Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Vermont be recognized to proceed for at least a half hour.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 16, 2009.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 16, 2009, at 1:30 p.m.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 16, at 11:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 16, 2009, at 10 a.m.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 16, 2009, at 3 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Judicial Nominations.''

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 16, 2009.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 16, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Tools to Combat Deficits and Waste: Enhanced Rescission Authority''.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 16, 2009, at 10:30 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Law of the Land: U.S. Implementation of Human Rights Treaties.''

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, for the benefit of all Senators, let me lay out today's program. It has been more than 3\1/2\ weeks since the majority leader moved to proceed to the health care reform bill. This is the 14th day the Senate has considered it. The Senate has considered 18 amendments and motions. We have conducted 14 rollcall votes. Today, the Senate will continue debating the Dorgan amendment on prescription drug reimportation and the Lautenberg alternative amendment to that amendment and we will continue debating the Crapo motion on taxes, for which I have filed a side-by-side amendment as well. Under the previous order, there will be 5 hours of debate, with each of the following Senators controlling 1 hour: The Senator from Idaho, Mr. Crapo; the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan; the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg; the Republican leader and this Senator. The Senate will recess from 12:45 to 3:15 for party conferences. Upon the use or yielding back of the 5 hours of debate, which is likely to be between 5 o'clock and 6 o'clock this evening, the Senate will proceed to vote in relation to four amendments in this order: First, my side-by-side amendment on tax cuts; second, the Crapo motion to commit on taxes; third, the Dorgan amendment No. 2793 on drug reimportation; and the Lautenberg side-by-side amendment No. 3156 on drug reimportation. Each amendment will need to get 60 votes or else be withdrawn. Upon disposition of these amendments and the motion, the next two Senators to be recognized to offer a motion and an amendment will be, first, the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, to offer a motion to commit regarding taxes; and, second, the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Sanders, to offer amendment No. 2837 on single payer. Amendment No. 3183 to Amendment No. 2786 Mr. President, under the previous order, it is in order for this Senator to offer a side-by-side amendment to the motion to commit, offered by the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, and pursuant to that order, I call up my amendment No. 3183.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, during the Presidential campaign, President Obama promised not to raise taxes on Americans who earn less than $200,000 a year or American families who earn less than $250,000 a year. That was his promise. This bill keeps his promise. This bill will provide tax credits to help American families, workers, and small businesses to buy quality health insurance plans through new fair and competitive marketplaces called insurance exchanges. The Congressional Budget Office expects that by the year 2019, 25 million Americans will buy health insurance plans through the new exchanges. The vast majority of those Americans--about 19 million--will receive tax credits; that is, tax reductions, or help paying their copays and other out-of-pocket costs. These tax credits will reduce their health insurance costs by nearly 60 percent. This bill does not raise taxes on the middle class. This bill is a tax cut for Americans. Over the next 10 years, the health care reform bill will provide $441 billion in tax credits to buy health insurance for American families, workers, and small businesses--$441 billion in tax credits. Americans affected by the major tax provisions of this bill will receive an overall tax cut of 1.3 percent in the year 2017. That is a total of $40 billion. That is an average of almost $450 for every taxpayer affected. That same year, 2017, low- and middle-income taxpayers who earn between $20,000 and $30,000 a year will see an average Federal tax decrease of nearly 37 percent. I will repeat that. I think it is astounding. People with incomes between $20,000 and $30,000 a year will receive an average Federal tax decrease of nearly 37 percent. In that same year, 2017, the average taxpayer making less than $75,000 a year will receive a tax credit of more than $1,300. In 2019, 2 years later, that tax credit will grow to more than $1,500. Without this tax cut, many individuals and families will continue to forgo health care because it costs too much. We make it easier for people to buy health care with those tax cuts. In addition to a tax cut, this bill also