Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
THAT ISN'T HAPPENING TODAY.
MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE
FLOOR.
THE
SENATOR FROM ALABAMA.
MR. PRESIDENT, I
RISE IN STRONG AND VEHEMENT
SUPPORT OF SENATOR McCONNELL'S
BILL TO REPEAL THE HEALTH CARE
REFORM LAW AS NOW CONSTITUTED
AND WILL SUPPORT REPLACING IT
WITH REFORMS THAT TRULY PROVIDE
AMERICANS WITH ACCESS TO
QUALITY, AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE,
REDUCE SKYROCKETING HEALTH CARE
COSTS AND PUT OUR NATIONS ON A
MORE SUSTAINABLE FISCAL PATH.
THESE GOOD GOALS CAN BE
ACHIEVED, BUT THIS CURRENT BILL
DOES NOT DO IT.
I'M PLEASED TO SEE MY COLLEAGUES
SAY THEY WOULD ACCEPT SOME
AMENDMENTS, BUT THE JOHANNS
AMENDMENT HE MADE REFERENCE TO
WAS VOTED ON TWICE LAST YEAR,
AND WHEN THE DEMOCRATS HELD A
SIGNIFICANT MAJORITY IN THIS
BODY, THEY VOTED IT DOWN.
AFTER SEVEN NEW MEMBERS HAVE
BEEN ADDED, MANY OF THEM ELECTED
ON A PROMISE TO REPEAL THIS --
EVERY ONE, VIRTUALLY, ON A
PROMISE TO REPEAL THIS BILL, WE
NOW HAVE THE AGREEMENT TO CHANGE
THE 1099, WHICH IS ABOUT .01 OF
WHAT'S SIGNIFICANT ABOUT THIS
LEGISLATION.
INDEED, IF SENATOR SCOTT BROWN
HAD BEEN ELECTED A MONTH OR SO
SOONER, THE BILL WOULDN'T HAVE
PASSED AS IT DID ON DECEMBER 24,
THE DAY BEFORE CHRISTMAS.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE NEVER
SUPPORTED THIS BILL.
POLLING NUMBERS SHOWS THEY STILL
DO NOT SUPPORT THIS BILL.
THE DEMOCRATIC HEALTH CARE
LEGISLATION WAS SOLD AS A
PACKAGE THAT WOULD REDUCE
INSURANCE PREMIUMS BY $2,500 PER
FAMILY.
WE WERE TOLD THAT REPEATEDLY.
IT WOULD TRIM THE FEDERAL
DEFICIT, REDUCE THE DEFICIT AND
IMMEDIATELY CREATE 400,000 NEW
JOBS.
SADLY, NONE OF THESE PROMISES
HAVE BEEN MET, THEY WERE ALL
THEY WERE ATTACKED ON THIS FLOOR
BY PEOPLE WHO WERE
SOPHISTICATED, AND THEY POINTED
OUT HOW THESE MATTERS WERE NOT
GOING TO BE ACHIEVED AND THEY
HAVE NOT.
THEY WERE FALSE THEN AND THEY'RE
FALSE NOW.
THE NEW HEALTH CARE LAW WILL
CAUSE HEALTH CARE SPENDING TO
RISE OVER THE NEXT DECADE.
AMERICANS WILL SEE DRAMATIC
INCREASES IN THEIR PREMIUMS.
THAT IS A FACT.
THE FEDERAL DEFICIT WILL
INCREASE BY AN ADDITIONAL
ADDITIONAL $700 BILLION.
THIS BILL DOES NOT REDUCE THE
DEFICIT, AND THE LAW'S EXPENSIVE
MANDATES, PENALTIES AND TAX
HIKES WILL LEAD TO JOB LOSSES
AND LAYOFFS THAT WILL DAMAGE OUR
ECONOMY.
THE LAST THING WE NEED TO DO NOW
IS TO HAVE EMPLOYERS LAY OFF
PEOPLE BECAUSE OF SURGING HEALTH
CARE COSTS, AS IS HAPPENING.
TALK TO SMALL BUSINESSES IN YOUR
COMMUNITIES.
AS OUR NATION'S RECKLESS FISCAL
POLICY AND SURGING DEBT BRINGS
US EVER CLOSER TO A TIPPING
POINT, A DEBT CRISIS THAT COULD
DAMAGE OUR COUNTRY SUBSTANTIALLY
AS IT HAS OTHERS AROUND THE
WORLD.
