Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back and that we move to the nomination of Beverly Martin.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak under the time allotted to Senator Sessions and that I be followed by my colleague Senator Isakson.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I rise today to speak on behalf of a good friend, a very fine jurist, Judge Beverly Martin, who has been nominated by President Obama to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. I have had the good fortune of knowing Judge Martin, who is a native of Macon, GA, for many years and could think of no one with more integrity, professional competence, and appropriate judicial bearing to sit on the Nation's second highest bench. Judge Martin is a fourth-generation lawyer. Her great-grandfather, grandfather, and her father were all lawyers in Macon, GA. They started the law firm of Martin & Snow in Macon, which is where Judge Martin also began the practice of law after graduating from the University of Georgia School of Law in 1981. I talked to my good friend Cubbege Snow, Jr., who was one of the senior partners at the firm at that point in time. I said: Cubbege, tell me about Beverly. What did you do with her when she came fresh out of law school to be the fourth generation Martin in that law firm? He said: Saxby, she started just like everybody else; we put her collecting accounts, which is the one thing lawyers have to do when they start out is that sort of menial type work. I remember one day walking by her office and she is obviously on the phone with somebody trying to collect an open account, and she finally screamed at whoever it was on the other end and said, ``If you do not pay this bill, I am going to lose my job.'' So Beverly Martin started at the bottom of the ladder in the practice of law. She has worked herself up to the point now of being one of the finest district court judges we have in our State. My good friend Jerry Harrell, who is also a member of that firm, says the thing he remembered best about now Judge Martin when she was practicing law is that she is very bright, but she approached everything from a true commonsense standpoint and that she was a very level-headed individual. Judge Martin was drawn from private practice to Atlanta to go to work in the attorney general's office by then Attorney General Mike Bowers. She was there for a 10-year period. And in 1997 she was appointed U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia after serving for a couple of years as an assistant U.S. attorney. During her tenure as U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia in Macon, Judge Martin was known as a tough prosecutor. She handled cases herself in a way that was not only very professional but in a very meaningful way. At the same time, she was very compassionate outside of the courtroom. In fact, she started a program in Macon, Valdosta, Columbus, and Athens that is called the Weed & Seed Program. It is now a nationwide program that is run through U.S. Attorney offices. Judge Martin was a strong proponent and received national recognition for the work she did with the Weed & Seed Program in our State. She also held day camps for inner-city kids during the summertime. She served on various boards, including the board of Macon State College and Majority Women of Achievement, which board she serves on with my wife Julianne. Her lengthy tenure as a prosecutor has given her a uniquely informed perspective. When handling criminal cases, as many of my colleagues know, a prosecutor must be tough but fair in carrying out their responsibilities. This experience has served her well as she has served on the District Court. It makes her exceptionally well qualified to serve on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. While on the district court, Judge Martin was faced with several difficult criminal matters. In 2002, she refused to intervene and halt the scheduled execution of a man convicted of killing a Columbus, GA, police officer. More recently, in 2008, she rejected arguments that Georgia's method of capital punishment was unconstitutional, determining that it more than conformed with the recent Supreme Court guidance on the issue. In his choice of Judge Martin, the President not only picked a fine Georgian to sit on the nation's second highest bench, but he has also picked a topnotch legal mind. More revealing about Judge Martin as a jurist than my remarks are the anonymous lawyer comments that have been written about her during her 9 years on the bench. Words such as ``smart,'' ``bright,'' ``respectful,'' and ``fair'' appear frequently. One lawyer wrote, ``Her legal ability is matched by her courtroom demeanor, which is the best around.'' Another said, ``She always calls it as she sees it. She has no leaning.'' Mike Bowers, attorney general and her mentor of 15 years, said she is the most evenhanded judge he has ever appeared before. In fact, Mike, who is now in private practice, told me that he tried the very first jury trial case before Judge Martin. In Federal trials, the lawyers are all required to stand at a lecturn where they ask their questions to the witnesses, and it is not appropriate to get too close to the jury. But all of us used to try to do that because you could sometimes be more effective. He said: One day I was trying this case before Judge Martin, the very first case she had tried, and I obviously got a little too close to the jury. Being the evenhanded judge she is, she looked at her 15-year mentor and she said, very professionally: Mr. Bowers, please back away a respectful distance from the jury. He said: I remember it very well. That is the evenhandedness with which Judge Martin has always conducted herself on the bench. I have no doubt Judge Martin will serve the people of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida very well on the Eleventh Circuit. She is, to put it plainly, a fair and wise judge. The President couldn't have chosen a more qualified individual for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. I am proud to lend my support to her and look forward to her swift confirmation. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Is it correct, Madam President, the minority side has the hour from 1:30 to 2:30?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I, then, Madam President, ask unanimous consent Senators Cornyn, Graham, Isakson, and myself be allowed to have a colloquy during this first hour, from 1:30 to 2:30.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, here we are on our 21st legislative day, less than 4 weeks, on the most major piece of health care legislation ever proposed in the history of our great country. That is less than weeks that we have been on this bill that seeks to change the way health care is delivered in America and also seeks to change the way individuals have access both to health care itself as well as to insurance. During this period of time--and we are headed, I might say, too, toward passage of this bill in the Senate over the next couple of days. I do not remember, in my 15 years in the Congress, both in the House and in the Senate, any major piece of legislation such as this being debated and ultimately brought to a final vote within such a short period of time. I have been involved in farm bills that have been on the Senate floor for longer than this--any number of other pieces of legislation that we deal with on a regular basis that have been on the Senate floor for longer than that period of time. I heard the assistant majority leader a little earlier talking about the fact that we have had the opportunity to amend this bill. The fact is, the Republicans have been offered the opportunity to introduce 10 amendments to this massive piece of legislation for debate on the floor. We have a number of other amendments that have been filed. The four of us here today have significant amendments that we filed that now we are not going to have the opportunity to call up. It is extremely unusual for such a massive change in American policy being debated and voted upon without not only bipartisan support but without bipartisan participation from the standpoint of giving us the opportunity to file amendments, to have those amendments debated and voted upon. The assistant majority leader also referenced amendments by Senator Coburn. I am not going to speak for him. He will be on the floor of the Senate later today to certainly speak well for himself. But the fact is, he and other Members of the HELP Committee offered any number of amendments, as well as Members of the Finance Committee offered any number of amendments, that were voted down in the HELP Committee and in the Finance Committee on a pure partisan vote. It was the opportunity for meaningful participation by Republicans, who have some pretty good ideas about health care, to participate in the development of this bill, and it simply did not happen. Let me say what Republicans are for. There have been comments on this floor that there has been no substitute bill offered. The fact is, Senator Burr and Senator Coburn, who will be on the floor a little bit later, have spent hours on the floor of this Senate talking about their proposed bill that is not going to see the light of day. It has never been allowed to come up in committee, and it is not going to be allowed to come up on the floor of the Senate because the majority leader has done what we call fill the tree. That is the Washington speak way of saying that all amendments are now cut off. There will be no more additional amendments debated and brought up for a vote. But that is just one of four separate plans that have been filed and laid on the table, not just for the last 72 hours but for the last several months. They have been available to look at online. There are any number of cosponsors to the bipartisan Wyden-Bennett bill. There is also the Gregg bill. There is the Coburn-Burr bill. There are any number of alternate proposals out there that the majority has simply decided: We do not think those bills are worth even debating on the Senate floor, so they have not allowed those bills to come up. But what are Republicans for? We have said this over and over. Let me just say, No. 1, we are for meaningful, affordable access to health insurance by every single American. We can do it in a way that does not raise taxes. We are for providing coverage for all Americans, including those who have had preexisting conditions. We can do it in a way that does not raise taxes. We are for trending down the cost curve; when it comes to health care reform, if we do not turn that cost curve downward, then we have failed the American people. Frankly, the independent Congressional Budget Office has said health care cost under the Reid proposal is going to not only continue to go up but it is likely--not only will it continue on its current curve, but it is going to go up and not down. The way you can ensure that cost curve turns down, just two Republican proposals that we think have an awful lot of merit but are not going to be considered and certainly are not going to be included-- are not included in the managers' amendment that has now been filed-- one of those is