Floor Statements

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, following leader remarks, the Senate will resume consideration of the health care reform legislation. The first hour will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. The majority will control the first 30 minutes and the Republicans will control the next 30 minutes. We expect a vote in relation to the Hutchison motion to commit today, and the Sanders amendment. It is my understanding Senator Sanders will offer his amendment at around 11 o'clock today. They will both be pending. Senators will be notified as to when any votes are scheduled.

Mr. President, we continue making progress toward making it possible for every American to afford to live a healthy life. Senators continue to work together toward that goal because even though we may have differences of opinion on the details, we all share the strong belief in the differences we can make for the American people as it relates to their being healthy.

We all know our current system is beyond broken, and we know the citizens of this country demand that we fix it. We know this because they tell us--in letters, in phone calls, and visits we have at home, and we have not been going home very much, but certainly when we are able to get there. Those who oppose making health insurance more affordable and making health insurance companies more accountable would like you to believe that is not the case. But that is only propaganda by the insurance industry.

They want you to think the American people are happy when these greedy insurance companies deny health care to the sick and take away their coverage at the exact moment they need it the most.

They would like you to believe the American people do not mind hearing a multibillion-dollar company tell them: I am sorry you have diabetes. I am sorry you have a heart condition. But, also, it hurts my bottom line, so you are on your own.

These insurance companies and health care deliverers want you to believe that women gladly pay more than they should for the screenings they have to catch breast cancer, that men gladly pay more than they should to have the test to catch prostate cancer, and that seniors gladly pay much more than they should to get their prescription drugs.

Those who are trying to slow the Senate--and really the country--and stop reform want you to believe the American people do not mind paying hidden taxes to cover the uninsured, they do not mind the waste and fraud rampant in the health care system, and they do not mind losing their health insurance if they lose their job. But, simply, that is not true. That is not the case.

The people we represent--whether it is New Mexico, Montana; we have two from New Mexico, we have one from Michigan, one from Kentucky, Oklahoma--it does not matter what State you represent; there are stories.

Listen to what Mike Tracy, who lives in north Las Vegas, NV, said. His 26-year-old son has been an insulin-dependent diabetic since he was a baby. The insurance Mike's son gets through work will not cover his treatments, and the Tracys cannot afford to buy more coverage on their own.

But this family's troubles are about more than just money. Since they could not afford to treat their son's diabetes, it developed into something called Addison's disease--a disease that President Kennedy had. If you have money, you can treat the disease. If you do not, it is a very bad disease, likely could be fatal.

This is what Mike wrote me this past Friday.

I don't know what to pray for first: that I will die before

my son will so I don't have to bear the burden, or that I

outlive him so I can provide support to his family when he is

gone.

This should not be a choice for any American, and when given the chance to help people such as Mike, our choice should be easy.

Here is another example: Ellen O'Rourke wrote to me last Tuesday about her friends, the Hidalgos, who live in Incline Village, NV, a town on the shores of Lake Tahoe. The Hidalgos' 2-year-old daughter Lexie Mae has a cancer of the eye that could cost her vision or her life.

Lexie Mae's parents do not have health insurance and are counting on friends to help pay for their daughter's mounting medical bills. They are also counting on us to lower the cost of health care so they can afford their own. They work hard. They want health insurance. They cannot get it.

Another letter I got last week was from Elizabeth Parsons. She teaches music at an elementary school in Reno and volunteers after school at a dance and drama theater in town. She is 60 years old and wanted to retire at the end of this school year. But as she wrote me last Thursday.

Unfortunately that plan has been postponed indefinitely for

one reason only:

``one reason''--

I can't afford to retire because of the skyrocketing

increases in [my] health insurance.

Ms. Parsons has done a lot for her community. Now her country's leaders should do something for her: We should make sure her decision about whether to retire doesn't hinge on how expensive it is to keep her insurance.

