Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I thank the majority leader for allowing me to speak because I am very concerned about a precedent that has been set on the floor in this last vote. When the Senator from Vermont withdrew his amendment and started talking, my motion to commit was the measure pending on the floor. I did not have notice--which is the normal procedure here--to be able to talk on my motion. We had no idea there would be a motion to table my motion before I had a chance to close. Here is my point. The measure that was tabled, the Hutchison-Thune motion, would have assured the American people that there would not be 4 years of tax collection before any kind of program would be put forward under the health care reform package. I thought it was very important that Senator Thune and I be able to close on that. That is a concept we have always had in the Senate--that a program starts when it starts. That means if taxes are included, the taxes will start when the program starts. That is not the case in the underlying bill. The underlying health care reform bill has 4 years of taxes. There will be taxes on insurance companies that will surely raise the premium of every insurance policy in America. There are taxes on prescription drug companies, so that prescription drug prices will surely go up. There are taxes on medical device companies, so the prices on health care equipment will also go up. How much are we talking about? We are talking about $100 billion in taxes that will start in 3 weeks--in January of 2010. Again, we are looking at taxes that will start in 3 weeks, next month, which will accumulate up to $73 billion before a program is implemented that will give anyone a choice of an affordable health care option. That is the motion that was tabled 10 minutes ago. I want to make sure everyone knows I never had a chance to close on the motion. Senator Thune didn't have a chance to close, because it was a motion made that could not be objected to. That is not the way things have operated here in the past, and I think it is time we bring back the traditions of the Senate, where we have time that we agree to, everybody has their say, and then we go forward. I am very concerned about that process. I hope it is not setting precedent because I think we can resurrect health care reform if we have a bipartisan health care effort. If we have an effort that will bring down the costs, that will increase the risk pools so that an employer will be able to afford to offer employees health care coverage, bring down the costs of health care with medical malpractice reform that would save $54 billion in the system, we can do things without a government takeover of health care. But the bill that is before us has $\1/2\ trillion in Medicare cuts--Medicare cuts, $\1/2\ trillion--and $\1/2\ trillion in new taxes--taxes on businesses that offer not enough coverage, businesses that offer too much coverage, a 40-percent excise tax on policies that give what is called Cadillac coverage, the high benefit plans. So if you have a good insurance policy, you have a 40-percent tax on top of the premium you pay. And if you have too little coverage, you also get taxed. You are whipsawed in this bill. I think the small business people of this country know what this bill is about because that is the comment we are getting. They are the people calling into our offices. They are the people I see on the airplanes as I go back and forth to try to make sure we are covering the bases on this bill and trying to let the American people know what is in it. I am concerned about the precedent that was set, but more than that, I am concerned that the American people must know that if this bill passes as it is on the floor today, the taxes will take effect in 3 weeks, that insurance premiums will surely go up, prescription drugs will surely go up, prices on medical equipment will surely go up, and there will not be an affordable insurance plan for people to choose to take for 4 years. It is like buying a house and having the mortgage company hand you the keys and say: Come back in 4 years, and we will let you unlock the door. I don't think that is transparency, and it is certainly not health care reform. I hope there is still a chance that we can bring this body to a bipartisan effort that will allow lower premiums, more health care options for the people of this country but, most important, that will keep the quality of health care, the choices we have in health care that Americans have come to expect and not start going on the road to a single-payer system because in the end, that is what the bill before us will lead to. It will be a single-payer system. It will take choices out. It will take quality out. It will add taxes and burdens on our small businesses at a time when they need to be able to hire people to get our economy going and to get that jobless rate down. We need them to employ people. We need to encourage our employers to employ people. They cannot do it if we put more taxes and burdens on them, which is what the bill before us does. I thank the majority leader for allowing me to speak since I did not have a chance to speak before my motion was tabled. I hope the American people are listening because we have a chance to do this right. The bill on the floor today is not that bill. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. If I may respond to the Senator from Idaho. I was thinking, when the Senator from Tennessee was talking, about the luxury taxes and how everyone thought that felt so good to have a tax against luxury boats. And who suffered? The workers. Then there was the catastrophic Medicare coverage which resulted in a tax on seniors who had that coverage. Seniors erupted, and that was repealed. Then that is followed on by what the Senator from Nevada talks about--the Cadillac plan, which is the high-end plan of coverage. I thought, maybe Congress has learned something. Maybe the Democrats are on to something. They have listened to the history of all of these good-sounding taxes on rich people or people who buy expensive things. As the Senator from Nevada has pointed out, they have now learned they probably ought to go ahead and tax both ends instead of just the high end because in this bill, you have a tax on the high-end plans. You have a tax on employers who provide too much coverage. Oh, but we also tax the people who do not have any coverage. If it is too small, you get taxed, and if it is too big, you get taxed. It seems that maybe the Democrats learned the wrong lesson. It is not that you tax just the rich or the people who buy expensive things, it is that you tax both ends to make sure you get every little drop of taxpayer dollars. I think we have shown on this floor from the endless hours of debate that everyone in America is going to be taxed because the taxes that take effect in 3 weeks' time under this bill, January of 2010--the major tax increase takes place, and that is the tax increase on prescription drugs; on insurance companies that are going to have to raise their premiums; the drug costs are going to go up; and medical equipment, which is essential for seniors, especially for everyone who needs some form of equipment, the equipment manufacturers are going to have a tax. Mr. President, $100 billion in new taxes starts next January, 3 weeks from now. Every person in America is going to pay taxes in the form of higher prices starting in 3 weeks. The Senator from South Dakota and I are sponsoring legislation because the next question will be: Oh, my goodness, if we are going to be taxed in 3 weeks, surely we are going to have some sort of benefit offered in 3 weeks, some sort of low-cost health plan or option. Three weeks, surely. Oh, no, we are not going to have any of the plan that would offer options to people--not in 2010, not in 2011, no, not in 2012, not in 2013, but 2014. So all these higher prices are going to start kicking in in January, and then we are going to have the Cadillac plan that the Senator from Nevada mentioned in 2013, all being paid before one supposed benefit would be available. If this is not a bait-and-switch, I have never seen one. The Senator from South Dakota and I are going to offer the next amendment after the ones that are in the tranche right now to very simply say: Whatever the bill is in the end, there will be no taxes until there is a plan. Not one dime of taxes could take effect until there is actually some sort of plan available that would, hopefully, give some sort of benefit to people, which is what is being promised. I ask the Senator from South Dakota if that is his understanding, that we would at least draw a line. Whereas Senator Crapo's motion, which I support and I know everyone on the floor talking this morning supports, is to say there will be no taxes to anyone who makes under $200,000. But even if there are taxes in the end, they will not take effect until there is some sort of plan available for people that is going to help Americans who do not have coverage and for whom we are not able to lower the cost, which is what the Republicans are trying to do. At least we would set that deadline. I ask the Senator from South Dakota what he has been hearing about this bill.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President I have a motion at the desk, and I ask that it be brought forward.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is a motion that Senator Thune and I are putting forward. It is a very simple motion. A lot of people don't realize that the taxes in the bill we are discussing actually start in about 3 weeks. They start in January of 2010. The effect of the bill, whatever the proposals are going to be in the bill, whatever programs are available, will not come into play until 2014. The taxes will start this next year, and they will be paid for 4 years before any of the programs the bill is supposed to put forward will be there. The motion Senator Thune and I put forward merely says that taxes start being collected when the bill is implemented. So whatever programs are being offered to the people, whatever insurance programs, whatever kinds of benefits there might be in the bill would start at the same time as the taxes start. So you are not going to be paying taxes before you have any options that you would be able to take in this bill. It is simple. It is clear. We believe that if you pay taxes for 4 years before you see any of the programs in this bill, the American people can't be sure there will ever be a program, because there will be intervening Congresses and intervening Presidential elections that will occur before this bill is designed to start in 2014. We have congressional elections in 2010. We have a Presidential election plus congressional elections in 2012. And 2 years following that, 2014, is when this bill will be implemented. I hope everyone will look at this motion and support the amendment we are putting forward. It is a motion to commit the bill to fix this issue, that America should not be looking at higher drug prices, higher medical device prices, and higher costs of insurance, all of which are the first taxes that will take effect. Let's walk through it. Starting next year in January, 3 weeks from today, there will be $22 billion in taxes on prescription drug manufacturers that will start. The price of prescription drugs, aspirin, anything that people take will go up because the drug manufacturers are going to start paying a tax. There is $19 billion in taxes on medical device manufacturers. So medical devices we use, hearing aids, things we use to treat ailments will be taxed to the tune of $19 billion next January. There is $60 billion on insurance companies starting next month. That is about $100 billion in taxes that start in about 3 weeks. So the insurance companies have probably