represents increased wages in the pockets of millions of Americans. Even my colleague from Idaho agrees that as a result of this bill, Americans will see increased wages. He said that exact thing on the floor last week. As a result of this bill, many Americans will see increased wages. Senator Crapo gave the example of an employee, the value of whose health insurance decreased but whose overall compensation did not decrease. As a result, the employee would receive additional wages. Why are workers going to complain that they are paying more in wages because they have more money in their pocket? If incomes are going up, their wages are going up. Clearly, their taxes are going to go up correspondingly, but obviously the taxes are not going to go up by as much as the wages. I have a letter from the Congressional Budget Office, dated November 18, that states just that. On page 18, the Congressional Budget Office says: If employers increase or decrease the amount of compensation they provide in the form of health insurance (relative to current law projection), the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation assume that offsetting changes will occur in wages and other forms of compensation--which are generally taxable--to hold total compensation roughly the same. I have a chart behind me that shows that very point for each of the years this bill is in effect. Looking, first, over to the left--the chart shows from 2013 up to 2019, but on the far left, the green is the percent of total tax revenue due to increased wages. That is wages increasing. The white is the percent of total tax revenue due to excise taxes, the increased taxes the person will have to pay. Wages far outstrip the taxes. The increase in wages is far greater, according to the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation. Just to repeat, as that chart illustrates, the overwhelming majority of revenue raised from the high-cost insurance excise tax will come from increased wages. Only 17.5 percent of the revenue will be attributable to the excise tax. The rest, more than 82 percent, will come from employees getting more than their compensation wages and less in inefficient health coverage. I urge my colleagues to recognize the Crapo motion to commit for what it is--and what is that? It is an attempt to kill health care reform. That is all it is all about, nothing more, nothing less. Senator Grassley said as much last week. Senator Grassley asked us to vote in favor of the motion to commit ``to stop this process right now.'' That is a direct quote. We must not stop this process. We must not stop moving forward in our efforts to reform health care. Indeed, we must move forward aggressively. Every day we delay, 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance. Every day we delay, 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance. In just a 2-week period, one in three Americans will go without health care coverage at some point. We cannot afford to stop working toward reform. We must reject any attempt to eliminate the very provisions from this bill that provide Americans with a tax cut in an attempt to stop health care reform. Despite Republican claims that they are trying to protect Americans from tax increases in this bill, the facts are this bill is a tax cut for most Americans. On a related matter, there has been some discussion about the Office of the Actuary analysis of the Senate bill. Let me cover two very key points from that letter. The Actuary at HHS concludes that this legislation extends the life of the Medicare trust fund by 9 years--9 years. We know the Medicare trust fund is in a precarious position until, roughly, 2017. There are some estimates that this underlying bill would increase the solvency of the trust fund for 4 to 5 more years, say to 2022, roughly. The Actuary, the person who number crunches over at HHS, concluded this legislation will extend the life of the Medicare trust fund by 9 years. That is no small matter. Seniors, near seniors, are very concerned about the solvency of the health care trust fund. This legislation extends the solvency of the health care trust fund by 9 years. So just think, if this legislation is not passed, the solvency of the health care trust fund will not be extended by 9 years. The Actuary says, the Medicare trustees say it will probably start to become insolvent, the Medicare trust fund, the Medicare trust fund will become insolvent in just a few years--2017. Clearly, it is very important to extend the solvency of the Medicare trust fund. How does this legislation extend the solvency of the trust fund? It is very simple. We cut out a lot of the waste. We cut out a lot of the inefficiency. We make the system work better so the fund is extended for 9 more years. In addition, the Actuary says this legislation, by the year 2019, will result in about a $300-per-couple reduction in Part B premiums. In addition to that, the Actuary concludes the legislation will result in about a $400-per-couple deduction in cost sharing. If you add the two together, that is about $700. So by the year 2019, as a result of this legislation, according to the Actuary--it is in black and white there-- it says right there, in print, there will be about a $700 reduction in premium Part B and out-of-pocket costs for seniors. That is no small matter. It is a reduction. On the other side of the floor, we sometimes hear all this rhetoric about increases. It is just that--it is rhetoric. The actual analysis shows a reduction. I also hear rhetoric on the other side about this legislation resulting in increased premiums for people. Not true. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that for 93 percent of Americans, there will be a reduction in premiums--a reduction in premiums. To be fair, for those who are already employed, the reduction is not huge, but it is a reduction, nevertheless. It is about a 3-percent reduction in premiums. That is a reduction. We have to keep working to make it an even greater reduction. I daresay--in fact, I know as sure as I am standing here--the reduction will be greater. Why will it be greater? Because a lot of the provisions in this legislation--in my view, the Congressional Budget Office hasn't fully analyzed provisions such as delivery system reforms. We start to bundle competent care organizations. We start pilot projects. The result of that will be a reduction in costs and therefore a reduction in premiums. Also not calculated is the Commission which will look at productivity. That is not included in the CBO analysis. If that were included in the CBO analysis, the reduction would be even greater. We are talking about the remaining 7 percent--remember, I said 93 percent would get a reduction in premiums according to CBO. The remaining 7 percent don't get a reduction, but what do they get in return? They get much better insurance because we have insurance market reform in this legislation. No more preexisting conditions. No more rescissions. No more denial based on health status. No more company limitations on annual losses. No more limitations on lifetime losses. So for the same premium, they are going to get a lot better quality. Instead of buying a used car, they are going to get a new car for roughly the same price. So the analysis of this legislation is very clear: Reduction of premiums, CBO says so; extension of solvency of the trust fund, CBO and the Actuary say so; a reduction in premiums and out-of-pocket costs for a couple by $700 by the year 2019. That is what the Actuary says. So this legislation lives up to the promise we made earlier. It does not raise taxes for people making under $200,000. I think the legislation should clearly be passed. Let me say this too. Someone once said--and I will conclude here-- that the status quo is really not the status quo. If this legislation is not passed, the result is not the status quo; the result is we move backward. We have two choices. Either we move forward as a country and seize this opportunity to tackle health care reform and do our very best to get it right or we don't; we do nothing, and we keep sliding backward. Think of the repercussions of not passing this legislation. Think of it. First of all, tens of millions of people will not have health insurance. That, in itself, is pretty profound. Second, we will not have health insurance market reform. We will still have denial based on preexisting conditions, which is basically what the other side is arguing for. We would not cut down health care costs, which our businesses need so much, and families need so much, and our budgets need so much. Remember, I mentioned the legislation extends the solvency of the Medicare trust fund. That is emblematic of some of the savings that we have in other government programs, too, because health care costs are rising so much. Medicare is in tough shape, and so is Medicaid because health care costs are rising so much. The CBO and the Actuary say we are controlling health care costs.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to remind us why we are here--health care reform--and why health care reform is so important. I would like to go through the costs of inaction, what the consequences are if we do not pass health care reform. First of all, rising health care costs are wrecking the lives of Americans. In 2007, 62 percent of bankruptcies were due to medical costs. This legislation will help reduce the rate of growth of health care costs. In fact, the President's Council on Economic Advisers and the President just announced today or yesterday there will be a 1- percent reduction in national health care costs. CBO basically said this bill is deficit neutral, and it will have an effect on reducing health care costs. This bill will reduce health care costs. A Harvard study found, in addition, when people do not have health insurance, they are more likely to be much more ill. Harvard found every year in America lack of health insurance leads to 45,000 deaths. If Americans do not have health insurance, it leads to 45,000 deaths in our country. That is intolerable. How can we in the United States of America--we pride ourselves as the biggest, the strongest, the most moral country on the globe. How can we allow 45,000 deaths just because somebody does not have health insurance? People without health insurance have a 40-percent higher risk of death than those with private health insurance. How does this bill affect Medicare? According to the CMS Actuary, Medicare is