tort reform. Physicians all across the country have been crying for this for years. But, more so, health agencies and individuals who have to pay health care bills have been crying for this for years. We can do it in a way that will allow every aggrieved individual who is injured as a result of negligent health care being delivered to have their day in court. Yet we need to provide some means of the elimination of the frivolous lawsuits that go so much toward physicians having to call for tests that they might not otherwise need; and also to prevent the spiraling costs, on the delivery side, of health care because of the high cost of malpractice insurance as well as other measures. The other way we can trend that curve down is to provide preventive incentives to individuals across America to live healthier lives. There is example after example that we have talked about on the floor of the Senate--from health care providers, employers who have provided incentives in their program, their health insurance program, that have in fact lowered costs. We can do that. There are proposals to do that, but they are not included in the managers' package. Insurance reform--Republicans have been very strong about the fact that, as a part of overall health care reform, we need to reform the insurance industry, rein in some measures that have caused the cost of health insurance that is provided by employers to, again, not only level off but ultimately trend downward. How do we do that, and what ideas have been proposed? We have proposed the sale of insurance policies across State lines. There is a provision in the underlying bill that does that. I am very pleased to see that included. Another thing we can do is to allow for what is called associated health plans that Republicans have been promoting for years. Every time it has come up for a vote in this body, the Democrats have opposed allowing individuals across State lines to group together and spread the risk of health insurance coverage. It would go a long way toward reducing the cost of health insurance premiums. But, unfortunately, we have not been allowed to move forward with that proposal. Let me mention a couple of things, before I turn to my friend from Texas, with respect to the changes in the Reid amendment that was filed yesterday. Again, there have been a number of individuals who have come to the floor since that amendment was filed yesterday to talk about the fact that it is online, and as we look through it more and more we are finding more and more about it, that is true. But it certainly does not meet the test of giving us 72 hours before we vote on it. The number of pages in the bill now, the base bill plus the Reid amendment plus the Indian health bill, which is now included by reference, totals 2,733 pages. The gross Medicare cuts--and these are not slowing the growth of Medicare. These are direct Medicare cuts that are being used to finance the underlying health care bill--now totaling $470.70 billion. The gross tax increases in the Reid amendment now total $518.5 billion. CBO says the gross cost of the insurance coverage expansion is $23 billion higher under the Reid amendment than it was under the base bill. Federal revenues or Federal taxes increase by almost $26 billion under the managers' package. All told, the amendment reduces the deficit by $2 billion--going from $130 to $132 billion. But, boy, is that ever a figleaf. We are going to talk about the CLASS Act that provides for that increase in the deficit. The Federal cost curve, according to CBO, still goes up. I alluded to that a little bit earlier. There is a slight increase in additional coverage--but still under the Reid amendment there will be 23 million Americans left uninsured. That is not what we have heard from the other side of the aisle from day one about making sure that every single American was covered. Despite the fact the Democrats have said changes in the managers' package would improve the delivery system, CBO also says it is likely that the amendment would have little impact on premiums. As we move toward the cloture votes on this bill over the next couple of days, I think it is important for the American people to get some understanding of the fact that the deals that have been made, the deals that have been cut to get the Democrats to 60 votes on this bill do not do what has been said over and over by folks on the other side of the aisle. I would now like to ask my friend from Texas how it impacts Texas, the managers' amendment, as well as the underlying bill and other comments he has relative to the bill.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I think it is obvious it is pure arrogance on the part of the folks on the other side of the aisle. The American people do not want it, but they are saying Washington knows better than the people back home know. That is pretty clear. I know my colleague from Georgia is like me, when we go back home, we get stopped in the airport, in the grocery store, on the streets, all around different parts of Georgia. People are not happy about what is going on up here with respect to this bill. I wish to ask him about his comments with respect to where we are.