RESPECTED ECONOMISTS HAVE
STRESSED THE NEED FOR CONGRESS
TO REDUCE FEDERAL SPENDING AND
CONTAIN MOUNTING HEALTH CARE
LOSSES, BUT RATHER THAN TACKLE
THESE PROBLEMS THAT THREATEN THE
LONG-TERM STABILITY OF OUR
NATION, NEW -- NATION'S NEW
HEALTH CARE LAW EXACERBATES A
FISCAL CRISIS BY CREATING A NEW
OPEN-ENDED ENTITLEMENT, A
MONUMENTAL NEW ENTITLEMENT
PROGRAM.
INTRODUCING $2.6 TRILLION IN NEW
SPENDING.
TELL ME HOW WE CAN SPEND
SPEND $2.6 TRILLION AND NOT
INCREASE SPENDING IN OUR
COUNTRY.
ENTITLEMENTS TODAY ARE HAMMERING
OUR BUDGET.
THEY ARE SURGING OUR DEFICIT.
THINGS.
THE LAST THING WE NEED TO DO IS
CREATE A NEW ENTITLEMENT THAT'S
NOT GOING TO BE CONTAINED IN ITS
SPENDING.
AND ACCORDING TO THE
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, OUR
OFFICIAL ANALYST, THE NEW HEALTH
CARE LAW, OUR OWN GROUP, THE
C.B.O., APPOINTED BY THE
DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY, SAYS THAT
THE HEALTH CARE LAW WILL CAUSE
INSURANCE PREMIUMS IN THE
INDIVIDUAL MARKET TO SOAR BY
10-14%.
FOR AMERICAN FAMILIES,
TRANSLATING IT INTO A $2,100
INCREASE IN THEIR COSTS FOR
PURCHASING HEALTH CARE COVERAGE
BY 2016.
THAT'S HUGE.
ANOTHER $2,100?
THAT'S A STUNNING DEVELOPMENT
AND IS EXACTLY OPPOSITE OF THE
PROMISES OF THE BILL.
C.B.O. SCORED THAT.
TOTAL HEALTH CARE SPENDING IN
THE UNITED STATES CONSUMES
ALREADY 17.3% OF G.D.P. AND WE
HIGH.
IT'S THE LARGEST OF ANY
WORLD.
BUT UNDER THIS NEW LAW, THE
NATIONAL HEALTH CARE SPENDING
WILL APPROACH 20% OF G.D.P. BY
THE END OF THIS DECADE.
THIS IS THE BUDGET COMMITTEE
SCORING CHAIRED BY THE
DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY IN THE -- IN
THE CONGRESS.
SADLY, MANY SUPPORTERS OF THE
PERPETUATE THE MYTH THAT
REPEALING THIS LAW WOULD
INCREASE THE DEFICIT.
MY FRIEND, SENATOR SCHUMER SAID,
REPEAL THE LAW AND THE DEFICIT
WILL GO UP.
A THOROUGH EXAMINATION OF THE
LAW PULLS BACK THE CURTAIN TO
EXPOSE THE DECEPTIVE BUDGET
GIMMICKS ON HOW THAT IS STATED
AND REVEAL THE TRUE COST.
THE DOUBLE COUNTED -- FIRST, OUR
DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES DOUBLE
COUNTED $398 BILLION IN MEDICARE
COSTS AND TAXES, $29 BILLION IN
SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES,
$70 BILLION IN NEW LONG-TERM
HEALTH CARE PREMIUMS TO PAY FOR
THE NEW HEALTH CARE SPENDING.
DOUBLE COUNTED MONEY.
IT'S THE LARGEST FALSE
ACCOUNTING SCHEME I SUPPOSE IN
THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.
THINK I'M EXAGGERATING?
DECEMBER 23, THE NIGHT BEFORE
THIS BUDGET -- THIS HEALTH CARE
BILL WAS FINALLY PASSED 60-40 --
60 DEMOCRATS, 40 REPUBLICANS
"NO" -- I CALLED THE
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,
MR. ELMENDORF, SELECTED BY OUR
DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES TO BE THE
BUDGET DIRECTOR, AND THIS IS
WHAT HE SAID.