projected to go broke in about the year 2017. CMS has estimated this will actually extend solvency to the year 2026. That is very important, Mr. President. It is an important message to seniors--that the Medicare trust fund solvency will be extended under this legislation for at least 9 more years, beyond 2017. I wish it were further, but that is a lot better than not extending solvency-- extending solvency for that period of time. The bill also would increase the percentage of people who have health insurance from about 83 percent to 94 percent. That, too, is no small matter. Our legislation would reform the insurance market to protect those with preexisting conditions. It would prevent insurance companies from discriminating and capping coverage, and it would require insurance companies to renew policies as long as policyholders pay their premiums. Let me just say a bit more, with a little more precision, about premium costs. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Office of the Actuary, confirmed this. They confirmed that this legislation will cover 33 million Americans who are currently uninsured and will do so while significantly reducing Medicare costs and Medicaid spending. Think of that. This legislation will cover 33 million Americans who are currently not covered at the same time reducing Medicare and Medicaid costs. Don't take my word for it. That is the projection of the Chief Actuary of CMS. In addition, as I mentioned, the Chief Actuary says this will extend the life of the trust fund for 9 years. Moreover, this legislation reduces the cost to seniors, to a family, by $300 by 2019. Medicare Part B premiums, according to the Actuary, will be $300 lower than it otherwise would be. The out-of-pocket costs would be, for a couple--I think it is roughly $400. That is a total of about a $700 reduction for a couple in 2019. So a reduction in Medicare Part B premium costs and a reduction in out-of-pocket costs. Essentially, the Actuary concludes, and I will read the quote: The proposed reductions in Medicare payment updates for providers, the actions of the Independent Medicare Advisory Board, and the excise tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health insurance would have a significant downward impact on future health care cost growth rates. Again, a ``significant downward impact on future health care cost growth rates.'' The Actuary says the bend in the cost curve is evident. The Actuary also concludes that in 2019 health expenditures are projected to rise by 7.2 percent with no change but 6.9 percent under the proposal. That is, under the proposal, health care costs will rise at a lower rate than they will if this legislation does not pass. In addition, this report shows how health insurance costs for millions of Americans will reduce premiums by 14 to 20 percent for people in the individual market. Actually, that was the Congressional Budget Office that reached that conclusion and not the Actuary. The Congressional Budget Office has basically concluded that for 93 percent of Americans premiums will be lowered. For 93 percent of Americans premiums will be lower. It is true that for those who are employed--the five-sixths of persons who now have health insurance--their premiums would not go down a heck of a lot, but they will start going down due to this legislation. For the 7 percent whose premiums are not reduced, they get a better deal. That 7 percent will have much higher quality health insurance than they now have, basically because of no more denial of care for preexisting conditions, market reform, rating reform, no more rescissions, et cetera. So this is a very good deal. I would like to say one word, too, on health care cost reduction. A lot of Senators have quoted an article by Dr. Gawande from The New Yorker magazine--I think it was dated June 2--explaining the phenomenon of geographic variations in this country and why health care costs are much higher in some parts of America and much lower in other parts of America, which is due mostly to the way we pay health care providers and doctors in the system, therefore explaining the basic reason there is so much waste in the American health care system. Dr. Gawande published another article in The New Yorker a week or 2 ago, and in that article he basically says of all the ideas that have been suggested by economists, by practitioners, by providers, and people worried about the rise of health care costs in America, all of the ideas are in this legislation. They are all in here. All the ways to work to start to lower health care costs are in this legislation. He also says the pilot projects and the demonstration projects in this legislation are good because you have to work a little bit, you have to experiment a little, you have to try this and try that to see where bundling works and see where it does not work. But the provisions are there. We can all be quite confident that this administration is going to do its level best to make sure these projects work--that is the bundling, the moving toward quality as a basic reimbursement in the way of quantity. The administration is going to work very hard to make sure they work. I will say, too, as chairman of the Finance Committee, the committee of primary