already priced in the negotiations that they are having now with people about their insurance premiums. I am sure they realize that they are going to have to be locked in for a year or two or three and, therefore, these rises in insurance premiums are probably part of this bill we are dealing with right now. And $60 billion will be passed on to every person who has health care coverage right now. Here we are, health care reform that is supposed to bring down the price of health care so that more people can afford it. And what is the first thing we do? It is not to offer a plan. It is not to offer any kind of program that would help people who are struggling right now because they don't have insurance. It is certainly not going to help people struggling to pay their prescription drug prices. We are going to raise the price by taxing the manufacturers of drugs, of medical devices, and the companies that are giving insurance today. It is time that we talk about the high taxes in this bill. What we are going to talk about in the Hutchison-Thune proposal, the motion to commit, is to say at the very least, the least we can do is not ask people to pay taxes for 4 years when you are going to have three intervening congressional elections before this bill takes effect. Things could change mightily. All these taxes that are going to go into place might never bring forward the proposals that are in the underlying bill. In 2013, 1 year before the bill is to take effect, the taxes on high benefit plans go into effect. What is a high benefit plan? A high benefit plan is one that is a good plan. Many unions have these, and many people who work for big corporations have everything paid for. They have all of the employer regular, in the order that most companies do, payments, but they also allow in these plans to have most of the deductibles also paid for. They are very good plans. This bill will excise for those plans $149 billion, cut it right out and have an excise tax on those good plans, $149 billion. That starts in 2013. That is 1 year before the bill takes effect. In 2013, 1 year before there is any new plan put forward, those who have very good coverage--whether it be someone who works for a big company or whether it is a union member--will start getting a 40- percent tax on that benefit. So all of the things that have been negotiated are going to have a big 40-percent tax. That starts in 2013. In addition, in 2013, 1 year before the bill takes effect, there is a limitation put on itemized deductions for medical expenses. Today, if you spend more than 7.5 percent of your income on medical expenses, you get to deduct everything over that. So if you have a catastrophic accident or you have a very expensive disease to treat or you are in a clinical trial--something that is expensive--if you go above 7.5 percent of your income, you can deduct that. In 2013, under the bill that is before us, you would have to spend 10 percent of your income before you could deduct those expenses. That is another $15 billion that will be collected in taxes that are not collected today. The new Medicare payroll tax, which impacts individuals who earn over $200,000 or couples who earn $125,000 each, would take effect in 2013. That is $54 billion in taxes. These are all the taxes that take effect before the bill does, before there is any plan offered. You would have the tax that starts next month on insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and medical device companies. Then, in 2013, you would have a tax on high-benefit plans, a 40-percent tax on that plan. Then, in 2013, the itemized deductions will not be allowed until you have paid 10 percent of your salary in medical expenses. Then there is the Medicare payroll tax, which is going to impact individuals. All of this is before there is a program in place. In 2014, when the bill does come forward so there are plans to be offered to people, then you start the mandates on employers and the taxes if people are not covered. So you have $28 billion in taxes on employers that start in 2014. These are the employers who cannot afford to give health care to their employees or they do not give the right kind of health care to their employees, so it is not the right percentage, and if it is not the right percentage, then the employer pays a fee of $750 to $3,000 per employee. That is their fine. Then there is the tax on individuals who do not have health insurance, and that is $750 per adult. My colleague from South Dakota and I will certainly want to spend more time talking about this and hope very much that our colleagues will also. I do not think this is what the American people thought they would be getting in health care reform. Of course, what we would hope the American people would get in health care reform would be lower cost options that do not require a big government plan. They would not require big taxes. They would not require big fees. If we had a lowering of the cost, by allowing small businesses to have bigger risk pools, that would not cost anything. It would allow bigger risk pools that would provide lower premiums and employers would be able to offer more to their employees. Most employers want to offer health care to their employees. It is just a matter of the expense. The bill we are debating now is going to put more expenses and burdens on employers, at the time when we are asking them to hire more people to get us out of this recession. Everywhere I go in Texas, when I am on an airplane, when I am in a store, a grocery store--I have not been able to do any Christmas shopping, I must admit, so I have not been in a department store, but nevertheless I do go to the grocery store--everyone who I am talking to is saying: I can't afford this. What are you all doing? And I am saying, of course: Well, we are trying to stop this because we agree with you that small businesspeople cannot afford this. I was a small