Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON.--and a way for people to have more affordable access. We still have a chance. That is why we are here today. And I hope we can turn away from this process and share the light of day with our colleagues and with America. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, are we now in a period where we go back and forth without limit?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask to be notified after 5 minutes, after which Senator Vitter is going to speak.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we have talked a lot about what is in this bill, the massive tax increases, the massive cuts in Medicare. But there is another issue I think, looking down the road, we are going to need to pursue. We have talked about how groundbreaking this bill is. In fact, the majority calls it historic, and it is historic. We believe it is historic in the bad precedents it is setting, both in process and in substance. I think some of these precedents are going to be tested under the Constitution of the United States. I wish to start by talking about a couple of those. No. 1, in the effort to get the last vote, clearly there were deals made. There were deals that affect individual States and even one that affects two insurance companies that will have a different treatment from all the other insurance companies in America. It is said there will be two Nebraska insurance companies that will not have to pay the tax increases of the insurance companies that will be levied on all the other health insurance companies. This is an issue that must be raised under the Constitution, the equal protection clause of the Constitution. To take a set of companies in an industry, competitors-- and we value the free market system and the free enterprise system--to pluck out two competitors and say: You will be treated differently because we need your vote to pass this bill should be tested under the Constitution of the United States. It is my hope some insurance company that has standing to bring this suit will be able to test this precedent. It is a very bad precedent, and it is certainly bad policy to start passing laws that distinguish some parts of an industry versus other parts of an industry that would be treated in a different way. I hope we will do that. No. 2, I believe there is a 10th amendment issue. Here is my concern. Many States, including my State of Texas, have self-insurance plans for State employees. States with large numbers of State employees find that self-insurance is a better way to go than private insurance programs. In this bill, every insurance company that plans to increase its premiums must get approval from the Department of Health and Human Services first. Now, my State of Texas, with its self-insurance plan, then, has to go to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to ask permission to increase the premiums on their State self-insured insurance plan. That is a violation of the 10th amendment, as I see it. I am very concerned that a State that has State employees who accept a self-insurance plan would then be able to be told by the Federal Government that they cannot increase their premiums to cover the cost and keep the sound system that they have in place. Now, other States have self-insurance plans, so I believe they would also be very affected by this, and I believe there will be a standing for a State with this type of plan to be able to challenge this part of this bill and, hopefully, bring it down if it is a violation of the 10th amendment. I want to talk about another area that I think is a stretch in this bill; that is, apparently the individual mandate is being justified by the commerce clause of our Constitution. Now, the commerce clause basically says no State may impede interstate commerce. You may say, out in America: I don't see the connection. I am going to be mandated to buy health insurance or be fined if I don't because States cannot impede interstate commerce? Well, I would agree with people out there that seems like a disconnect because, apparently, using the commerce clause, the majority is saying the Federal Government has the right to manage insurance, and that a requirement of an individual mandate is part of the Federal capability to manage insurance in this country, and you cannot impede that right by the Federal Government because you cannot impede interstate commerce. I think this whole individual mandate issue is going to be a center for discussion, debate, and opposition to the bill that is clearly moving down a track that we are trying to stop, but that train is moving. I think we are going to have to talk about the individual mandate. People are saying to me: How can the Federal Government tell me I have to buy insurance? I think they have a point. You have to buy automobile insurance because, but that comes with the right to drive. So you get the right, licensed by the State, to drive your car, and in exchange for that a State may require that you have collision insurance on your automobile, and many States do. But when you say you have to buy an insurance policy, I think that crosses a line where a person has a right to say: I am not going to buy insurance if I guarantee that I am not going to be a burden to the Federal Government or to the State government or to any other taxpayer. I think you should have that right, but that is not the way