Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, essentially, the Crapo motion to commit the underlying bill, the pending bill, is to the Finance Committee to take out all the tax cuts. That is what it is, so I oppose it. I urge Senators to vote for my amendment, which is a sense of the Senate that the Senate should reject such procedural motions, basically, because we want to keep the tax cuts that are in this bill. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, the Crapo motion to commit is an attempt to kill health care reform. If it succeeds, we will keep 31 million Americans from getting health care coverage. If it succeeds, it will keep Americans from getting the tax cuts in the bill. If the motion succeeds, over the next 10 years, Americans will get $441 billion less in tax credits to buy health insurance. I urge that we not vote in favor of the Crapo motion, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I have long supported measures that allow Montanans to buy safe and effective drugs from foreign countries. This is why I support the Lautenberg amendment. Currently, the Food and Drug Administration is required to review the safety and effectiveness of domestically produced drugs. FDA is also required to ensure the safety and effectiveness of legally imported drugs. Through FDA's robust inspection and other regulatory compliance activities, consumers can have a high degree of confidence in the quality of the drugs. The Lautenberg amendment allows importation of drugs manufactured outside the United States and includes numerous protective measures in addition to these activities. These measures address the health and safety risks of importing foreign drugs. Most importantly, it requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to certify that the imported drugs do not pose any additional risk to the public's health and safety and create savings for American consumers. With recent increased awareness of potentially dangerous food and drug products, it is more important than ever to protect American consumers. This amendment ensures that consumers are protected from the risk of unsafe drugs. And it ensures Americans have access to consistent, reliable medicines.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, closing the doughnut hole is clearly the right thing to do. Medicare beneficiaries face extremely high out-of- pocket costs for outpatient prescription drugs. In fact, they face costs that are six times higher than out-of-pocket costs for those of us fortunate enough to have employer-sponsored coverage. The doughnut hole contributes to these high out-of-pocket costs. As a result, the doughnut hole often results in seniors skipping vital medications. Eliminating the coverage gap in the Medicare prescription drug program will save people with Medicare thousands of dollars every year. Lowering the costs for seniors will also keep them healthier by ensuring they can afford their medications. In my home State of Montana, 33 percent of seniors enrolled in the Medicare prescription drug program fall into the doughnut hole every year--one-third. We all know what the consequences are when people cannot afford the medicines they need to stay healthy, both for the affected individuals and for society at large. Recognizing the scope of this problem, in his address to a joint session of Congress in September, President Obama promised to close the doughnut hole once and for all. It is our responsibility to make good on this promise and provide this needed relief to seniors. I join my colleagues in committing that we will send a bill to the President that closes the doughnut hole and fulfills his promise.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, responding to the leader, that is my full understanding.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, for the benefit of all Senators, let me lay out today's program. It has been 3 weeks since the majority leader moved to proceed to the health care reform bill. This is the 11th day of debate. The Senate has considered 18 amendments or motions. It has conducted 14 rollcall votes. Today, the Senate will continue debating the amendment by the Senator from North Dakota on prescription drug reimportation, we will continue debating the motion by the Senator from Idaho on taxes, and we will continue debate on the bill. Under the previous order, the time until 1 p.m. today will be for debate only, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. Beginning at 11 o'clock, Republicans will control the first half hour, and the majority will control the second half hour. We will continue discussions to try to find a way forward.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally charged against both sides.