businessperson. I know how hard it is because we do not have the margins of big business, and it is very hard to make ends meet when you have all the mandates and the taxes, and when you are trying to increase your business and hire people, which is what we want them to do. You cannot do it if you are burdened with more and more expenses, as this bill will do. What Senator Thune and I are doing is making a motion to commit this bill back with instructions, to come back with the changes that will assure that when the implementation of this bill starts, that will trigger whatever programs are in the bill at the same time as whatever taxes and fees are going to be in this bill. I would hope there would be fewer taxes and fees. But whatever your view is on that issue, it is a matter of simple fairness that you would not start the taxes before you start the implementation of the program. It would be like saying: I want to buy a house, and the realtor says: Well, fine, you can start paying for the house right now, and in 4 years you will be able to move in. The house might be stricken by lightning. It might fall apart. It might blow up. It might have a fire. And that is exactly what could happen in this bill. This bill may not make it for 4 years, when people see what is in it. There will be elections, and I cannot imagine we would establish a policy of taxing people for 4 years, raising costs, leading down this path that will eventually go to a public plan that will end up doing what was originally introduced in the bill; and that is, to end up with one public plan. It will take a little longer the way the bill is being reconfigured, but it is going to end up in the same place, unless we can stop it by showing people that the mandates and the taxes are not good for our economy and they are not good for the health care system we know in this country. We have choices in this country. We have the ability to decide who our doctor is and what insurance coverage we want, whether we want a high deductible or a low deductible. That is not a choice that should be taxed. We should not have someone tell us what procedures we can have. We should have the option of deciding that for ourselves with our doctors. That is what we want in health care reform. But that is not what is in the bill before us. I hope we can discuss the Hutchison-Thune motion to commit. We are going to work to try to make sure everyone knows we want fairness in this bill and that people know what is in it. I hope we will get whatever the new version of the bill is very soon so we will have a chance to see if maybe there are some changes that are being made. But in the bill before us, the taxes start next month, and the bill is implemented in 2014. On its face, that is fundamentally unfair. I hope our motion is adopted so we can change it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, as I understand it, we are now in the 30-minute timeframe for the Republicans; is that correct?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we be allowed to have a colloquy so we can go back and forth.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Acting President pro tempore.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think the Republican leader just stated the case for why it is so important that we have the votes and that we go back to the drawing board on this bill. Americans are looking at the fine print of this bill. They are seeing $\1/2\ trillion in taxes. Just this week, the President has had a jobs summit because we are all concerned about jobs. My goodness, since the President took the oath of office, more than 3.5 million Americans have lost their jobs-- 300,000 Texans--our budget has tripled to $1.4 trillion, and the Federal debt as a portion of the U.S. economy has risen to its highest level since World War II. So we are very concerned about these taxes. In fact, the small businesses of our country have said: No, do not do this to us. The NFIB, which is the National Federation of Independent Business, sent a letter just this week saying: When evaluating healthcare reform options, small business owners ask themselves two specific questions. First, will the bill lower insurance costs? Second, will the bill increase the overall cost of doing business? Well, the answer to the first question is clearly no because the business taxes start on January 1, 2010--3 weeks or so from now--and going forward, the mandates and taxes in 2014 to small business are egregious. It could be $750 per employee or it could be $3,000 per employee if you do not have exactly the right mix of health care coverage for your employees. Well, at $3,000 per employee, small businesses are telling me: I am out of here. We are just going to let people go to the government option because we cannot afford that. So the answer to question No. 2 in the NFIB letter--which is, ``Will the bill increase the overall cost of doing business?''--is, well, of course it will, at a time when we are seeing the numbers of people employed go down. We are in a financial crisis in this country. People are jobless. We are in a holiday season. People are very stressed, and here we have a health care bill being rushed through, without amendments being able to come forward with a real chance for passing them. The cost of business is going to go up, which means more people are going to be laid off. Now, I want to ask my friend, the Senator from South Dakota, a question because he and I are teaming up on an amendment. If we are going to have taxes increase in 3 weeks, you would say: Oh, OK, well taxes are going to start in 3 weeks, so, then, where is the package I signed up for that is going to lower my health care costs? So I would ask the Senator from South Dakota, when do the programs that are supposed to lower health care costs take effect?