"THE KEY POINT IS THAT SAVINGS
TO THE H.I." -- THAT'S THE
HOSPITAL INSURANCE TRUST FUND OF
MEDICARE UNDER THE HEALTH CARE
BILL "WOULD BE RECEIVED BY THE
GOVERNMENT ONLY ONCE, SO THEY
CANNOT BE SET ASIDE TO PAY FOR
FUTURE MEDICARE SPENDING AND AT
THE SAME TIME PAY FOR CURRENT
SPENDING ON THE OTHER PARTS OF
THE LEGISLATION OR ON OTHER
PROGRAMS."
THIS MONEY IT WAS CUTTING
MEDICARE BENEFITS, RAISING
MEDICARE TAXES, THEY DIDN'T USE
THE MONEY TO STRENGTHEN
MEDICARE, WHICH WAS HEADING TO
INSOLVENCY, THEY TOOK THE MONEY
AND SPENT IT ON A NEW PROGRAM.
ACTUALLY, THEY BORROWED THE
MONEY FROM MEDICARE AND THAT'S
HOW THEY GOT IT.
IT WASN'T THE TREASURY'S MONEY
TO SPEND ON A NEW PROGRAM.
AND THE WAY THEY SCORED IT, IT
DOUBLE COUNTED THE MONEY.
THAT'S HOW -- IT'S THIS MONEY
THAT THEY'RE COUNTING TO SAY
THAT THIS BILL IS -- ACTUALLY
CREATES A SURPLUS.
WITHOUT THIS MONEY, THERE'S NO
SURPLUS.
SINCE MEDICARE IS GOING INTO
DEFICIT, THEY ARE GOING TO CALL
THEIR DEBT INSTRUMENTS, THEIR
BONDS FROM THE TREASURY AS THEY
GO INTO DEFICIT.
BY THE WAY, THE U.S. TREASURY
PAYS MEDICARE INTEREST ON THE
MONEY THEY BORROWED FROM THEM TO
START THIS NEW PROGRAM.
AND SOON THAT MONEY IS GOING TO
BE GONE AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
TO BORROW MONEY ON THE OPEN
MARKET TO FUND THIS NEW
ENTITLEMENT.
AND THE NEW ENTITLEMENT'S GOING
TO COST FAR MORE THAN IS
CURRENTLY ESTIMATED.
OVER THE TEN-YEAR BUDGET WINDOW,
THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
SAYS THE NEW LAW --
THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
REPORTS POINT OUT HOW THE LAW
WAS DOCTORED TO START CERTAIN
REVENUE ENHANCEMENTS, TAXES AND
SO FORTH NOW BUT ONLY STARTING
THE EXPENDITURE PROGRAMS IN 2014
2014.
WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT?
WELL, THEY LOOKED AT -- THEY GOT
A SCORE FROM C.B.O. OF WHAT IT
WOULD COST OVER TEN YEARS.
SO YOU GET INCOME FOR TEN AND
YOU GET EXPENDITURES FOR SIX, IT
LOOKS PRETTY -- MIGHT LOOK
PRETTY GOOD.
THAT, PLUS THE DOUBLE COUNTING
OF THE MONEY AND SEVERAL OTHER
THAT'S HOW THEY SAY THIS IS
CREATING A SURPLUS.
IT IS NOT A SURPLUS.
AS THE RANKING MEMBER ON THE
BUDGET COMMITTEE, I AM STUNNED
CHALLENGING OUR CURRENT
FINANCIAL SITUATION IS.
WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT
IT.
WE NEED THE PRESIDENT TO HELP US
HE'S NOT DOING SO, SO IT LOOKS
LIKE CONGRESS MAY BE HAVING TO
DEAL WITH IT.
BUT FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE
C.B.O., DOUGLAS HOLDS DOUGLAS HOLTZ-AIKEN,
COWROTE AN ARTICLE IN THE "WALL
STREET JOURNAL" IN JANUARY THAT
ELIMINATES ANY CONFUSION ABOUT
THE LAW'S IMPACT.
I'M DISAPPOINTED THAT MEMBERS OF
OUR SENATE ARE STILL COMING DOWN
HERE TO SUCCESS -- TO SUGGEST
THAT REPEAL OF THIS LAW IS GOING
TO ADVERSELY IMPACT OUR DEFICIT.