A man named Walt Cousineau from Elko wrote me last Monday to tell me about his wife. She had a heart attack three Decembers ago. Health insurance companies are using that as an excuse to charge $2,000 a month for coverage, $25,000 a year. They call it a preexisting condition, a prior heart attack. She is not old enough yet for Medicare, but Walt is. He is 68. He had to go back to work so she could be put on his health insurance. Now Walt is asking us to go to work for him and asking us to make sure no one's health history can make staying healthy in the future more expensive.

Ken Hansen is from Mesquite, a town on the Arizona-Nevada border. He has chronic health problems and parts of his feet have been amputated. Ken can't go to a doctor because he makes too much to qualify for Medicaid and too little to afford private insurance. I wish to share with the Senate exactly what Ken wrote me:

I am very frustrated because my only hope is that I die

very soon because I can't afford to stay alive.

Those are his words--not my words--that his only hope is that he die. How can we look the other way? How can we possibly do nothing? This isn't about balance sheets or graphs or charts; it is not about contracts or fine print; it is not about politics or partisanship. This is about life and death in America.

Each story is more heartbreaking than the last. Each of these Nevadans has more than enough on his or her mind. Yet each of these citizens took time out of his or her day to beg their leaders to do something.

Mike Tracy, the father of the young man with diabetes and Addison's disease, ended his letter to me just a few days ago with this plea. Here is what he said:

Democrats need health care. Republicans need health care.

Independents need health care. All Americans need health

care. Get it done.

We can't let them down. We just can't let them down.

Those trying to kill this reform have made it clear they will do anything to stop us. They can recite recycled talking points until their hearts' content, but that is it. But as long as Mike Tracy's son might die from a disease we know how to treat, we can't let these

obstacles stand in our way. As long as Lexie Mae's parents have to borrow from their friends to take their daughter to the doctor, we can't take no for an answer. As long as Elizabeth Parsons can't afford to retire, Walt Cousineau can't afford to stay retired, and Ken Hansen says he can't afford to stay alive, we can't stop fighting for them.

Mr. President, on a final point, for some time now we Democrats have been trying to reform the estate tax to avoid the train wreck that is coming next month.

Because of the legislation passed by the Republicans in 2001, the estate tax is repealed for 2010--gone, nothing. But because of the gimmick they used to pass this legislation, the estate tax returns in 2011, and it does so at the levels that were in effect in 2001.

This chicanery has created a nightmare for families trying to plan their affairs.

We have proposed a responsible path forward toward curing the estate tax problem. We proposed to extend the current tax parameters so that in 2010 couples would be able to pass down up to $7 million completely tax free. An estate tax at that level exempts all but the wealthiest two-tenths of 1 percent of estates from paying any estate tax.

The other side has rejected this reasonable approach. Instead, they want to keep the Bush tax law in place for 2010 as originally designed.

The irony in the Republicans' position is, it hurts the very families--small business men, women, and family farmers--whom they claim they are trying to help.

The surprise facing family farms and family-owned small businesses in 2010 is that repeal of the estate tax will actually increase their tax liabilities. These are families who would never pay the estate tax because they don't have assets totaling more than $7 million for a couple.

So why do they face a tax increase? It has to do with a provision in the Tax Code called stepped-up basis. What does this mean? The assets of family-owned businesses are often in the form of unrealized capital gains, the appreciation of the family business over time. Right now, until the end of this year, December 31, these capital gains are forgiven when a person dies--no capital gains at death and for these families with less than $7 million there is no estate tax under current law. Therefore, for these families, death is not a taxable event.

The capital gains tax is forgiven because the heirs to the property receive a step up in its basis for measuring tax liability when they ultimately sell the property.

The law my Republican colleagues insist go into place next month repeals stepped-up basis.

The bargain my Republican colleagues are advancing is simple. If you are rich, celebrate. If you are not, you should be afraid. If you are very wealthy, you get a huge windfall from repeal of the estate tax. If you are modestly successful--say you have a shoe store, a service station, a small farm, or whatever small business--but not to the point where you are facing an estate tax liability, your heirs will, nonetheless, face a tax increase because of the repeal of the estate tax.