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. So I would ask the Senator from South Dakota--because it is our amendment, the Hutchison-Thune amendment--and surely the American people, who would look at the debate, would say: We are missing something. This cannot be right. We can't have taxes that are increasing our premiums, increasing our prescription drug costs, increasing our medical devices we must have for our health care for 4 years. Did he say that right? Did he say we would be paying those higher costs for 4 years before there is any option available to allow more people to have health care coverage?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am glad you mentioned the Farm Bureau because my constituents in the Farm Bureau, 400,000 members of the Texas Farm Bureau, have contacted me repeatedly about how bad this will be for the farmers, the small businesses they own, and the few people they employ. Maybe they have five employees. This will be a killer for them. To reinforce the letter that the Senator from South Dakota read from the Small Business Coalition for Affordable Health Care, they say in the letter: If this bill is enacted, the small business community will be forced to divert resources away from hiring and expansion, the very investments our country so desperately needs as it continues to struggle in a faltering economy with double- digit unemployment. Then they go on to talk about what those costs are going to be: a small business health insurance tax; an employer mandate that encourages job cuts, not job creation; and the temporary small business tax credit falls short. I am glad they mentioned this temporary small business tax credit because I have heard them say on the other side of the aisle: But there is a tax credit for small business that will alleviate the pain. Well, that credit is for employers with fewer than 25 employees with average annual wages of less than $40,000. Very few small businesses are going to be able to qualify for this tax credit. That is a very strict standard. The average annual wages of less than $40,000 are going to be very difficult. However, if they qualify, the credit is temporary. The credit is temporary. It is not a permanent credit that helps people who would be able to qualify for this credit. So, in effect, this is not a tax credit at all, and certainly when it goes away it will help no one. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from the Small Business Coalition for Affordable Healthcare.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am from a State that has big cities, but the vast majority of my State is rural, as is Wyoming and as is South Dakota. I see my employers, my small business owners, which are the largest bulk of the employers in my State, every day. I talk to them or I see them. Unfortunately, we are in Washington every day right now, 7 days a week, but when I am home I see them and when I am here and talking to them on the phone, or they are visiting me, I talk to them and they are aghast. They are aghast that Congress would actually be putting more strain on small business at a time when we know the jobless rate is the highest since World War II and people are trying to do their part to increase our economy and they can't do it with more taxes, more mandates, more burdens. So it is time we look at the tax burden and do something about it. The Senator from South Dakota and I are trying to do something about it. We are saying, at the very least we should not allow this bill to go forward when the taxes start next month--January 2010--because none of the programming gets up and running until 2014. So we are going to have the mandates and the business taxes and we are going to have the program that is supposed to alleviate the health care crisis in our country in 2014. Shouldn't we start all of the taxes in 2014 rather than asking people to pay for 4 years the taxes that will increase insurance premiums, increase prescription drug costs, and increase medical equipment costs--$100 billion in new taxes on those items-- shouldn't we at least put it off until the supposed program comes into place. Because in 4 years, with any luck in America, we won't have these programs start. There is hope for America that we can stop this program by 2014 as people learn what is in it and protest enough that the Members of Congress who are elected in 2010, elected in 2012, will say: No, we now know that this would be a disaster for our country. There is hope. I would ask the Senator from Wyoming, when people start learning about the Medicare cuts about which you have spoken so eloquently, and the taxes on the small businesses in your State and all of our States, do you think that perhaps not putting these taxes in place is a good policy, because maybe we can still stop this when people find out what is in it, when it is supposed to take effect 4 years from now?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that until the Democrats take over, we may continue to talk.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, to continue with the Senator from South Dakota, I am glad he made the point because we are very much hoping our amendment will be in the order when we start voting on the health care amendments. The amendment is so clear; it is very simple. I have it here. For Washington, it is half a page. That is something everyone will be able to appreciate--the motion to commit with instructions: Senator Hutchison and Senator Thune move to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report back to the Senate with changes to align the effective dates of all taxes, fees, and tax increases levied by such bill so that no such tax, fee, or increase takes effect until such time as the major insurance coverage provisions of the bill, including the insurance exchanges, have begun. The committee is further instructed to maintain the deficit neutrality of the bill over the 10-year budget window. That is what was promised. This was going to be deficit neutral. It is not