I'M STUNNED THAT THAT WOULD
CONTINUE TO BE SAID.
THIS IS WHAT MR. HOLTZ-AIKEN, A
HIGHLY RESPECTED INDIVIDUAL
SAID, IN THE "WALL STREET
JOURNAL" IN JANUARY.
THE ARTICLE IS ENTITLED, "HEALTH
DEFICIT."
HE SAYS THIS -- QUOTE -- "REPEAL
IS THE LOGICAL FIRST STEP TOWARD
RESTORING FISCAL SANITY."
FISCAL SANITY.
HE GOES ON, HOW, THEN, DOES THE
AFFORDABLE CARE --
HE GOES ON, "HOW, THEN, DOES THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT MAGICALLY
CONVERT $1 TRILLION IN NEW
SPENDING INTO PAINLESS DEFICIT
REDUCTION?
IT'S ALL ABOUT BUDGET GIMMICKS,
DECEPTIVE ACCOUNTING,
IMPLAUSIBLE ASSUMPTIONS USED TO
CREATE THE FALSE IMPRESSION OF
FISCAL DISCIPLINE.
REPEAL IS NOT A BUDGET BUSTER.
KEEPING THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
IS."
CLOSED QUOTE, MR. HOLTZ-AIKEN,
FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE.
THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
HOLTZAND IT'S A STUNNING THING.
A POLL BY THE KAISER FOUNDATION
AND HARVARD UNIVERSITY RELEASED
LAST WEEK REVEALED THAT THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SEEING
THROUGH THESE PLOYS.
THEY'VE HEARD THESE TALK ABOUT
THEY'RE NOT BUYING IT.
60% OF THE COUNTRY BELIEVES THE
HEALTH CARE LAW WILL INCREASE
THE DEFICIT OVER THE NEXT TEN
YEARS WHILE ONLY 11% THINK IT
WILL LOWER THE DEFICIT SO
WOULD YOU?
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOT
GOING TO BUY THIS ARGUMENT.
I WISH IT WOULD NOT BE REPEATED
BUT THE PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO
SAY IT HIMSELF.
CLEARLY, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
ONCE AGAIN SHOWED THAT THEY ARE
WISER THAN OUR -- THAN THEIR
INSTANCES.
AND THE FINAL POINT I'D LIKE TO
MAKE ABOUT THE HEALTH CARE LAW
IS ITS DEBILITATING IMPACT ON
JOBS, THE EXPENSIVE MANDATES AND
PENALTIES INCLUDED IN THE HEALTH
CARE LAW COUPLED WITH RISING
COSTS OF INSURANCE FACING
FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES ARE
COSTING US JOBS RIGHT NOW.
AND THEY'RE DOING -- WILL DO SO
MORE IN THE FUTURE.
I WOULD JUST ADD, MR. PRESIDENT,
I HAD MEETINGS WITH SMALL
BUSINESS GROUPS IN PHOENIX CITY,
ALABAMA, AND JASPER, ALABAMA, 10
OR 15 INDIVIDUALS.
EVERY ONE OF THEM TOLD ME
WITHOUT QUESTION THIS HEALTH
CARE LAW WOULD CAUSE THEM TO
REDUCE EMPLOYMENT.
WE DO NOT NEED TO BE REDUCING
EMPLOYMENT.
WE NEED TO BE INCREASING
EMPLOYMENT.
THIS BILL IS A JOB KILLER.
IT'S INDISPUTABLE.
OVER 6,000 PAGES OF LEGISLATION
AND REGULATIONS REGULATIONS ADD TO THAT.
ECONOMIC ESTIMATES INDICATE THAT
REPEALING THE LAW THAT THREATENS
OUR ECONOMIC RECOVERY WOULD SAVE
700,000 JOBS.
IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT CONGRESS
DOES REPEAL THIS LAW.
YES, WE NEED TO START AND
CONTINUE TO WORK ON THINGS WE
HAD ALREADY AGREED ON, LIKE
PREEXISTING CONDITION ILLNESS --
PREEXISTING ILLNESS, INTERSTATE
COMPETITION OF HEALTH PREMIUMS,
A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE ALL
AGREED ON AND COULD AGREE ON TO
MAKE HEALTH CARE BETTER.
LET'S DO ON THOSE THINGS.