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I rise to pose a question to the Senator, and I would ask my colleagues to comment with respect to their States. The Senator served in the State legislature for many years, and is very familiar with our SCHIP program, which is called PeachCare, and he is also familiar with the rising Medicaid costs that we have seen in our State. What this bill does, in seeking to reach out, as I understand, is to expand the eligibility for Medicaid. We are all for Medicare, but this raises the eligibility level for Medicaid from 100 percent of the poverty level to 150 percent of the poverty level. That will have a huge impact on every single State that is now going through very difficult financial times. We in Georgia have had a $3 billion shortfall this past year that had to be plugged. I saw the other day in the press where we have almost another $2 billion our legislature is going to have to deal with next month in reducing services around our State. Every State is having that same experience. Yet what this bill does is to put a mandate on States to increase the amount of money that States put into Medicaid. I know the Senator is very familiar with that, and I would ask him to comment.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. The Senator from South Carolina raises the point about this bill being revenue neutral and it actually decreases the deficit. How do they achieve that? They achieve that through some truly Enron accounting, as the Senator from South Carolina just said. But here is what happens: There is a certain amount of money that is projected by CBO to be generated in insurance premiums being paid by young individuals across this country under what is called the CLASS Act. The CLASS Act is a new health care-generated program, a new entitlement program that is included in this bill that is going to provide long- term care benefits for young, healthy Americans who, ultimately, are going to become invalid and need that long-term care. Well, the fallacy in the numbers game that is being played is that CBO is saying it is true there will be a projection that we are going to save--the projection they are using says we are going to generate premiums from these young people who are not going to be entitled to the benefits under this bill for 20, 30, 40 years from now. But even CBO recognizes that when these benefits begin being paid out, there is going to be an entitlement created that is going to blow the budget of this particular new program all the way out the top. In fact, the chairman of the Budget Committee, a Democrat from North Dakota whom I admire and respect so much, has even said this particular provision in this bill is a Ponzi scheme. It is something Bernie Madoff would love. Yet here they are with straight faces on the other side of the aisle coming in and saying we are really going to reduce the deficit by passing this provision called the CLASS Act. It is beyond me how anybody, with a straight face, can say that is actually a fact.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Absolutely.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. The Senator is exactly right, and exactly the same situation with Medicare.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. The only way Senator Reid could get the score that he kept going back and forth with the Congressional Budget Office on was to make sure the taxes started immediately. And they will. He has increased taxes by $26 billion to come up with a proposal that he says is revenue neutral. That is an additional $26 billion. So it makes it a total of $518.5 billion in new taxes that are going to be paid by hard- working, tax-paying Americans, and no benefits under this bill are going to start accruing until the year 2014.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Absolutely.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. There is just no question but that the American people understand this. They get it. When we talk about cutting Medicare by $450 billion, do they really not think the quality of care under Medicare is going to be diminished? Of course it is. Do the American people really think we are not going to have an increase in the deficit when we are going to have almost a trillion-dollar bill in real, live dollars that is going to be passed by this body in the next couple of days, in all probability? Surely the American people get that. They know this is going to increase the cost of health care and it is going to increase the deficit. That is why they are opposed to this.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Sure.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I don't think there is any question about that. The Senator is exactly right. It is what we in Washington call fuzzy math-- utilization of money from one pocket to pay for something on the other side. At the end of the day, it just does not add up. The Senator from North Dakota was exactly right, it is a huge Ponzi scheme. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter dated October 23, 2009, just referenced by the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. We have talked a little bit about the negotiations that took place behind closed doors over the last few days. It is unfortunate that we have gotten to the point in this body and on this particular piece of legislation where the issue of abortion has injected itself into meaningful and affordable health care reform measures. But that is, in fact, what has happened. Similar to my friend from South Carolina, I am pro-life. We all are. I am very proud to be and have a strong voting record on that. The law of the land for well over 30 years has been that no Federal funds should be used to fund abortions. It makes no difference whether you are in one part of the country or the other; that is the law. That is the way it ought to be. It ought not to be changed. We have had any number of votes on abortion issues over the years. In every instance, we have failed to pass a law that would provide for