For the wealthiest families in this country, they say don't worry about that. The estate tax is gone. For many more small businesses, Republicans say that is too bad. All these years, as Republicans were using family farms and small businesses as props in their zeal to repeal the estate tax, their real goal was protecting the wealthiest of the wealthy. The unfortunate aspect of that campaign is that repeal of the estate tax, even for just 1 year, will come at the expense of family-owned farms and small businesses.

We asked, last night, and it will be asked again by the chairman of the Finance Committee, the senior Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, to extend the estate taxes that now exist, giving a couple an exemption of up to $7 million for 2 months while we work things out on that and a number of other issues, but that has been rejected by my friends on the other side of the aisle.

I repeat: If the estate tax lapses for a period at the beginning of 2010, this will be a boon for the wealthy, a huge drain on the U.S. Treasury and, more importantly, let me also note that tens of thousands of middle-class families could suffer. If the estate tax lapses, even for a short period, these families will be subject to capital gains when they sell their inherited or bequeathed property, a process that will be enormously complicated for families who have no estate tax or planning issues today. Although this could be retroactively eliminated, in the meantime the uncertainty and planning around this would affect a large number of families who ordinarily don't have to think about the estate tax.

I say to my friend, the chairman of the Finance Committee will do that.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

vote explanation

Madam President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate a message from the House with respect to H.R. 3326, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act.

Madam President, I move to concur in the House amendment, and I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Madam President, I move to concur in the House amendment with an amendment, which is at the desk.

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

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I have a motion to refer, with instructions, at the desk.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I have an amendment to my instructions at the desk.

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

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Madam President, I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.

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

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

It is my understanding that the Senator from Texas wishes to speak for up to 5 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that she be recognized, and following that Senator Durbin be recognized.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, following leader remarks, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 3590, the health reform bill. There will be 5 hours for debate prior to votes in relation to the following amendments and motion: Baucus, Crapo, Dorgan, Lautenberg. We can never determine for sure, Mr. President, but it appears the votes should start between 5 and 6 o'clock. The Senate will be in recess from 12:45 until 3:15 p.m. today for the weekly caucus luncheons.

Mr. President, following leader remarks, the Senate will proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each. The Republicans will control the first 30 minutes, the majority will control the next 30 minutes. We are still working on an agreement to line up votes that have been the subject of competing agreements with respect to the health care reform legislation. Pending is a Crapo motion, with a Baucus side-by-side on taxes; and a Dorgan amendment, with a Lautenberg alternative. So we have four amendments on which we need to try to work something out. That is not done yet, but as soon as it is worked out we will notify Senators of any scheduled votes.

Mr. President, every day we do not act, it gets more expensive to stay healthy in America.

If you are fortunate enough to have health insurance, this is not news to you. You have no doubt noticed your premiums have more than doubled in the last decade, even though the quality of your health care has not doubled--and that is an understatement.

If you are fortunate enough to have coverage, you might have noticed that you are paying at least an extra $1,000 a year to cover all of the other families who do not have health insurance.

Those with insurance know when premiums eat up a larger slice of their paychecks, they have less money to take home to their families. Those without insurance know the pain of skipping medicine or treatments or doctors visits because it simply costs too much to go to the doctor. Economists tell us if we do nothing, those costs will continue to climb and to climb. The economists tell us that without question, if we do not do something, the costs will continue to increase.

Very recently, the President's Council of Economic Advisers has crunched the numbers, and this respected group tells us the bill before the Senate will indeed keep health care costs down.

Lower costs are good for every American. It means more people who do not have insurance today will be able to afford it, and those who do have insurance will have more stability and security against losing it.