LET'S NOT HAVE A MASSIVE FEDERAL
ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM FUNDED BY
DUBIOUS GIMMICKS IMPOSED ON THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE AGAINST THEIR
WILL, DAMAGING TO THE AMERICAN
ECONOMY.
WE CANNOT DO THAT.
AND IT WILL BE REPEALED, IN MY
VIEW.
THE -- SO, MR. PRESIDENT, I KNOW
MY TIME IS UP.
I WOULD JUST CONCLUDE BY SAYING
WE HAD A NEW ELECTION.
A LOT OF PEOPLE TOOK THAT ISSUE
TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
I THINK THEIR VOICE WAS CLEAR.
THEY'RE NOT HAPPY WITH CONGRESS
WHO DO NOT LISTEN TO THEM AND
PASSED THE BILL AGAINST THEIR
WISHES, AND THEY EXPECT CONGRESS
TO RECONSIDER IT AND CHANGE IT
AND LIMB MATE IT AND START OVER
WITH LEGISLATION -- ELIMINATE IT
AND START OVER WITH LEGISLATION
THAT WILL WORK.
THEIR MESSAGE IS CLEAR AND
THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT
SENATOR McCONNELL'S
LEGISLATION.
I WOULD YIELD THE FLOOR.
THE
SENATOR FROM VERMONT.
MR. PRESIDENT, IT
IS VERY HARD FOR ME TO
UNDERSTAND HOW ANYONE COULD BE
VOTING TO REPEAL THE ENTIRE
HEALTH CARE BILL, BECAUSE WHEN
YOU DO THAT, AMONG OTHER THINGS,
WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS THAT WE
WILL CONTINUE THE ODIOUS
PRACTICE OF DENYING HEALTH CARE
BY INSURANCE COMPANIES TO PEOPLE
WHO HAVE PREEXISTING CONDITIONS.
NOW, FOR EIGHT YEARS UNDER
PRESIDENT BUSH, MORE AND MORE
PEOPLE LOST THEIR HEALTH
INSURANCE, THE COST OF HEALTH
CARE SOARED, AND OUR REPUBLICAN
FRIENDS HAD VIRTUALLY NOTHING TO
SAY ON HEALTH CARE.
NOW THAT A BILL HAS BEEN PASSED,
WHICH I AM THE FIRST TO AGREE IS
NOT THE BEST BILL THAT WE COULD
HAVE PASSED -- AND I WILL TELL
YOU WHY -- IT HAS ITS SHARE OF
REMEDIED.
BUT TO SAY RIGHT NOW, WHEN
50 MILLION AMERICANS HAVE NO
HEALTH INSURANCE, WHEN STATES
ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY ARE
WRESTLING WITH HUGE BUDGET
DEFICITS WHICH NO DOUBT WILL
RESULT IN MILLIONS MORE BEING
THROWN OFF OF HEALTH INSURANCE,
TO SAY WE SHOULD RETREAT TO
WHERE WE WERE IS BEYOND
COMPREHENSION.
SECOND OF ALL, FOR MY REPUBLICAN
FRIENDS TO SAY LET'S REPEAL
HEALTH CARE, THERE ARE MILLIONS
OF FAMILIES THAT NOW ARE
BEGINNING TO BE ABLE TO INCLUDE
WITHIN THEIR OWN HEALTH CARE
PLANS THEIR SONS AND DAUGHTERS
UP TO THE AGE OF 26.
GOODBYE TO THAT.
FURTHERMORE, IN A NATION WHICH
ENDS UP SPENDING MORE ON HEALTH
CARE -- ALMOST DOUBLE PER
PERSON -- COMPARED TO ANY OTHER
NATION ON EARTH, WE HAVE PUT IN
THE HEALTH CARE REFORM BILL
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR DISEASE
PREVENTION.
WE ARE AS A NATION VERY WEAK IN
TERMS OF TRYING TO KEEP PEOPLE
HEALTHY, TRYING TO KEEP THEM OUT
OF THE HOSPITAL.
WE SPEND A FORTUNE ON PEOPLE
AFTER THEY'RE SICK.
IN THIS BILL, WE HAVE MADE SOME
SIGNIFICANT STEPS FORWARD IN
TERMS OF DISEASE PREVENTION.
WELLNESS, WHICH IS VERY, VERY
COST-EFFECTIVE IN TERMS OF
HEALTH CARE DOLLARS, NOT TO
MENTION -- NOT TO MENTION HUMAN
PAIN AND SUFFERING.