this bill is written. The bill is a Federal mandate that every person in America has to have health insurance or be fined if they do not. So at least if we were going to write such a provision, to keep the right of an individual not to have a mandate under the commerce clause of the Constitution, at least you ought to say that a person would have to sign something that says: I will give you a promissory note if I do not choose to buy insurance. But that is not the way this bill is written. So I think this, along with the State mandate on Medicaid--which, again, I think is an equal protection issue, and maybe that is a stretch--but that one State will not have to ever pay the State's share of the increase in Medicaid that is in this bill but the other 49 States in America will is certainly a violation of our responsibility to treat all States equally or to have formulas that have some ability to say there is a standard that has been set that should prevail. But not in this bill. My State of Texas will have almost a $10 billion increase in its State's share of Medicaid because of the expansion in this bill. But there are States that are exempted from the increases and one State that is exempted forever because of a deal made to get that 60th vote to pass this bill. I think people are looking at this issue in America today and saying: What has gotten into the people in Congress who are voting for this bill? So, Mr. President----

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, thank you for the notification. I think there are issues now that will be raised going forward in the future, and there is still time for one Senator in the 60 to change the vote. Therefore, I hope one will hear from his or her constituents enough that that person will say: It is time to slow this bill down. I am going to change my vote so people can see all the effects that we have not talked about yet, and let's do this right. We can lower the cost of health care, we can provide more access to more people to have health care coverage, which should be the goal of this legislation, this massive reform of a health care system that is working for many and has provided the best quality of health care in the world. We have a chance to keep it by slowing this bill down. That is why we are fighting. That is why we are still here talking 3 days before Christmas. We want to stop this bill and do it right. Doing it right is more important than doing it fast, and I think the American people believe that too. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, may I ask, is it 10 minutes--what is the procedural position as of now?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, for weeks we have been debating legislation that will dramatically and permanently reform our health care industry. It will impact the life of every American, and it will add to our growing national debt. On Saturday, the majority leader filed an amendment increasing the size of this bill. Early this morning at 1 a.m., we had a vote to proceed to the revised bill that makes a mockery of transparency and public policy. Yet even though the majority took the opportunity to amend the bill, it is clear the concerns of the American people were not heard by my friends on the other side of the aisle. I was astounded to see this revised bill still contains $\1/2\ trillion in new taxes, $\1/2\ trillion in Medicare cuts and mandates and penalties on individuals and businesses throughout our country at a time when businesses are struggling, unemployment is up, and families are trying to make ends meet. I wish to talk about the taxes. The revised bill has an additional $25 billion in taxes than the bill as introduced. We have been hearing for weeks about families who are struggling to pay their mortgage, struggling to find a job, struggling to pay their utility bills. Yet what do we find in this new bill? More taxes and more mandates. The American people overwhelmingly oppose this bill, and just when we thought the final product could not get any worse, it does. Under the revised bill, the taxes collected from individuals who cannot afford health insurance has been raised from $8 billion to $15 billion--almost double. Why? Because the penalty for not purchasing insurance has become more severe. If you cannot afford insurance, the tax is either $750 or 2 percent of your taxable income, whichever is higher. There are still taxes that begin next month, less than 2 weeks from now. Less than 2 weeks from now in this bill, $22 billion in taxes on prescription drug companies will start, and the public can expect to see higher prices for medicines. In 2011, we see $60 billion in taxes on insurance companies except for companies in two particular States. That does not seem fair. Fortunately, the Constitution's equal protection clause may have something to say about this gross situation. This will not stand the test of the Constitution, I hope, because the deals that have been made to get votes from specific Senators cannot be considered equal protection under the law. If it does stand and the taxes start in 2011, people who have insurance are going to pay higher premiums--even higher than what has been projected already. In 2011, we also see the taxes on medical device manufacturers. So the public can expect to see higher prices for devices--thermometers, blood sugar machines, canes, walkers--the things people need to stay healthy. That