deficit neutral. The cost of this bill is $2.5 trillion over the 10-year period when it starts, in 2014 until 2023. It is $2.5 trillion. The ``offset''--I put that in quotes because the offsets are $500 billion in tax cuts to Medicare, which will lower the ability of hospitals to stay in business and treat Medicare patients and doctors to be able to treat Medicare patients. So the quality of Medicare is going to go down. Medicare Advantage will be severely restricted. So you have $500 billion in cuts to Medicare, and then you have $500 billion in tax increases and mandates. That is a total of $1 trillion in offsets in a bill that costs $2.5 trillion. What the Senator from South Dakota and I are trying to do is let's keep our word. Let's keep our word and do two things that the American people should expect: No. 1, that we would not start the taxes until the program takes effect; No. 2, that it would be deficit neutral. By my math, I ask the Senator from South Dakota, it looks to me like we are $1.5 trillion into the deficit, and we are already at a debt ceiling that is higher than we have had as a percentage of our GDP since World War II. So it is a $12 trillion debt ceiling we are hitting right now, and we are talking about a $1.5 trillion deficit in the bill we are being asked to vote for. I ask the Senator from South Dakota, who is my cosponsor on this very important amendment, don't we owe the American people the transparency, as well as the policy, that we would eliminate the deficit and we would stop these disastrous taxes from taking effect, so maybe we would have a chance to change this product going forward in the next 4 years so the American people will not be saddled with these expenses, taxes, and mandates?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am sorry to interrupt my friend. I ask unanimous consent that he have 1 minute to finish, after which the floor would go to the majority.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Arizona. I am pleased our leader is standing strong to say nothing should take precedence over our handling of this bill and making sure it is done right. That is what the Republicans are trying to do, to make sure this is done right. We talked about the Medicare expansion that is in the purported bill that we have not seen yet but that Democrats appear to be putting forward. We have also been spending the week talking about $\1/2\ trillion in cuts to Medicare. Now we are talking about possibly expanding Medicare at the same time we are cutting $\1/2\ trillion out of the care Medicare patients would get. I have an amendment. It would stop the $135 billion in cuts in the underlying bill to hospitals, cutting hospital reimbursements for Medicare patients. That is my amendment. Now we are talking about possibly expanding Medicare. The American Hospital Association put out an alarm, an action alert. It says: Medicare pays hospitals 91 cents for every dollar of care provided. Medicaid pays just 88 cents for each dollar of care provided. Medicaid, which may also be expanded, and the cuts in Medicare, which we are talking about possibly expanding, would go forward. Which means what? The hospital association knows what. ``What'' is rural hospitals that care for Medicare patients are going to go under. What kind of services can be provided if there is no hospital in the whole county that can provide care to these senior citizens? I ask the Senator from Arizona, who has been such a leader on this, we are going to cut $135 billion out of Medicare coverage for hospitals. We are going to now talk about expanding the coverage of more Medicare patients, which will mean we will cut more from the hospitals than is even envisioned in the underlying bill. Help me understand this, Senator. How would you suggest that passes the commonsense test?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Is the Senator saying that whether you were at the top of your class, such as the Senator from Oklahoma or the Senator from Tennessee or the Senator from South Dakota, or the bottom of your class, as the Senator from Arizona has admitted he held down the fort, regardless of where you are on the quotient of where you stood in your class, you know what the bottom line is.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we be able to go into a colloquy for the next half hour.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the taxes that are in this bill--taxes that are imposed in 3 weeks--not 3 weeks from 6 months from now, not 3 weeks from 2014, but 3 weeks from now, January 1, 2010. Three weeks from now, on January 1, 2010, we are going to see the taxes in this bill start. I know people are saying: Wait a minute. This bill doesn't take effect until 2014. That is what we have been talking about. It is what we have been hearing. But, no, the tax part starts in 3 weeks--January of 2010. I have partnered with Senator Thune, who has been working on this problem, and Senator Grassley and Senator Hatch and many others who will be speaking today. I see my colleagues from Florida, Nebraska, Wyoming, as well as my colleague, Senator Crapo, from Idaho, all of whom--Senator Crapo, of course, is waiting for a vote on his amendment, which would stop the taxes on everyone who makes $200,000 or less. We are talking about the taxes because it is such a huge issue. Here is what is going to happen with the taxes in the bill that start in 3 weeks. Americans will pay more in insurance premiums. Americans will pay more in prescription drugs. Americans will pay more for medical equipment. Let's walk through those taxes. In a few weeks, in January of 2010, this will begin: $22 billion in taxes on prescription drug manufacturers; $19 billion in taxes on medical device manufacturers; $60 billion in taxes on insurance companies. That is around $100 billion, which starts in 3 weeks. Then, in 2013, the taxes on high-benefit plans take effect. That is $150 