the use of Federal funds for abortions. That is changing. Irrespective of what the Senator from Nebraska thinks he negotiated, that has changed. I have three letters I will include for the Record. One is pretty interesting because it is from a group of African-American ministers in my home State. This group is headed by Bishop Wellington Boone. He wrote me a letter yesterday. Here is part of what he says: We cannot emphasize enough that abortion is not health care. He is absolutely right. There is also a letter from Cindy O'Keary, executive director of the HOPE Center in Woodstock, GA, who is appalled at the discussions and the fact that we now are going to be using Federal money to fund abortions, and also a letter from Sadie Fields, State chairman of the Georgia Christian Alliance, imploring us not to pass any kind of bill that sets the precedent of providing Federal funds for the use of abortion. I ask unanimous consent to have all three letters printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, in closing, let me say, the Senator from South Carolina said it strongly and he is right: We have reached a new day in this body. We have had deals cut behind closed doors that are going to provide benefits for individual Senators and their States--whether Vermont, New Hampshire, Nebraska, Florida, or wherever--and that are going to require those of us who didn't have the opportunity to participate in the discussions and negotiations on this bill to represent to our citizens that they are going to have to pay more for services than everybody all across America gets. There is nothing right about that. There is nothing fair about it. I daresay, I have some relatives who live in Nebraska. They have to be embarrassed and ashamed about this. They are going to be getting a huge benefit simply because the Democrats needed 60 votes to pass the health care bill.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the decision to move the remaining detainees held at Guantanamo Bay Naval facility, or Gitmo, to the Thomson Correctional Center in Illinois. The decision to transfer Gitmo detainees to the heartland of our country is irresponsible, a waste of taxpayer dollars, and contrary to the wishes of the American people. Congress has included language permitting the transfer or detention of Gitmo detainees to the United States only under certain limited conditions in every relevant appropriations bill passed this year, including the recently passed Omnibus Appropriations Act. That is one of the reasons I voted against every single one of those bills. The President now has made the decision to purchase the Thomson Correctional Center from the State of Illinois for the purpose of transferring and detaining Gitmo detainees. Further, the President stated he will need to expend millions of additional dollars renovating and securing the facility when much has already been invested in the state-of-the-art facility at Guantanamo Bay. This unnecessary spending is an abuse of our tax dollars and one that holds dire national security consequences. The administration claims that many of these detainees will continue to be held by the military in the same prison where the Department of Justice will hold average, ordinary criminals. What the administration fails to tell the American people is that these detainees will obtain the same rights as U.S. citizens the moment they step inside the United States. We have already seen detainees attempt to gain these same rights as Americans in our courts and have seen the courts grant them limited rights without them being inside the United States. In habeas corpus cases where the court has ruled, 30 out of 38 Gitmo detainees have been found to be unlawfully detained and their release has been ordered. After reviewing the classified biographies on some of these individuals, it is clear from these decisions that the courts are not in a position to judge matters of war and cannot when they are bound by our criminal justice system. It is not designed to handle war criminals. The courts do not adequately consider the threat these individuals pose to U.S. interests or will pose in the future when they return to terrorism. President Obama cites the authorization for the use of military force as legal justification for continuing the detention of these terrorists. However, the courts have already indicated that these detainees cannot be indefinitely held. I wonder if the administration considered this when it decided to move Gitmo detainees to the United States. This administration may face the same problem as the last administration did in justifying to a U.S. court the continuing detention of these terrorists. Only this time, the court will have a remedy. It is foreseeable that some, and possibly many, of those detainees will be ordered released by our courts. The administration has tried to assure the public that our immigration laws will prohibit the release of those individuals into the United States. But, once again, this administration fails to appreciate the limits of our legal system. Once these detainees are physically present in the United States, prior judicial precedent indicates that the government can only detain an individual while immigration removal proceedings are ongoing for a maximum of 6 months. If a detainee cannot be transferred or deported, they will be released, freed into the United States, after 6 months. This is much more than just moving Guantanamo north. On the other hand, if the administration is able to secure the transfer of these detainees to another country, we can be sure to watch the recidivism rates rise. The