IN THAT REGARD, I'M PROUD TO
HAVE WORKED WITH A NUMBER OF
OTHER SENATORS IN DOUBLING IN
THAT BILL THE NUMBER OF
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS IN
AMERICA WHICH WAS PROVIDING THE
MOST COST-EFFECTIVE PRIMARY
HEALTH CARE THAT IS PROVIDED IN
THIS COUNTRY, KEEPING PEOPLE OUT
OF EMERGENCY ROOMS, KEEPING
PEOPLE OUT OF HOSPITALS, GIVING
THEM ACCESS TO PRIMARY HEALTH
CARE, DENTAL CARE, LOW-COST
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, AND MENTAL
HEALTH COUNSELING.
IN THE MIDST OF AN EXTRAORDINARY
CRISIS IN TERMS OF PRIMARY
HEALTH CARE, WHERE EVERYBODY
RECOGNIZES WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH
PRIMARY HEALTH CARE DOCTORS OR
NURSES OR TEB NITIONS -- OR
TECHNICIANS, WE TRIPLED FUNDING
FOR THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
CORPS AND IT IS ALREADY WORKING
EFFECTIVELY IN GETTING DOCTORS
AND DENTISTS AND NURSES AND
UNDERSERVED AREAS.
ALL OF THAT WOULD BE UNDONE AND
I THINK THAT MAKES NO SENSE
WHATSOEVER.
NOW, TO MY MIND, WHAT WE HAVE TO
DO IS NOT TO REPEAL THIS BILL
BUT TO MAKE IT A BETTER BILL,
AND I WILL GIVE YOU ONE VERY
SPECIFIC SUGGESTION THAT I HAVE
WORKED ON NOW FOR OVER A YEAR.
SENATOR WYDEN HAS WORKED ON THIS
THIS, OTHERS HAVE WORKED ON THAT
AND THAT IS TO SAY THAT IF A
STATE IN THIS COUNTRY, THE STATE
OF VERMONT, THE STATE OF ALASKA,
ANY OTHER STATE, CAN MAINTAIN
THE HIGH STANDARDS FOR QUALITY
HEALTH CARE AND COVERAGE, THAT
THE NATIONAL HEALTH CARE BILL
DID, THEN THAT STATE SHOULD BE
GIVEN SIGNIFICANT FLEXIBILITY TO
PERHAPS DO IT IN THEIR OWN WAY
AND DO IT MORE COST-EFFECTIVELY.
AND I SHOULD TELL YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT, THAT IN THE STATE
OF VERMONT, OUR NEW GOVERNOR IS
A SUPPORTER OF A
PROGRAM.
THERE ARE OTHER STATES THAT TO
WANT MOVE IN A DIFFERENT
DIRECTION, MAINTAINING HIGH
STANDARDS BUT DOING IT, PERHAPS,
IN A DIFFERENT WAY THAN HAS BEEN
PROPOSED BY THE NATIONAL
IN MY VIEW, THEY SHOULD HAVE
THAT RIGHT.
AND IF VERMONT IS EFFECTIVE IN
DOING WHAT I BELIEVE WE COULD --
PROVIDING HEALTH CARE TO ALL OF
OUR PEOPLE IN A COST-EFFECTIVE
WAY -- I SUSPECT OTHER STATES
AROUND THE COUNTRY CAN LEARN
FROM VERMONT'S EXPERIENCE.
I THINK THAT IS A POSITIVE STEP
FORWARD
THE BEAUTY OF OUR FEDERALIST
SYSTEM, 50 STATES, EVERY STATE
HAS A GOOD IDEA.
I THINK IF WE MAINTAIN STANDARDS
THAT ARE HIGH AND GIVE STATES
FLEXIBILITY, THIS CAN IMPROVE
THE HEALTH CARE REFORM BILL THAT
WE PASSED LAST YEAR.
BUT KILLING THIS WHOLE BILL
MAKES NO SENSE TO ME AT ALL.
MR. PRESIDENT, I ALSO WANTED TO
SAY A WORD ON AN ISSUE WHICH IS
GETTING MORE AND MORE ATTENTION,
AND THAT IS SOCIAL SECURITY.
