)(D) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. BAUCUS. We are, and the Senator can make his motion.