Department of Defense's last unclassified fact sheet on recidivism reported that 14 percent of the former Gitmo detainees returned to terrorism after their release or their transfer. This is almost one out of every seven detainees transferred. This number is much larger now after 8 months and countless transfers of the most serious terrorists. Some of the detainees transferred openly admit their affiliation with a terrorist organization or that they were combating U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Confirming this, two former Gitmo detainees transferred to Saudi Arabia announced earlier this year that they were now the leaders of al-Qaida in the Arabian peninsula. Another detainee, Ali bin Ali Aleh, lived with Abu Zubaydah in Pakistan and was identified on a list of names in Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's possession when KSM was captured. Ali bin Ali Aleh was determined not to be an enemy combatant and ordered to be released by a U.S. court in May of this year. He was transferred to Yemen in September. Maybe some of my colleagues have seen the recent headlines indicating that some European countries are willing to accept these detainees. In fact, detainees have recently been transferred to Belgium, Ireland, Hungary, and Italy. However, the American people are not fooled by these headlines. Of the 779 detainees held since 2001 at Guantanamo Bay, our European partners have accepted only 37. The vast majority of detainees--almost 400--have been transferred to four countries: Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Yemen. These four countries are either currently in conflict or actively combating al-Qaida. In all four of these countries, the threat from al-Qaida and associate militants has done nothing but increase over the past few years. Yet the United States is sending back hundreds of terrorists to the most volatile regions of the world--South Asia, which poses the greatest terrorist threat currently to the homeland and to the Arabian peninsula, which I believe will present itself as the next greatest threat to the United States. The decision to move these terrorists to the United States may force the administration to choose between freeing terrorists into Illinois or transferring them back to the center of the battle. Is this the policy position we want to put our country in while we are still combating terrorism? No one doubts the security of our prisons to safely hold these individuals. I doubt the ability of our laws and judicial system to ensure that these terrorists are convicted or kept in prison. Prohibiting the detainees from entering the United States is the only guarantee. However, the decision to move the remaining terrorists at Gitmo to the heart of this country shattered any remaining hope for this guarantee. This is yet another step in a series of poor policy decisions which is leading our country in the wrong direction. I am disappointed by this decision, obviously. But I can only imagine how the residents of Illinois feel about it. I know Georgians would not be pleased with housing over 200 of the most serious and hardened terrorists in the world in their backyard. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Not only does that report say that, but as you say, common sense ought to tell you that. Unfortunately, it is pretty obvious the folks on the other side of the aisle who are promoting this bill don't get that message. Let me quote the chairman of the Finance Committee, who today issued this statement relative to the CMS report the Senator has in his hand. He said: The report shows that health reform will ensure both the Federal Government and the American people spend less on health care than if this bill does not pass. That statement is directly contrary to the statement in the CMS report that Senator Alexander just referenced, which says: . . . we estimate that total national health expenditures under this bill would increase by an estimated total of $234 billion (0.7 percent) during calendar years 2010-2019. Not only that, but the report says that national health expenditures would increase as a percentage of GDP from $1 of every $7, which is about 16 percent, to $1 out of every $5, which is 20 percent. What the report concludes is not only are our health care costs going to go up, but as the Senator from Arizona said, 20 percent of all Part A providers--nursing homes, hospitals, home health--would become unprofitable within the next 10 years as a result of the provision in this bill relating to the Medicare cuts the Senator from Tennessee talked about. The American people do get it. That is why these poll numbers the Senator from Wyoming just stated coming out of CNN and why the FOX poll I saw this morning said 57 percent of the people in America are opposed to this bill. The American people are getting it but, for some reason, our friends on the other side of the aisle are not.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I wish to ask a question or two of the Senator from Wyoming, who is a medical doctor and who, prior to coming to the Senate, was an active orthopedic surgeon. I have had physicians come into my office by the droves and talk to me about Medicare before we ever got into this health care debate, and what I heard was in reference to the reimbursement rate under Medicare to physicians and to hospitals being so low. In fact, the American Hospital Association has come out just in the last 24 hours and pointed out that hospitals across the Nation get a return of about 91 cents for every dollar of care provided. That is not 91 cents of the amount of charges from the hospital to Medicare, it is 91 cents of the cost of the care provided. So the return is about 10 percent less to a hospital than the cost that the hospital has in it. My understanding is that at least 10 percent less than the cost provided for a physician is reimbursed to the physician under Medicare. As a result of that, the younger physicians, particularly, who are coming out of med school with these huge debts they have incurred as a result of the long years they are required to be in school, simply cannot afford to take Medicare patients and they are not taking Medicare patients. Is that in fact what is happening in the real world? And will that not get worse under this proposal?