is another $19 billion in taxes. Then there is another round of taxes in 2013: $149 billion in taxes on high-benefit plans; a 40-percent excise tax on the amount by which premiums exceed $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families; $87 billion collected from a Medicare payroll tax. This tax is actually $33 billion higher than in the prior bill. Individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000 are now assessed at a tax rate of 2.35 percent for a new Medicare payroll tax rather than 1.45 percent. So if you are a couple earning $125,000 each, you have another tax increase, in addition to possibly a tax on not having insurance or a high-benefit plan. Also, $15 billion will be collected by raising the threshold for the medical deduction. To receive the medical deduction, you must now spend 10 percent of your income on medical expenses rather than 7.5 percent. This tax will impact those who have high medical costs or are suffering from a catastrophic or chronic illness. This bill taxes those who have insurance and those who do not. All these taxes are collected. All the taxes I have mentioned will be collected before there would be the option that is the purpose of this bill. Whatever the insurance option becomes, it takes effect in 2014. All the taxes I have mentioned start before 2014. Senator Thune and I had a motion that would have sent this bill back to the committee and required that everything in this bill start at the same time. So if the program starts in 2014, the taxes would start in 2014. Under our motion, not one dime in taxes would be paid before Americans are offered the insurance option in the bill. The motion was defeated. Now the Democrats have revised their bill and the taxes collected are even higher than the previous bill. But do not forget the penalties to businesses that cannot afford to offer health insurance to their employees. A tax of $750 per employee is assessed. This at a time when unemployment has reached double digits. We should be encouraging employers to hire new workers. Yet this bill imposes $28 billion in new taxes on employers. What will these taxes do to small businesses which create 70 percent of the new jobs in our country? In a letter sent to the majority leader, the Small Business Coalition for Affordable Health Care stated: With its new taxes, mandates, growth in government programs and overall price tag, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act-- The bill we are discussing-- costs too much and delivers too little. . . . Any potential savings from those reforms are more than outweighed by the new taxes, new mandates and expensive new government programs included in this bill. That letter is signed, in addition to the Small Business Coalition, by associations such as the Farm Bureau, Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated General Contractors of America, the National Association of Homebuilders, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Automobile Dealers Association, the National Retail Federation, and more. The National Federation of Independent Business, which is the voice of small business, sent a letter expressing their strong concerns over this bill. It says: The current bill does not do enough to reduce costs for small business owners and their employees. Despite the inclusion of insurance market reforms in the small-group and individual marketplaces, the savings that may materialize are too small for too few and the increase in premium costs are too great for too many. That is the tax situation. How about the $\1/2\ trillion in Medicare cuts? They are still there. They were in the first bill, and they are there now. There are $120 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage, which we know reduces choices for seniors. In my State of Texas, over 500,000 currently enrolled enjoy the benefits of Medicare Advantage. That is in my State alone. Millions across the country like Medicare Advantage, but many seniors, without a doubt, are going to lose this option. Oddly enough, once again, one of the points in the new bill is, there was an opt-out for certain States on Medicare Advantage cuts. So some States are going to have the Medicare Advantage cuts while other States will not. The individual fixes for certain States, presumably to get the votes of certain Senators, do not pass the test of transparency. If you put it in the nicest way, it does not pass the test for fairness, for due process and equal treatment under the law, and it certainly does not pass the test for what is the right way for us to pass comprehensive reform legislation. The other health care cuts in Medicare would be $186 billion in cuts to nursing homes, home health care, and hospice providers. Then there are the cuts to hospitals, approximately $135 billion in cuts to hospitals. The Texas Hospital Association has estimated that hospitals in my State will suffer almost $10 billion in reduced payments. I have a letter from the Texas Hospital Association that outlines their concerns with these cuts and this bill and they are very concerned. Here is one of the quotes from their letter. The Texas Hospital Association says: With a significant reduction in payments, hospitals may be forced to reduce medical services. [H]ospitals . . . may be forced to close or merge with another hospital, or severely reduce the services they provide to their community. Essential