jurisdiction over these subjects, that we are going to have a lot of oversight hearings next year because it is very much in the interest of the American people to make sure this legislation works and works very well. Clearly, with aggressive oversight hearings next year we can help make sure that happens. One other point. This bill represents a net tax cut, not a tax increase--a net tax cut for individuals, not a tax increase. Why do I say that? I say that because that is what the Joint Committee on Taxation says. What is the Joint Committee on Taxation? It is a committee, an organization in Washington that serves both the House and the Senate. It serves Republicans and Democrats. There is not one iota of partisanship in it. It is totally objective, very solid, very confident. They are the outfit we rely on when we write tax legislation. Basically, they say by the year 2019, Americans will see a net tax cut of $40 billion, and that tax cut is equal to an average tax decrease of more than $440 per affected taxpayer. And for low- and middle-income taxpayers making less than $200,000, this cut is even greater. The average tax credit is equal to more than $640 per affected taxpayer in the year 2019. To repeat: This bill, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, is a net tax cut for individuals--a cut, not an increase but a cut-- almost as great as the 2001 tax cut. Many of us know how great that was. This is the biggest tax cut since 2001--this legislation. I also want to discuss a couple other points. A lot of people say: Well, gee, some of this does not take effect for several years. Let's go through what takes effect right away, in 2010. What are the provisions that take effect right away? I will read the list. The first is--the fancy term is ``pools''--to help people with preexisting conditions get access to health insurance even before the actual denial of preexisting conditions kicks in. There is $5 billion of Federal support for higher risk pools providing affordable coverage to uninsured persons with preexisting conditions. That takes effect right away. Second, reinsurance for retiree health benefit plans. Basically, that means there is immediate access to Federal reinsurance for employer plans providing coverage for early retirees--for ages between 55 and 64. Essentially, that means extra dollars are available for the outliers. That is a fancy term for saying the high-cost people in that age group--55 to 64. In addition, we extend dependent coverage for young adults. Today, a young couple buys health insurance for themselves and their kids, and once the child is 21 there is no more health insurance. We raise that level to the age of 26 so that person can stay with the family and have the family's health insurance. Moreover, this legislation requires that health insurers must provide prevention and wellness benefits but no deductibles and no cost-sharing requirements. That, too, will help quite a bit. That takes effect right away. Moreover, right away, in 2010, the legislation prohibits insurers from imposing annual and lifetime caps. Not later but right away there is a prohibition against insurers from imposing annual lifetime dollar limits--a big problem today. Moreover, right away, this legislation will stop insurers from nullifying or rescinding health insurance policies when claims are filed. Rescissions are a big problem today. In 2010, when this legislation passes, no more rescissions of health care policies. Moreover, this legislation sets minimum standards for insurance overhead costs to ensure that most premium dollars are spent on health benefits, not costly administration or executive compensation and profits. We also require public disclosure of overhead and benefit spending and premium rebates. That is right away. What about small business persons--small businessmen? This legislation offers tax credits to small businesses with low wages to make covering their workers more affordable. It takes effect in 2010, and credits of up to 50 percent of insurance premiums will be available to firms that choose to offer coverage. I might also say there are stronger small business provisions, too, that I am quite certain will be in the managers' amendment. Greater incentives to the tune of about $12 billion to $13 billion for small businesses will be in this legislation and will also be in the managers' amendment. Moreover, what will take effect next year, not later, is we have closed the coverage gap for the Medicare drug benefit. Basically, that means we have closed the doughnut hole--we are starting to close the doughnut hole. Seniors pay very high prices for brand-name drugs if they are in that so-called doughnut hole. We close it so that seniors don't have to pay those high prices anymore. There is public access to comparable information, more transparency, and I could go on and on and on. There are many provisions which take effect right away and not at a later date. Mr. President, I believe that debate is drawing to a conclusion on the four matters under consideration. We may be able to have votes as soon as 5:30. I see my colleagues from Kansas and Iowa on the Senate floor, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask how many minutes I have remaining.