The White House's economists highlighted a number of other impressive effects of our bill. The amount our government spends on Medicare for our seniors and Medicaid for the underprivileged will be much less than if we do not act. Our Nation's deficit will be much lower than if we did not act. Health care costs in the private sector will be much lower than they would be if we did not act. And with this bill, American families' incomes will increase more than they would if we did not act. The same is true for job creation, small business growth, and our overall economy.

After all, health reform is economic reform. When you are not spending so much of your paycheck on premiums, you have more left to feed your family and to fuel our economy.

We also know a healthier workforce is a more productive workforce, and a more productive workforce means a healthier economy. Those are pretty good reasons to act and a pretty strong rebuttal against the strategy of doing nothing. This data proves once again what we have said from the start: this bill will save lives, save money, and save Medicare.

That is the reality, and that is why we are working to make it possible for every American to afford a shot at a healthy life. It is a goal that will make our economy stronger and make our citizens healthier. It is a goal with an eye to the future, to our children, one that appreciates the long-term effects of what we do.

The other side has a goal of its own--one that not only ignores the reality of the present but dismisses both the long-term benefits of acting and the long-term costs of doing nothing. Whereas we are working to slow the growth of health care costs, they are working to slow down the Senate. In fact, they would like to bring this body to a screeching halt.

But we will not let talking points meant to scare seniors and frighten families obscure the hard data that show just how unhealthy our health care system is. We will not be derailed by those who spend more time hoping for America's leaders to fail than they do helping the American people succeed. We will not be sidetracked by those who try to stop history in its tracks.

Mr. President, would the Chair now announce morning business.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to engage in a colloquy with the senior Senators from Connecticut and Montana.

Madam President, when the American people demanded last November and throughout this year that we make it possible for every American to afford to live a healthy life, they did so because they know from personal experience how broken our country's health care system is. As the Senate has worked to answer that call this year, we have drafted a bill that will save lives, save money, and save Medicare. Many aspects of the current bill achieve that goal. But there is one more thing we could do, closing the notorious gap that arbitrarily charges seniors in Nevada and throughout the Nation thousands and thousands of dollars for prescription drugs.

As seniors know all too well, the prescription drug plan is called Medicare Part D, and the coverage gap is commonly known as the doughnut hole. Right now Medicare will help seniors afford their prescription drugs only up to a certain annual dollar limit, $2,700 a year, then stop, then help it again only once their bills reach another much higher level, $6,100. So from $2,700 to $6,100, that is the notorious, bad doughnut hole. Between these two points, seniors are stuck with the full bill. Imagine if you had car insurance that covered you until you drove 2,700 miles in a given year, then stopped, then started covering you again once you hit 6,100 miles. From 2,700 to 6,100 miles would be pretty scary. That wouldn't work for drivers, and the doughnut hole doesn't work for seniors. The effects of this broken system are painfully simple. More and more seniors have to skip or split the pills they need to stay healthy. It means that in January someone will pay $35 to fill a prescription, but by October he or she could be asked to pay thousands of dollars for the very same pills.

I was at CVS a day or two ago to pick up some stuff for my wife at the prescription counter. They had on the counter there where you were waiting a list of the cost of all drugs. I didn't fully understand it, but I looked at it. Some had values of thousands of dollars to fill a prescription. The only one I saw--I didn't want to flip through the pages--but the one page, $9,800 for one prescription. I don't know if that was 30 pills or what, but it was striking.

If someone will pay $35 to fill a prescription, that is fairly inexpensive. But by October, he or she would be asked to pay thousands of dollars. That is what it is. It is not an uncommon problem. Millions of seniors, a quarter of all in the Part D Program, reach that no man's land during the year, the doughnut hole. But only a small fraction get to the other side. Both numbers will only get worse if we don't act. Not surprisingly, those caught in the middle don't take the medicine they need at far greater rates than those who do have coverage. Like we see with uninsured Americans of all ages, those who can't afford the treatments they need to get healthy will get even sicker. Down the road that means more expensive doctor visits, more expensive hospital stays, and more expensive medicines. It means more sickness and more death.

