[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 137 (Friday, September 25, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9861-S9863]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 3326, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3326) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and 
     for other purposes.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I submit pursuant to Senate rules a 
report, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Disclosure of Congressionally Directed Spending Items

       I certify that the information required by rule XLIV of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate related to congressionally 
     directed spending items has been identified in the committee 
     report which accompanies H.R. 3326 and that the required 
     information has been available on a publicly accessible 
     congressional website at least 48 hours before a vote on the 
     pending bill.

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                              Health Care

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for at least several months, Congress, as 
we

[[Page S9862]]

know, has been considering comprehensive health reform legislation 
written and moved through committees without bipartisan support. The 
Senate Finance Committee, now the last committee, is apparently 
considering a proposal that was originally believed to possibly garner 
bipartisan support. However, it has not. At the end of the day, the 
bill has ended up being divided along partisan lines.
  I agree that bipartisanship alone does not propose good legislation, 
but I can guarantee that partisan legislation pushed through Congress 
on artificial deadlines will not engender confidence or the support of 
the American people. Not one of the bills in the House or Senate 
committees has received a Republican legislator's vote--now they are 
counting on perhaps one--nor did any of the bills deserve the vote of 
any Member of Congress. I hope reason will prevail this week.
  Unfortunately, as written, the administration's and Senator Baucus's 
proposal does not warrant the support of the American people or Members 
of Congress. During the August recess we saw millions of Americans come 
to townhall meetings across this country and express their concerns. 
While some have dismissed these peaceful revolutionaries and impugned 
their motives, I believe these citizens should be listened to. This 
peaceful resolution is like nothing I have ever seen in my nearly 30 
years of elected office. Americans have made it abundantly clear they 
do not want government taking over their health care decisions. But, 
unfortunately, that is the reality of the proposals before the Senate 
Finance Committee and those that have already been passed. Senator 
Baucus's proposal is not any different. It increases or creates new 
government control in all aspects of our health care system, increases 
health care taxes, and makes cuts to Medicare that reduce benefits and 
weaken its fiscal health.
  The administration's bill being considered this week in the Finance 
Committee puts Washington in control of health insurance regulations by 
defining what is ``acceptable health insurance coverage'' and what 
Americans must pay for this coverage. Washington also seeks to tell 
Americans that they have no more than four insurance plan coverage 
levels available to them, the least costly of which would be more 
expensive than many individual and small group policies today.
  In addition, the proposal decides which health care industry should 
be taxed and then imposes billions in new taxes on them. There are new 
taxes on prescription drugs, there are new taxes on medical devices, 
there are new taxes on laboratory tests, and there are new taxes on 
insurance companies.
  The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed what we know: that 
these taxes will be passed on to the consumers and will drive up health 
insurance premiums, directly contradicting the goal all of us shared 
together. This week CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf in the Senate 
Finance Committee said:

       Our judgment is that that piece of legislation would raise 
     insurance premiums by roughly the amount of the money 
     collected.

  If there are some out there who are not concerned by this massive 
government expansion, here is the kicker. The tax increases start right 
away even though many coverage provisions do not begin for 4 years, 
making the real 10-year implementation cost between $1.5 and $2 
trillion. While it may seem to most Americans that reform is all about 
regulating health insurers and getting people covered, America's 
seniors who depend on Medicare would be wrong to assume their benefits 
will not be affected under the proposal that is being considered in the 
Senate Finance Committee.
  The administration's proposal under consideration in the Finance 
Committee cuts $500 billion from Medicare and allocates it to creating 
a new entitlement that we know taxes and costs too much. Instead of 
improving Medicare's financial stability, the proposal cuts nearly $120 
billion from hospitals serving Medicare patients, more than $40 billion 
from Medicare home health providers, and approximately $130 billion of 
the cuts come from Medicare Advantage.
  CBO confirmed the obvious--that taking $130 billion from Medicare 
Advantage is a cut in the extra benefits provided to seniors despite 
protestations that this is not a cut from the other side and from 
President Obama.
  From the Associated Press:

       Congress' Chief Budget Officer is contradicting President 
     Barack Obama's oft-stated claim that seniors would not see 
     their Medicare benefits cut under a health care overhaul.

  Candidate Obama campaigned to make this cut, but now we hear the 
other side twist themselves in circles trying to obscure the facts. 
Americans should understand what is in these proposals and make up 
their own minds. But the other side must not agree. Why else would 
Democrats vote down an amendment in the Senate Finance Committee that 
would have simply required the legislative language to be posted online 
for 72 hours before voting on the proposals? This is what happens when 
you do not have online or prior information concerning amendments.
  The Finance Committee passed a Democratic amendment earlier Wednesday 
by voice vote that they thought would have no impact on the bill's 
bottom line. Hours later, the committee staff learned from CBO that 
Senator Debbie Stabenow's amendment on foster care would actually cost 
$600 million. This is why we need to have cost estimates and online 
scrutiny not only by Members of Congress and their staffs but by the 
American people before we adopt amendments.
  Let me read from the press release issued by Senator Baucus this 
week:

       At the urging of Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max 
     Baucus, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services [known 
     as CMS] has cracked down on insurance compan[ies] . . . The 
     CMS investigation into the beneficiary letter was prompted by 
     a Baucus request.

  This is a press release issued by the office of the Senator from 
Montana himself. And what did Senator Baucus's urging result in? A gag 
order from the acting head of the CMS Center for Drug and Health Plan 
Choices. Shockingly, the CMS subgroup ordered health plans offering 
Medicare Advantage benefits to stop communicating with their members 
what the CBO tells us is true, that taking $130 billion from Medicare 
Advantage is a cut.
  Let's be clear. This is government-imposed restrictions on free 
speech. How is it that we have an agency of government telling a 
private corporation they are not free to express their opinions or 
views on anything the Congress does?
  So where does this leave us? The proposal expands failing Medicaid, 
increases government control in the health care of every American, and 
drives up premiums by raising taxes on health care and health 
insurance. Then the proposal forces you or your employer to purchase 
their more expensive insurance. But to hide the impact, we are going to 
subsidize some Americans for this more expensive coverage, and if they 
do not purchase this more expensive coverage, the proposal tells the 
IRS to come after them with new tax penalties.
  The recent poll this morning, published in various newspapers, shows 
there continues to be waning support and a lack of understanding of the 
President's proposal. I think that is perfectly logical because the 
President says: If you like your present health insurance, you can keep 
it. Then CBO determines, and others, if your employer provides you with 
health care benefits and chooses the government option, then you as the 
employee do not have the ability to keep your health insurance policy 
if you like it.
  So I think it is pretty clear the strategy of the administration is 
to try to ram something through the Senate and the House, rewrite it in 
conference, and certainly without Republican participation. I hope that 
is not the case.
  I look forward to continued discussion of this very vital issue for 
the American people on the floor of the Senate and in the various 
forums around the country. I intend to continue to have health care 
townhall meetings in my State as they have been very helpful both in 
informing my constituents and my constituents informing me.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.

[[Page S9863]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________