billion in taxes. So for every union member who has a good plan that gives them the benefits they have negotiated for over the years, those taxes come in at 40 percent of the benefits. That starts in 2013. You are still saying: Wait a minute. I thought the bill started in 2014--and that is right. But the taxes start in 3 weeks, and they keep right on going. In 2013, the high-benefit plans start getting a 40- percent excise tax. Mr. President, when the $100 billion in taxes start in 3 weeks on drug manufacturers, medical device manufacturers, and insurance companies, what happens? Premiums go up immediately, prescription drug prices go up immediately, and the medical devices--hearing aids and things people need for medical treatments--go up immediately. We have been talking about health care reform and the need for it, and the need to make history. Yet the reform we are going to see go into effect right away is huge tax increases. I am here with many colleagues, who are so concerned about this for their constituents. I ask the Senator from Wyoming, who is one of the two physicians in the Senate--he has been so active in this area. When the taxes go up on our insurance premiums, our prescription drugs, and our medical equipment, I ask the Senator from Wyoming, as a physician, what does he think is going to happen to the cost of health care.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. The President said, in his address to the joint session of Congress, that this bill had to come in at a cost of no more than $900 billion. So the CBO scored the bill at $847 billion. But the Senator from Wyoming has brought up a point that is because they started scoring the bill in 2010, but the services in the bill don't start until 2014. If you take the years from 2010 to 2019, it probably comes in at $847 billion. But if you start when the spending starts and go to 2023, the cost is $2.5 trillion. I just ask the Senator from Nebraska if his constituents are hearing of this $2.5 trillion cost, with one-quarter of it coming from Medicare cuts and about one-quarter of it in new taxes that start next week. What does the Senator from Nebraska say about this?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Nebraska. I think having been a former Governor, his view is especially important. What we have heard through the grapevine--we haven't seen any new proposals, but we heard there is going to be an expansion of Medicare and an expansion of Medicaid. Medicaid, in particular, is going to be very costly to States because they have a matching requirement for Medicaid. Many Governors are concerned about that. I know the former Governor of Nebraska, in his background, realizes that is one of the biggest issues in a State's budget. I know the Senator from Florida also has experience with being in a Governor's office, being a chief of staff for a Governor. He has been very active, especially because the population of Florida has a very high rate of senior citizens. The cuts in Medicare in the bill are huge. He is on the Senate floor. I am just wondering, when we are looking at the cuts in Medicare and the huge taxes, how that will impact the State of Florida, and how he thinks we are going to have to deal with that.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am very pleased that the Senator from South Dakota talked about what we are trying to do because it is very simple. It is very simple. The Hutchison-Thune motion to commit says, if we do nothing else, if we do nothing else in this bill, we have to be fair and transparent with the American people; that is, we do not start the taxes, we do not start the increases in premiums, increases in prescription drug benefits, increases in medical devices until at least there is an implementation of this insurance program that we hear is going to be offered to the American people. We have not seen it, but we are told that there is going to be an insurance program that Americans can sign up for, but they are going to be paying higher taxes and premiums and costs in health care for 4 years before they ever see it. All we are saying is, let's send this bill back to committee and fix that. It does not--as the Senator from Nebraska said earlier--pass the smell test. It does not pass the smell test in Nebraska, Wyoming, Florida, Idaho, South Dakota, or Texas. To tax people for 4 years, to raise their costs until they basically are going to say, Give me an alternative, and the alternative is, guess what: A big government takeover of our health care system. That is like saying: I am from the Federal Government, and I am here to help you. We have heard that before. I do not think the American people will in any way believe that this bill is fair or honest with them if we start the taxes 22 days from now, as the Senator from South Dakota has pointed out, but they do not see a program. They are going to go online and say: Oh, my premiums are going up, my prescription drugs are going up; my goodness, where is the insurance program they have been talking about? They are going to go online, but, hey, there is no program. How can we go home--I ask any of the Senators who would like to add their perspective on this--how are you going to go home and tell your constituents that your taxes start in 22 days, and maybe in 4 years, roughly, maybe you are going to see a program, and we are from the Federal Government, and we are here to help you?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. How much time is left on our side?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Let me give the last 5 seconds to the Senator from South Dakota.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Reserving the right to object, I ask the Senator from Florida, it is 10 minutes and going back and forth. It is not 30 minutes allocated per side; is that correct?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. How much time remains on our side?