services, such as maternity care, emergency services, medical-surgical services or wellness programs may be reduced or entirely eliminated. I have talked with so many hospital administrators and people on hospital boards, and they are very concerned about the cuts in this bill because most of them are on very thin margins. They are struggling, especially in our rural areas. They are very worried there are going to be shutdowns of hospitals throughout our State and certainly our country. Our aging population is growing, so cutting payments to providers who treat those patients, whether it is in hospitals or health care providers, does not seem to be a way to reform Medicare. Cuts in Medicare, and especially the payments for treating low-income seniors, will disproportionately impact rural hospitals which are the safety net for health care outside the metropolitan areas. The Texas Organization of Rural and Community Hospitals, which represents 150 rural hospitals in Texas, said in a letter: We also fear the Medicare cuts as proposed could disproportionately hurt rural hospitals which are the health care safety net for more than 2 million rural Texans. Because of lower financial margins and higher percentage of Medicare patients, rural hospitals will be impacted more than urban hospitals by any reductions in reimbursement. These proposed Medicare cuts could have a devastating effect . . . which could lead to curtailing of certain services. And the closure of some of these Texas hospitals is a very real possibility. . . . How could anyone support a reform bill that will result in seniors having to drive 30, 60, 90 miles and more to get the care they need-- care that was accessible in their own community before this bill took effect? Mr. President, what we have is a bill heavy with tax hikes, Medicare cuts, and government intrusion. This bill is being forced through Congress the week of Christmas because everyone knows this is not the reform that Americans want. The polls are showing that. We all know polls can have margins of error, and maybe they are not completely accurate, but the trend in the polls is clear: It has gone from people thinking that health care reform is a good thing and supporting it, in the majority, to going down now to the point where the trend is clear the American people now do not support this bill, they would rather have nothing, according to the latest polls, and have Congress start all over and do what they hoped it would do, and that is bring down the cost of health care not have this be a big government increase in debt, cuts to Medicare, and increases on taxes to small business and families, especially at this time in our country's economic period. My Republican colleagues and I have tried to offer fiscally responsible alternatives to reform, allowing small businesses to pool together, increase the size of their risk pools, which will bring premiums down. If you have an exchange it would be fine unless you have so many mandates, such as we see in this bill, that are going to cause the prices to stay up and even go higher because of all the taxes on the underlying companies that are providing the health care. Creating an online marketplace free from mandates and government interference where the public can easily compare and select insurance plans would be a Republican proposal, something that I think would be a point at which we could start having health care reform that would be truly effective for America, if you didn't have the mandates that would drive up the cost. Offering tax credits to individuals and families who purchase insurance on their own, that is a bill that we have put forward. Five thousand dollars per family would cut the cost and make it affordable without any government intervention that would be necessary. Of course, medical malpractice reform could take $54 billion out of the cost of health care by stopping the frivolous lawsuits, or at least limiting them. Yet Republicans were really not at the table. The bill was written in a room, with no transparency, no C-SPAN cameras, and no Republicans. We did not have input into this bill. That is why it is a partisan bill. That is why the vote last night--or this morning at 1 a.m.--was completely, 100 percent partisan. Why would a Republican vote for a bill that goes against every principle we have--higher taxes, higher mandates, and cuts in Medicare--and in which we had not one amendment pass? We offered amendments, but there were hundreds of amendments left on the table that we were closed out of offering because of the rush to pass this bill before Christmas. Mr. President, Americans asked for reform; they deserve it. This bill is not the reform Americans hoped to get from a Congress that should have acted responsibly but did not. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will be using some of the leader's time, and if the leader decides to step in, all he has to do is signal. I wish to, first of all, say how much I appreciate the leader, Senator McConnell, the Republican leader for the heroic efforts he has made in the last few weeks to try to assure that the American people know what is in the bill that will be put before us very soon. Now, I say put before us very soon because we don't know what the substitute bill is that has been worked on for the last few days. We haven't seen it yet. I think that brings up an important point. I am hoping the distinguished majority leader, who is also on the floor, will allow America, as well as Senators certainly, to see the managers' amendment which includes all of the changes in the bill that is before us before we are forced to vote on this monumental piece of legislation. When I am talking to my constituents back home, my friends, the people who just come up to me on an airplane, they say: What are you doing? Why is this being rushed through when it is one-sixth of our economy, when it is quality of life for every American, when we are talking about jobs in the private sector that will be sacrificed for a big government takeover, more government jobs, fewer private sector jobs. People are saying: What are you doing? When I was talking about the taxes that are going to take effect in 2 weeks, before the bill takes effect 4 years from now, people were surprised. Even very informed people who read all the major newspapers, they said: What? The taxes are going to take effect 4 years before the bill takes effect? I mean, what are you all doing? Has Congress ever done that before? I couldn't remember a time when Congress would pass taxes for 4 years, purporting to put together a new program, and then all of a sudden, after 4 years, the program would start but the taxes have accumulated, and it is going to be $75 billion that will have accumulated before any implementation of the bill that is before us. So I have heard the criticism on the floor that Republicans are trying to slow this down, that they are trying to stop this bill. It is very important that this health care bill be slowed down so that not only the Senate but the people of America can look at this and determine how it affects them personally, so they can look at what the proposed options are going to be. They can look at the taxes. They can look at the mandates. They can look at the small business requirements that could actually cost jobs. Now, one might say: Well, if it costs a few jobs, maybe there is a greater good. We are in the toughest recession we have been in since the 1940s, since World War II. We are in the toughest recession we have been in, and here we are maybe stopping job increases or maybe adding to the unemployment figures which are the highest in 40 years in our country. So I know the American people are saying: Why? Why push this through? Why push it through so fast when we are talking about maybe losing jobs in an economic downturn, when people are already hurting. Even the people who are employed are afraid that maybe they are going to be laid off because times seem to be getting tougher out there. We hear that the buying season, the Christmas season, is not going as well as retailers have come to expect to try to make their yearly requirements to make their profits. What does that mean? If we do not make those profits, then people are not buying and people are not going to be hired and maybe people are going to be laid off. I do not think this is the time to be talking about losing jobs, something that is going to increase the burden and the mandate and the taxes on our business.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I hope we can have a bill that will be bipartisan that we can all support.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the health care bill that is pending. The Department of Defense bill is also pending. It is the business we have on the floor today. I have no doubt that at the appropriate time there will be a vote in support of funding our troops. I know that may come on Saturday after the time for debate has run out. I want to talk about the health care issue because it is the reason we have been here for really most of the last month--voting every Friday, Saturday, and Sunday--is to talk about the health care bill, debate the health care bill, ensure the American people know what is in this health care bill, and ensure people start looking at the effect it is going to have on their businesses and their families. I can't think of anything we have ever voted on in this body since I have been here that will affect people's lives in such a personal way. I have tried to look at what is good in the bill, and then I look at what I don't like in the bill, and I have to say the scale is very heavily tilted toward what I don't like. In fact, I had a tele-townhall meeting, which is a new capability we have to talk to people. It is a wonderful way to be able to reach out in your State to people who are interested in asking questions and actually call them and let them ask their question. At all times during the tele-townhall I had last night, there were over 6,000 people who were in and out of that tele-townhall meeting. I was very pleased because every single question was a real question, a real person. One man who called is on kidney dialysis treatments. He has very high drug costs and high expenses. Then we had people on Medicare asking how the cuts in Medicare would affect their treatment and their care. Then we had small businesspeople who are scared to death of having more burdens, more taxes, and more mandates on their small businesses. Some were almost screaming into the phone: But don't people realize how hard it is to make ends meet right now for small business? Don't you all realize we are trying to stay afloat while we are in one of the worst recessions of our lifetime? Of course, I assured them I do understand that. That is why I am trying to amend this