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 5 minutes to my good friend from Iowa who I think is going to be speaking against my position but he is a good fellow so I think he should have 5 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. How much time remains?

Mr. BAUCUS. On this side? Does anyone have remaining time?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. I would like to make it clear, essentially this legislation does several things. This is the core part of this legislation. What is it? First, this legislation very significantly reforms the health insurance industry, especially for people who individually buy insurance and also for people who buy for a small company and even buy insurance for a large company. It is insurance market reform. It stops insurance companies from, frankly, undertaking practices which are un-American; that is, denying people coverage based on preexisting conditions, denying them health insurance because they have some kind of preexisting something--that is ridiculous--or saying: You can't have health insurance because you have some other health care status or saying: Sure, we will give you a policy, then a month, 2 months later, rescind it willy-nilly or putting in restrictive limits on what the company will pay during your lifetime or what the company might pay in health insurance benefits for a year. In addition, this legislation reforms what are called rating provisions that States have. States basically allow companies to charge whatever they want, if you are a little older compared to if you are younger, if you are a woman compared to a man. There are lots of different ways States allow insurance companies to charge based upon different categories. So, No. 1, insurance market reform. This legislation stops some outrageous practices that insurance companies practice today. No. 2, this legislation begins to get control over health care costs. We have to start to get control over health care costs. This legislation does so. It also is deficit neutral. It does not cost one thin dime for us to enact this legislation. It is all paid for. It provides health insurance coverage. About 31 million Americans who currently do not have health insurance will have health insurance, if this legislation passes. I don't have to remind my colleagues of the importance of health insurance. Insurance market reform that lowers the cost of health care in this country, provides full coverage and, equally important, begins to put in place delivery system reforms. That is kind of wonkish, but it is one of the most important parts of this bill, starting to change the way we pay doctors and hospitals, pay based more on quality rather than quantity, start putting into effect different systems that sound kind of wonkish but will be important over 3, 4, 5 years. It is bundling, group homes. It is lowering the practice of hospitals that readmit too quickly after a patient is discharged. There are so many reforms here. I strongly urge everyone to keep their eye on the ball. Insurance market reform in this legislation, lowering costs in this legislation, lowering taxes in this legislation, insurance coverage for 31 million Americans who today do not have it, and starting to put in place payment reforms which will help get this country on the right path so, after several years, we have a health care system we are all proud of, one that gets rid of all the waste we have in the country today. We pay $2.5 trillion a year in health care, about half public and half private. People who study this say we waste as much as $800 billion a year--not million, billion--in fraud, waste, dollars that don't go directly to health care. This legislation starts to get a handle on that. It stops all the waste. You get a better handle on fraud so after 2 or 3 years, we will have something we are very proud of. Let us remind ourselves, again, if we don't pass this legislation, we will rue the day we didn't because we will have to start all over again, 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 years from now, and the problem will be much worse. The cost for families is going to be much greater, the cost to American businesses much greater. Our budgets are going to be in much worse shape, Medicare and Medicaid. This legislation extends the solvency of the Medicare trust fund for another 9 years. Remember the bottom line, remember the basics. Let's not get too caught up in the details of the weeds and get distracted by a lot of stuff that is not the core of this bill. The provisions I outlined are compelling reasons why this legislation must pass and why it would be so good for America. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 6 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendments and motion specified in the order of December 14 regarding H.R. 3590; that prior to each vote, there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that after the first vote in the sequence, the succeeding votes be limited to 10 minutes each; further, that all provisions of the December 14 order remain in effect.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: The order that was just entered provided for 2 minutes, equally divided, before, I suppose, the vote on each of the amendments. Is that in addition to or is that a part of the time that has been allocated to Senators?