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I thank my friend from Kansas. I rise to discuss the tax implications that this health care bill will have on Americans. Last year, President Obama made a promise to the American people. He assured us over and over that he would not raise ``a single dime'' of taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000 per year. But the health care bill presently before this body--the very bill that the President has demanded--will not only raise taxes, it will create new ones. And as of yet, we have no idea what the Congressional Budget Office will say about how much the deal my colleagues apparently struck last night will cost taxpayers. But we know that this $2.5 trillion proposal is going to hit three groups with new or higher taxes: families, businesses, and the health care industry itself. And we know that under the current bill taxes overall are estimated to go up by $867 billion. Tax hikes are detrimental at any time. But they are doubly hurtful in the bad economy we are in. Under the terms of this bill, in 2019, more than 42 million individuals and families--this is 25 percent of all tax returns under $200,000--will see their taxes increase. In addition, if we pass this bill, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that $36 billion in new taxes and fines will be forced upon individuals and businesses. Families without insurance would be fined up to $2,250. And according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, some of those are expected to have incomes below $200,000. Also, businesses with more than 50 workers that do not offer coverage will be forced to pay a penalty of $750 for every full-time worker if any of those workers get subsidized coverage through insurance exchanges. Many of these businesses will not be able to afford the cost of providing health insurance or the fine. According to the CBO, 5 million Americans will lose employer coverage. Others may find their pay reduced so employers can cover the cost of these new taxes and fines. This bill has been sold as an attempt to ``help businesses be more competitive in the marketplace.'' But the National Federation of Independent Business--which actually represents small businesses--disagrees. In a letter to the majority leader, the NFIB was very clear--and this is a quote: ``The current bill does not do enough to reduce costs for small business owners and their employees.'' It also called this bill ``the wrong bill at the wrong time.'' Also hit hard would be the health care industry and medical-device manufacturers. Now, it may not be popular to worry about fees imposed on health insurers and the like, but the fact is, the $100 billion in taxes and fees this bill will impose on them will be passed on to Americans in the form of higher premiums. That is also according to the CBO. Our health care system needs to be reformed. We absolutely need to cover those with preexisting conditions, and Americans in the medical fight of their lives should not be kicked off their insurance. But swapping out a system that needs fixing with just another broken system that also raises taxes on Americans who need every dime of their paychecks to get through the month is not the way to go. We need to move in the right direction. We need to emphasize wellness and prevention. We need to reduce frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits that add so much to the cost of practicing medicine. Senator Graham and I have introduced a ``loser pays'' bill that would do just that. We also need to allow health insurance purchases across state lines, and allow small businesses to pool resources to buy insurance for their employees. But do we need an insurance tax, an employer tax, a drug tax, a lab tax, a medical device tax, a failure-to-buy-insurance tax, a cosmetic surgery tax, and an increased employee Medicare tax? We don't need to impose eight new taxes on the American people. The absolute last thing we should be doing during the worst economy we have had in decades--with 10 percent, 26-year-high unemployment--is hiking taxes on the middle class and on small businesses, both of which are the backbone of America. The NFIB is right--this is the wrong bill at the wrong time. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Would the Senator yield for an additional question? The language in the Bennet amendment that passed 100 to nothing the other day said, basically, that Medicare savings should benefit the Medicare Program and Medicare beneficiaries. That sounds pretty straightforward, pretty simple. But let me ask the Senator--

Mr. CHAMBLISS. That is exactly the question I am getting to. Is there anything in the Bennet amendment that removes the expenditure of almost $500 billion from Medicare in the base Reid bill that would require the restoration of those cuts to benefit Medicare versus using it as a fund to pay for the underlying Reid bill?