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, commenting on the budget process in the 1980s, former CBO Director Rudy Penner said: The process is not the problem; the problem is the problem. The chairman and ranking member of the Budget Committee have proposed another new budget process. No one has shown greater zeal in taking on the budget deficit than the chairman and ranking Republican Member of the Budget Committee. I commend their good intentions. They work hard. But we should reject this process. Instead, we should solve the problem. In their press release yesterday, Senators Conrad and Gregg said that ``Everything needs to be on the table, including spending and revenues.'' That is a quote: ``Everything needs to be on the table, including spending and revenues.'' But why stop there? If Congress is going to outsource its core fiscal responsibilities, why stop with those responsibilities? Why not cede to this Commission all of the legislation in the next Congress? Why don't we outsource the entire year's work and then adjourn for the year? Come to think of it, if we do cede all of our powers to this Commission, what is to stop them from inserting any and all business for the next Congress into the Commission's one, nonamendable, omnibus vehicle? No restrictions. They could put anything they want into it. There is the rub. For if the Commission were merely a farce, then we could be satisfied with ridiculing it. But this Commission and its new fast-track process are truly dangerous. If we were to cede all of our responsibilities to this Commission, and we were to tie our hands so we could not amend its recommendations, then we would risk setting in motion some truly terrible policy. Under the proposed fast-track procedures, we would not be able to amend the proposal. What if we did not like the Commission's recommendations? We would not be able to replace the Commission's recommendations with our own. It is clear from their press release that Senators Conrad and Gregg have painted a big red target on Social Security and Medicare. That is what this Commission is all about. It is a big roll of the dice for Social Security and Medicare. Advocates of the task force say the regular order is not working. They say we need a new process to address our long-term fiscal challenges. But they are wrong. The regular order is working. We are enacting health care reform. And serious people know that controlling the costs of health care is the central path to addressing our long- term budget challenges. The lion's share of the reason why deficits are projected to grow so much in the long run is the enormous increase in the costs of health care. We are doing something about it. We are doing it the right way. We held open hearings. We legislated in committee. We are voting on amendments. We are legislating. We are doing what our people back home sent us here to do. The Congressional Budget Office says that health care reform will cut the deficit $130 billion in the first 10 years and $650 billion in the second 10 years. That is nearly $800 billion in CBO-certified deficit reduction in health care alone. And next year we will legislate fundamental tax reform. But some appear to want to throw in the towel. Some want to punt our responsibilities away. I can see that a commission may be attractive to some. After all, it is an easy way out. It takes away our accountability for what we do. Senators can blame it all on the Commission. Senators could say: The Commission made me do it. But this is no time to abdicate responsibility. This new Commission and this Congress are less than a year old. We should not shirk our responsibility. Rather, we should do the job our constituents sent us here to do. Luckily, we already have a process to address the budget. It is called the congressional budget process. Here is a novel idea: Why don't we use the budget process to address the budget deficit? If the chairman and ranking Republican Member of the Budget Committee are in such broad agreement on their goals, why don't they skip the Commission and go straight to their recommendation? That is exactly why Congress created the budget resolution and the reconciliation bill in the first place. We do not need a new commission to do our work. We do not need a new process to solve the problem. To solve the problem, we just need to solve the problem. I urge my colleagues to reject this Commission idea. Let's get back to solving the problem. Let's get back to enacting real health care reform.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that one point? Just on that one point, will my good friend from Wyoming yield, on our time?

Mr. BAUCUS. The question is this: Doesn't the Senator agree--it is kind of a hard question to ask--that this Senator spent an inordinate amount of time in the last year trying to get a bipartisan solution to health care reform; that is, in our committee, in the Finance Committee, having an open process, fully consulting on both sides of the aisle? Then we had that other group called the Group of 6, of which the Senator is a part. I think we had 130--I have forgotten how many days and meetings we had, how many hours we met. But isn't it true that at least this Senator tried as hard as he could to get a bipartisan solution?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to underline the huge bipartisan effort that this side undertook to put this bill together in many, many ways. I very much appreciate the comments of the Senator from Connecticut on that point. Let's go back. A year ago, I held an all-day health care summit at the Library of Congress for members of the Finance Committee, Republicans and Democrats. They were all there. We spent a whole day. In addition, I talked to all the groups. I called them up and said: Look, we are all in this together--we Americans--consumer groups, labor, big business, small business, the pharmaceutical industry, hospitals, hospice, all these CEOs. I said: We are all working together to get health care reform passed for our country--for all Americans. So we kept that process up to keep it--and I don't like that word ``bipartisan.'' It is more accurate to say that everybody was working together. If you don't like something, maybe you will like something else somewhere else.

Mr. BAUCUS. Just as I was getting wound up, Mr. President. I will continue when the majority's half-hour comes around.

Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate very much the 2 minutes from the Senator from Arizona. This could take a couple more than 2 minutes, but I very much appreciate the offer. I will just wait.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I must say, some of the debate on the other side of the aisle is a little surreal. They say they want to move ahead, and then they refuse to enter into any reasonable time agreement to consider a necessary appropriations measure. I find it very impressive--I am very impressed--how the minority can maintain both that they want to move more quickly and not move at all--surreal. I wish to also explain, despite what the claims on the other side are, that we have attempted mightily to work together on both sides of the aisle to get health care reform passed. They claim it is all one- party rule. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let me explain why. When we began this effort over a year ago, we had many hearings. In fact, last year I think I had 10 hearings in the Finance Committee on health care reform to educate ourselves because we knew health care reform was going to be a big issue in the year 2009. So, in 2008, we had many Finance Committee hearings on all different aspects of health care. How does our system work? How do parts fit together? How does this all work? We were there to educate ourselves. We did not have a political ax to grind. We were not trying to make points. We got the experts in and asked: How does it work? How do the different parts of our system work together? Then we issued a white paper. It was in November of last year. It was basically a call to action, which is what we called it. It was about an 80-, 90-page paper. It was a statement of the health care options: delivery system reforms, various ways to get increased health care coverage, various ways to help with insurance market reform--lots of different provisions. I might say, casting all modesty to the wind, that white paper, that call to action, back in November of 2008, is probably the basis and springboard from which most of the ideas we have been debating, both in the House and in the Senate and on both sides of the aisle, come from. They basically come from there. I might say, it has all been totally transparent. It is all on the Internet. It has all been open for everybody. Republicans and Democrats participated fully. First was the Library of Congress all-day session, both sides fully--that was over a year ago. Since then, in 2009, this year, we have had a countless number--in the Finance Committee--of what we call roundtables, a countless number of walk-throughs, a countless number of hearings on all the various aspects of health care reform--bipartisan, fully open. Also, I instituted something else here; that is, we got to the point where we finally got to the markup, and we put the marked up bill on the Internet, again, so everybody sees everything. We also made sure all amendments were on the Internet and fully debated by both sides-- totally open, totally transparent. I prided myself on doing that. In fact, one very well-known health journalist who works for a very major paper walked up to me and said: Max, is this a new way of doing things? Maybe you started something, Max, in being so transparent and working so much together. Do you think this is the model for the future? I said: I don't know. But it impressed him how much we tried to work together and did work together with people on both sides of the aisle. I cannot think of a more comprehensive, more transparent, more bipartisan effort than this. So what happened? Well, the HELP Committee had their version passed. So we in the Finance Committee worked on ours. To move the ball, I shifted it to another group--we called it the Gang of 6; three Republicans, three Democrats--to try to get a core provision together that we could take to the full committee. We had a countless number of meetings. I have forgotten the number of days we met--I think in the nature of 30 or 40 meetings and close to 100 hours and with Republicans and Democrats to and fro. Guess what. It was very, very constructive. I wish the American public could have been an eye on the wall at those meetings and watched these meetings proceed. There were very good questions asked by Senators on both sides, Republicans and Democrats. I highly compliment my friend from Wyoming, Senator Enzi. I highly compliment my friend from Maine, Senator Snowe. I highly compliment everybody who was there. They asked very good questions--and Senator Grassley, of course, he is the ranking member of the Finance Committee; and the same on the Democratic side--in an effort to try to find a good, solid health care reform bill. Well, we kept working--bipartisan--working together for days, days, hours, hours. Then, unfortunately, we got to the point where--I am just calling it as I see it; one of my failings is I am too honest about things--and the Republicans started to walk away. They pulled away from the table. They had to leave. I ask you, why? Why did that happen? The answer--to be totally fair and above board--is because their leadership asked them to. Their leadership asked them to become disengaged from the process. I know that to be a fact. Why did their leadership ask Republicans to leave and become disengaged from the process? To be totally candid, it is because they wanted to score political points by just attacking this bill. They were not here to help be constructive, to find some bipartisan solution. They were for a while. Then, when the rubber started to meet the road, when it came time to try to make some decisions, they left and began to attack. I think a big, unfortunate circumstance in all this--we are going to pass health care reform. It is going to pass. It is going to do wonders for the American people. We are going to dramatically reform the health insurance market. People are going to have health insurance they do not now have. We are going to help put in place delivery system reforms. That is just a fancy term for saying changing the way we reimburse hospitals and doctors in a very positive way, so we are focusing more on quality and less on quantity and volume. This bill is going to pass. It is going to be a very good bill when it finally does pass and people understand it. But the unfortunate part is this: It is unfortunate, in my judgment, that the other side pursued a strategy of just saying no, just saying no, and attack, attack, attack. That is basically what we have heard here in the last several weeks, instead of coming up with a comprehensive alternative, instead of coming up with a comprehensive alternative health care reform package. Then it would have been wonderful if we had an honest-to-goodness, solid debate on the pros and cons of each side, the merits of each side, a constructive dialog, pursuit, inquiry, focus on which portions of this should be put in the bill and which should not. But that did not happen. We did not have this constructive alternative provision presented to us. We had no provision presented to us--and by ``to us,'' I mean the American public--so we could debate here. But, rather, they just said no. We have worked as hard as we could to be bipartisan. But to be honest and candid about it, the other side walked away. They walked away, and I think it is very unfortunate that happened. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kirk.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, some of the charges from the other side of the aisle have taken us down some detours to essentially try to distract us from some of the main points of this legislation. I want to take a few moments to discuss one of the key features of the bill and that is insurance market reform. The bill would change the way insurance companies do business in America. Sometimes I think this reform is part of the reason some on the other side are fighting this bill so hard. Our bill will end the practice, widespread today, of insurance companies denying coverage altogether, or charging someone an exorbitant amount of money if they have some preexisting condition, something in their health history which is an issue. Our bill would make those changes right away. They start going into effect in 2010. That is, the prohibition on companies denying coverage for preexisting conditions or health care stats, and right down the list, would take effect right away, 2010. We all have countless numbers of examples, either directly or through friends or relatives of small insurance companies that either denied insurance coverage or you have to pay much greater increase in premiums because of a preexisting condition, whatever it may be, of something. It is wrong, flat, outright, 100 percent wrong. This bill stops that, stops those practices by insurance companies. I think it is important that we not get sidetracked by some other very important matters but keep focused on what this legislation does. It reforms the health insurance industry. What else does our bill do with respect to reforming the health insurance industry? It would prohibit lifetime limits on payments to people who get sick. Right now, insurance companies limit how much they pay out to people when they get sick. They have lifetime limits, annual limits. No matter how sick you are, some catastrophic coverage you have, the insurance company says: Sorry, we are putting a limit on it. That is not right. Sometimes people have conditions that require a lot more attention, more hospitalization, more attention by doctors. Our legislation would prohibit lifetime limits on payments to people who get sick. Our bill also prohibits unreasonable annual limits. These are limits that insurance companies impose on policyholders. This reform would apply in both the group market and the individual market. What does that mean, that gobbledygook. It implies that for everybody, whether you are an individual or whether you are working for a company, this would take effect 6 months after enactment. That is pretty important. A lot of people have insurance policies with limits, where the insurance company will only pay so much to an individual or during the person's lifetime or in any year. It is not right because some conditions require a significant increase in payments or coverage for the person. Our bill would require any insurance plan that provides dependent coverage for children to continue to make that coverage available until the child turns age 26. We know that is a problem today. Often, in a State, once a child turns 21 or 22, that person can't find health insurance. In today's economic recession, with unemployment so high, it is kind of hard for kids to find jobs, and that is how they would otherwise get their health insurance. We say family coverage covers your child until the child turns age 26. This reform would take effect 6 months after enactment. In addition, when the exchanges are up and running, our bill would prohibit insurance companies from discriminating against consumers because of health status, generally. Sometimes the insurance industry says it is not a preexisting condition, but you have not been healthy lately so we will not give you insurance. No longer can insurance companies refuse to sell or renew policies because a person gets sick. If you pay your premiums, the insurance company has to renew your coverage. When the exchanges are up and running, the legislation before us today would limit the ability of insurance companies to charge people much more just because of their age. That is what they do today. Sometimes, depending upon the State, the insurance company is able to charge somebody much more for the same coverage because of that person's age. Right now it is not at all unusual for insurance companies to charge more than five times as much just because a person is, say, age 55. Our bill would prohibit insurance companies from charging more than three times as much because of age. In some States, there is no limit whatsoever. In my State of Montana, we have no limit. Some States have five. We are saying down to three. When the exchanges are up and running, our bill would prohibit insurance companies from charging women more than men. Think of that. Some insurance companies charge women more than men. That is not right. This is also a widespread practice among insurance companies that is charging women more than men. It is just plain wrong. Our legislation would stop that. Health insurance reform also means real insurance market reform. It means real change in the way insurance companies do business. No longer will insurance companies be able to build their business by cherry- picking only the healthiest and the youngest. That is what they do today, especially for individuals, to some degree, in smaller organizations. No longer will they be able to insure only those who don't need insurance. We bring real reform. It would make insurance much more fair, and that is literally a matter of life and death. As a recent Harvard study reported, people without insurance are 40 percent more likely to die prematurely than people with private insurance. Think of that. People without insurance are 40 percent more likely to die prematurely than people with private insurance. Tens of thousands of Americans die each and every year because they do not have insurance. Is that America? That doesn't sound like the United States we are all so proud of, where we allow tens of thousands of Americans to die each and every year simply because we have not set up a system for them to have health insurance. That is something we stop in this bill. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally against both sides.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development, be authorized to meet during the session on the Senate on December 10, 2009 at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining the Federal Role in Overseeing the Safety of Public Transportation Systems.''

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 10, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 10, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 10, 2009, at 10 a.m.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 10, 2009.

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 10, 2009, at 10 a.m.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 10, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Children and Disasters: A Progress Report on Addressing Needs.''

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 10, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.