We have already taken the first steps to fix this in the current bill, closing the gap by half and by an additional $500 for 2010. Because I am committed to saving lives, saving money and saving Medicare, I personally am committed to fully closing the doughnut hole once and for all. Once we pass this bill out of the Senate, we will do so in the conference committee with the House, whose bill already closes the gap. The House legislation closes the doughnut hole. The legislation we will send to President Obama for signature will make good on his promise and ours to forever end this indefensible injustice for America's seniors.

Madam President, I wish to, if I could, ask my two colleagues, through the Chair, if it is their understanding that the President fully supports this action.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately after the opening of the Senate tomorrow, Tuesday, December 15, and following the leader time, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 3590, and there then be a period of 5 hours of debate, with the time divided as follows: 2 hours equally divided between Senators Baucus and Crapo or their designees and 2 hours equally divided between Senators Dorgan and Lautenberg or their designees, and 1 hour under the control of the Republican leader or his designee or designees; that during this debate time, it be in order for Senator Baucus to offer a side-by-side amendment to the Crapo motion to commit; and Senator Lautenberg be recognized to offer amendment No. 3156 as a side-by-side to the Dorgan- McCain amendment No. 2793, as modified; that no further amendments or motions be in order during the pendency of this agreement, except as noted in this agreement; that upon the use or yielding back of all time, the Senate then proceed to vote in relation to the aforementioned amendments and motion in this order: Baucus, Crapo, Lautenberg, and Dorgan, with each subject to an affirmative 60-vote threshold, and that if they achieve that threshold, then they be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that if they do not achieve that threshold, they be withdrawn; further, that the cloture motion with respect to the Crapo motion be withdrawn; provided further that upon disposition of the above-referenced amendments and motion, the next two Senators to be recognized to offer a motion and amendment be Senator Hutchison to offer a motion to commit regarding taxes and implementation and Senator Sanders to offer amendment No. 2837; that no amendments be in order to the Hutchison motion or the Sanders amendment; that upon their disposition, the majority leader be recognized.

Yes. And I say to my friend, either vote on them or have some kind of procedural motion.

Which I have no idea what it would be at this stage. But the answer is yes.

I would also say, I have spoken to the Senator's floor staff, and, as I indicated to the Republican leader, we have to be at the White House for a while tomorrow afternoon--we will give the Republican leader that time--for which we will probably have to be in recess because the whole caucus is called to go down there. But it is my desire to make sure we finish this tomorrow. I think that is to everyone's interest. That is what we are doing here, with 5 hours.

No. No. As I explained, again, to floor staff, I would like those to be offered tomorrow, but I think we would have a pretty good day's work if we have 5 hours of debate and then those four votes we have playing out.

Yes. I think we should be in recess.

The meeting is scheduled for 1 hour and 10 minutes.

I think it is at 1:30.

So, Mr. President, I am glad we finally got the balancing back and forth, unanimous consent request finally settled on these matters.

Mr. President, following leader remarks, the Senate will be in a period of morning business. Senators will be permitted to speak for 10 minutes each during that period. Republicans will control the first 30 minutes, and the majority will control the next 30 minutes. We will continue work on an agreement to vote in relation to the drug reimportation matter, the Crapo motion to commit, and the side-by-side to the Crapo motion. These amendments and the motion are with respect to H.R. 3590, the health insurance reform legislation.

Yesterday, we filed cloture on the bill we got from the House, the appropriations bill, H.R. 3288, which includes Commerce-Justice- Science, Military Construction, Labor-HHS, Transportation, financial services, State and Foreign Operations. We are going to have at least two rollcall votes on motions to waive with respect to the appropriations conference report today. Senators will be notified when these votes are scheduled.

I direct this question through the Chair to my friend from South Dakota. I offered a unanimous consent request yesterday evening that set up a schedule of votes on the Crapo motion and, of course, the Dorgan amendment. Last night, I was told the Republicans were not ready yet. I ask my friend, are the Republicans ready to vote?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.