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS. So, Mr. President, if the Senator from Montana wishes to speak on his amendment, he has 5 minutes, plus 2 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. Excuse me. The time is equally divided. Thank you. Mr. President, I just want to make it as clear as I can that the Congressional Budget Office essentially says that premiums will go down for about 93 percent of Americans. I say that because I think my good friend from Idaho was leaving a different impression. But let me just summarize what CBO says. I would put a chart that CBO provided in the Record, but under the Senate rules we cannot put charts in the Record. So I am just going to summarize what this chart says. OK. Seventy percent of Americans will get their health insurance in what is called the large group market. That is people who work for larger employers--70 percent. CBO said for that 70 percent of Americans, premiums will go down a little bit. It will be about a 3- percent reduction in premiums. The next group of Americans getting health insurance are in what is called the small group market. Those are people in small companies, small businesses, primarily. That is where 13 percent of Americans get their insurance. CBO says for that 13 percent, maybe the premiums will go up between 1 percent or down 2 percentage points overall. But for those folks, those small businesspeople who get tax credits-- and there are some very significant tax credits in this bill, and I think it will be even more significant when the managers' amendment is out--CBO says, even with modest tax credits, those premiums will go down 8 to 11 percent. That is, for 13 percent of Americans who have insurance, their premiums will go down 8 to 11 percent, among those who have credits. Let's look at what is called the nongroup market, the individual market. That is 17 percent of Americans. For those folks, if you compare their current insurance with what they will have in the future, those premiums will go down 14 to 20 percent--down 14 to 20 percent-- according to CBO. In addition, though, CBO says that persons who have tax credits--we are talking now about the individual market--those people will find, on average, their premiums will go down 56 to 59 percent. Remember, 17 percent of Americans buy insurance individually. Of that 17 percent, 10 percent, because of tax credits in this bill, will find their premiums go down 56 to 59 percent. The 7 percent that are remaining--remember I started off by saying for 93 percent, there will be a reduction. The 7 percent remaining will find that because of better benefits, their premiums will go up 10 to 13 percent, but they will have a lot better benefits. They will have a lot higher quality insurance than they have today. Frankly, my judgment is, the higher quality insurance they have, because of this legislation, will outweigh the increase in the premiums. But anyway, for 93 percent, premiums will go down. Amendment No. 3183 Mr. President, let me speak a little bit on my amendment which, as I understand it, is going to be the first amendment voted on. I remind my colleagues that the underlying legislation is a tax cut bill. It cuts taxes. It cuts taxes very significantly. Over the next 10 years, for example, this bill will provide Americans with a $441 billion tax cut to buy health insurance--$441 billion in tax credits to buy health insurance. Credits are tax reductions. In the year 2017, taxpayers who earn between $20,000 and $30,000 a year will see an average tax cut of nearly 37 percent. These are people who have a hard time making ends meet. People who earn between $20,000 and $30,000 will see an average tax cut of 37 percent. That is according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. In addition, 2 years later, the average taxpayer making less than $75,000 a year will receive a tax credit of $1,500. Just to repeat, the average taxpayer making less than $75,000 a year will receive a tax reduction--a tax credit--of more than $1,500. The Crapo motion to commit is really an attempt to kill health care reform. It is, thus, a plan to keep Americans from getting these tax cuts. I think we want Americans to get these tax cuts. If the Crapo motion is successful, Americans will not get any of these tax cuts. We want them to. The underlying bill gives Americans these tax cuts. Therefore, I think we should reject this procedural maneuver designed to kill the tax cuts in this health care bill. That is what my side-by-side amendment says--that is going to be the first amendment voted on--and that is, let's vote to keep our current tax cuts. I urge a positive vote on my amendment and a ``no'' vote on the Crapo motion, which eliminates the tax cuts, which is not what I think most Americans want. So I urge my colleagues to vote for the side-by-side amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.