bill, trying to change it, trying to encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that we should really start over and try to have a health care reform bill that does three basic things. We want a bill that actually lowers the cost of health care. Right now, the bill before us will increase the cost of health care. The cost of the bill that is before us today, if you start with when the bill takes effect, which is 2014, and you go 10 years out, you are looking at $2.5 trillion in costs. We have a debt of $12 trillion in America right now. Those numbers are staggering. We used to be worried about $12 billion, $15 billion, and $100 billion; now we are talking about trillions of dollars. We are talking about $12 trillion in debt right now. The idea that we would put $2.5 trillion more in this health care bill, which mandates taxes, to offset some of it, to businesses, employers, and families, is unthinkable. It is unthinkable in good times, but in the bad times we have now, it is absolutely unthinkable. Here we are now talking about this bill that will increase the debt and increase taxes and mandates. In talking with the people of Texas, I did a little poll on the tele- townhall. I said: Register in, punch 1 for yes, 2 for no, and 3 for undecided. I asked: Do you support the bill that is before us today? If you say yes, press 1; no, press 2. Eighty-one percent instantly started registering against this bill. I was listening to my colleague, Senator Barrasso of Wyoming. He also had a tele-townhall meeting for Wyoming. Many Senators are doing this now. He had a couple of thousand people on the call. Ninety-three percent who registered on the poll were against this bill. My colleague from Nebraska, Senator Johanns, said the polls in Nebraska are overwhelmingly against this bill. People are listening to the debate, reading the newspapers, getting every bit of information they can, listening to the tele-townhall conference calls, they are asking their questions, and in unprecedented numbers they are registering their interest and their overwhelming rejection of this bill. I talked about what is in this bill and what we could have. Instead of $100 billion in new taxes, which would start next month, we could step back and say we are not going to put new taxes on businesses and families and companies before the bill even takes effect. In fact, Senator Thune and I had a motion that was rejected on the floor. It was tabled yesterday afternoon. It would have done exactly that. Very simply, if the bill is going to pass, at least don't start the taxes until there is some program available that is as a result of the bill. It is very simple and clear. That was our motion, and it was tabled, with only 41 Senators saying yes, so we lost the motion. It is of great concern to us that the tax increases in this bill start next month--we will have over $100 billion in new taxes starting next month--and that the 40-percent excise tax on premium health care coverage policies takes effect in 2013 but the bill doesn't take effect until 2014. That is the bill we are debating today, which an overwhelming number of American people are rejecting. They don't want taxes, mandates, and they don't want the government to step between them and their doctors. They want the physician-patient relationship that is the hallmark of American health care. It is what makes us different from most other countries in the world--that we don't have government standing in the way and most of our private plans don't say: No, you can't have this treatment because you are too old or you are not fit enough, or having the government say: Here is who is qualified for this procedure. That is not the health care we have known in America. We are for health care reform that lowers the cost of health care in our country, and more people will have affordable options. There is a part of this bill that could provide that. It doesn't mean a government takeover. We don't need a government takeover. That is why you have all the taxes and mandates, because it will cost so much that taxes and mandates are the way the majority is putting forward to pay for this expensive government takeover. Why not have the health care exchange without all the mandates so there would be a free market on the exchange with no cost that would allow people to have choices? The insurance companies would come forward and there would be high-deductible plans for people who wanted high-deductible plans, and there would be low-deductible plans that would be more expensive, but some people would prefer to have that. You could make your choices among the plans that would be put on an exchange that would be open, transparent, and competitive. You would have bigger risk pools and, therefore, lower premiums would be the result. Talking about what Republicans wish to see in health care reform and asking the majority if we could stop going through every weekend with one vote on Friday, one vote on Saturday, one vote on Sunday so that we are not able to do anything with our families during this holiday season, instead why don't we step back and say we will come back after Christmas or whenever the majority wishes to come back and say: Let's sit down in a bipartisan way, and let's have three principles in a health care reform bill. No. 1, we would lower the cost with the exchange, bigger risk pools, lower costs. No. 2, how about tax credits for every individual or family who would buy their own policies because they don't have access through an employer or if they are going to go on this exchange that would not cost anything, they would be able to have a tax credit to buy their own health care coverage. That would increase the number of people insured in our country, much larger than we are looking at today with a big government-run plan, which is said to increase the number of insured 31 million, but leave 24 million uninsured. We could get 31 million with the free market working. No. 3, what about medical malpractice reform? We could take $54 billion out of the cost of health care by having frivolous lawsuits curbed with some kind of reasonable limits on damages or attorneys fees that would allow people to get some compensation for a transgression, but not something that is going to raise the cost of premiums so high for doctors and hospitals that they have to order more medical tests and that raises the cost of health care across the board. Those would be the principles we could support. Let's start again after Christmastime and do a rational proposal that the American people would accept.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I was under the impression there would be a 30-minute allocation for colloquy for our side. I am not sure when we start that process.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. How many?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I think it is very important that before we start talking about passing a bill or having a cloture on a bill--I think the Senator from Oklahoma is making the main point. I think the Senator from Oklahoma was making a very good point that I was hoping to work with him on and that is: Where are we now? The Republicans have put forward reform alternatives for our health care system that are not a government takeover and are not going to be $\1/2\ trillion in taxes and are not going to be $\1/2\ trillion in Medicare cuts. The Republican proposals would do what health care reform should do-- they would lower cost. They would increase risk pools so that small business would be able to offer health care coverage for their employees. They would have medical malpractice reform so we would be able to lower the cost of frivolous lawsuits, cutting over $50 billion out of the costs of health care, making it more accessible for more people. They would give tax credits for individuals who would buy their own health care coverage to offset that cost. None of that would be a big government takeover of health care. That is what we have been trying to put forward here. But we have not had a seat at the table. We have not had the capability to say what our proposals would be because we have not even seen the proposed new bill yet. We have been talking about the tax increases that are going to burden small business at a very hard time for this country's economy and we have also been talking about $\1/2\ trillion in Medicare cuts, which I think has caused many senior citizens to say: Wait a minute, I don't want my Medicare options cut. I don't want Medicare Advantage to be virtually taken away. That is why we are here today, because the pending business before the Senate is the Hutchison-Thune motion to recommit this bill to do a simple thing. It is to say that you will not start collecting the taxes until the program is in place. It is very simple. It is the American sense of fair play, and that is that you do not start collecting taxes before you have a program that you might want to buy into. That is what the Hutchison-Thune motion to recommit does. It is very simple. It is a matter of fair play. I even question whether we have the right to pass taxes for 4 years before you would ever see a program put in place. We are going to try to do what is right by this body. That is to say, the $100 billion in new taxes that will start next month--3 weeks from now--will not start until there is a program put in place. Because right now $100 billion in new taxes starts next month but there is no program that anyone can sign up for that will supposedly make it easier to get health care coverage in this country until 2014, 4 years away. I ask my colleague, the distinguished ranking member of the Finance Committee, if he believes all these new taxes would be fair to start before we could ever see a program--not 1 year from now, not 2, not 3 but 4 years from now. I ask the distinguished ranking member of the Finance Committee if he believes it would be fair for us to start the taxes in 3 weeks and then not start the program for 4 years. Does that seem like a fair concept?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. You did. It is interesting because you say maybe it is going to be break even. How is it going to break even? I ask my colleague from South Dakota, who is a cosponsor of this motion: How is it going to break even? With $\1/2\ trillion in Medicare cuts, $\1/2\ trillion in tax increases, is that the way we ought to be saying to the American people we will reform health care? Have we lost the purpose of the bill, to make health care more affordable and accessible to the American people? I ask my colleague, the Senator from South Dakota, who has worked on this issue for a long time, is that the concept of break even?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the 2 physicians out of the 100 Members of Senate are here this morning. They have talked for a long time about the quality of care. They are the two who have the credibility on this. I would like to ask the Senator from Wyoming, Dr. Barrasso, to talk about what is going to happen to the quality of health care when you have $\1/2\ trillion in Medicare cuts, which we have discussed, and the bill we are discussing today and the motion Senator Thune and I are offering, that is going to put a higher cost on every prescription drug, every piece of medical equipment. Perhaps you would expand on what kind of medical equipment is needed for people to have the quality of life we have in our country today and then the insurance companies, which are, of course, going to raise the premium of every person who already has coverage. I ask the Senator from Wyoming, Dr. Barrasso, in your experience, how is this going to affect the quality of health care?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is a very important question. Here we are going to start collecting the taxes for 4 years before the program is put in place. The distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, the other physician in this body, knows we have had promises from the Federal Government before. But I can't remember a time when we started collecting a tax for a purpose that would be 4 years away. What on Earth could people expect to actually be there when the program kicks in? The program is going to have to be implemented. It is going to have to be brought up to speed. I am sure there will be changes. What would you think your patients whom you still care for in Oklahoma or the ones, in the experience you have had, how do you think people are going to react to having higher costs in all these areas of health care for 4 years, even a tax on the high-income plans, not high-income people having those plans but high coverage that a union member might have that will start being taxed in 2013, 1 year before the program takes effect? How do you think that is going to affect the quality of health care people can expect and the cost to them out-of-pocket when there would be nothing even on the drawing boards for 4 years?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask the Senator from Oklahoma, you are saying that a schoolteacher is probably not making $200,000 or more?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yet we were promised there would be no taxes, no harm to people making under $200,000. Remind me if there is a teacher in Oklahoma--because I know there is not one in Texas--making over $200,000.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is exactly what the Senator from South Dakota and I are trying to do. We are trying to make sure Americans will not-- will not--pay taxes and increased prices on prescription drugs, on coverage we do have, the policies we do have, and the equipment that is so necessary for health care services. Senator Thune and I want to do what is basic fairness and very simple; that is, to say the program starts and the taxes start at the same time. That is a tradition we have had in this country for years. We do not tax people 4 years from having any kind of program in place that they could choose from that might benefit them. We do not do that. That is not the American way, and it is certainly not anything we have done before. What in the world would people expect to happen in 4 years? What if this plan is changed? What if the people rise up and say: We don't want this plan, and they say: No way, and they would have been paying higher premiums and higher health care costs already. It is a downpayment where you are not sure what the end is going to be. It is like buying a house and saying: Now, in 4 years we are going to give you the key to the house, we are going to give you the key to the house that you bought 4 years from now. Oh, maybe there will be a change in condition, but you are going to get it. Maybe it will be damaged. Maybe it will be worn. Maybe it will have a fire that starts in part of it. But you will get those keys and then something will be there for you. We promise you. We are from the government, and we are going to promise you that. That is not good enough. That is not what we owe the American people. And it is not health care reform. I would just ask my colleague from South Dakota, who is the cosponsor of this motion, if he agrees that as a matter of simple fairness, openness, and transparency to the American people, health care reform should not mean 4 years of taxes before any program is put in place.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from South Dakota. Just to recap, the amount that would actually be collected before any program is put in place would be $73 billion--already collected. That will include, as the Senator from Oklahoma mentioned, schoolteachers from Oklahoma who are considered to have these high-benefit plans, a schoolteacher making $50,000, $60,000 a year with a high-benefit plan. And do you know what the tax is on that high-benefit plan? Do you know what the tax is on that Oklahoma schoolteacher? A 40-percent excise tax--40 percent.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator, and I would just say I hope we get a bipartisan vote on this motion. I hope we get a bipartisan vote to say the one thing we ought to do, if nothing else, is be fair to the American people. You do not pay taxes until the program is up and going. Thank you, Mr. President.