IN MY VIEW, SOCIAL SECURITY HAS
PROVEN ITSELF TO BE THE MOST
SUCCESSFUL SOCIAL PROGRAM IN
AMERICAN HISTORY.
OVER A 75-YEAR PERIOD -- AND
THIS IS REALLY EXTRAORDINARY.
WE TAKE IT FOR GRANTED BUT IT IS
AN EXTRAORDINARY SUCCESS STORY.
IN GOOD TIMES AND IN BAD TIMES,
SOCIAL SECURITY HAS PAID OUT
EVERY NICKEL OWED TO EVERY
ELIGIBLE AMERICAN, AND IT DOES
THAT IN A MINIMAL ADMINISTRATIVE
COST.
MR. PRESIDENT, DESPITE ITS
STRONG RECORD OF SUCCESS OVER
THE LAST 75 YEARS, SOCIAL
SECURITY NOW FACES UNPRECEDENTED
ATTACKS FROM WALL STREET FROM
MANY OF MY REPUBLICAN FRIENDS,
FROM SOME DEMOCRATS.
AND I HAVE TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT
IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOT
PREPARED TO STAND UP AND FIGHT
BACK, WE COULD BEGIN TO SEE THE
DISMANTLING OF SOCIAL SECURITY
THIS VERY YEAR.
MR. PRESIDENT, LET ME JUST CITE
THE FACTS WITH REGARD TO SOCIAL
SECURITY.
I KNOW WHEN WE WATCH TV TONIGHT
THERE WILL BE SOME GUY UP THERE
SAYING SOCIAL SECURITY HAS GONE
SOCIAL SECURITY IS COLLAPSING.
AND THAT IS ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE.
THERE HAS BEEN A SIGNIFICANT
AMOUNT OF MISSTATEMENTS
REGARDING SOCIAL SECURITY.
HERE ARE THE FACTS THAT NOBODY
DENIES, NOBODY DENIES.
NUMBER ONE, ACCORDING TO THE
LATEST REPORT OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, SOCIAL
SECURITY WILL BE ABLE TO PAY OUT
100% OF ALL BENEFITS OWED TO
EVERY ELIGIBLE AMERICAN FOR THE
NEXT 26 YEARS.
YOU TELL ME HOW A SYSTEM IS
GOING BANKRUPT.
WE'VE GOT A LOT OF PROBLEMS IN
THIS GOVERNMENT, AND OUR COUNTRY
FACES ENORMOUS PROBLEMS.
BUT WHEN YOU CAN PAY OUT EVERY
BENEFIT OWED TO EVERY ELIGIBLE
AMERICAN FOR THE NEXT 26 YEARS,
DO NOT TELL ME THIS IS A PROGRAM
IN CRISIS OR GOING BANKRUPT.
AND AFTER 2037, SOCIAL SECURITY
WILL BE ABLE TO PAY OUT 78% OF
PROMISED BENEFITS.
DO WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT
OVER THE NEXT 26 YEARS?
YES, WE DO.
BUT IT IS NOT CRISIS.
AND THIS SENATOR WILL DO
EVERYTHING THAT HE CAN TO OPPOSE
ANY EFFORT TOWARD PRIVATIZATION,
ANY EFFORT TO RAISE THE
RETIREMENT AGE, ANY EFFORT TO
LOWER BENEFITS.
SECOND POINT: EVERYBODY IS
CONCERNED ABOUT THE DEFICIT
CRISIS THAT WE FACE, $14
TRILLION NATIONAL DEBT.
AND HOW MUCH HAS SOCIAL SECURITY
CRYPTED TO THE DEFICIT AND
THE -- CONTRIBUTED TO THE
DEFICIT AND THE NATIONAL DEBT?
HOW MUCH?
WELL, NOT ONE PENNY.
NOT ONE HALF A PENNY.
SOCIAL SECURITY IS FUNDED BY THE
PAYROLL TAX.
SOCIAL SECURITY HAS A $2.6
TRILLION SURPLUS.
THAT SURPLUS WILL GO UP.
AND TO ATTACK SOCIAL SECURITY
BECAUSE OF THE DEFICIT CRISIS IS
GROSSLY UNFAIR.
YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY THE DEFICIT
WENT UP?
WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A
RECESSION.
WE FOUGHT TWO WARS IN
AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ, FORGOT TO
PAY FOR THOSE WARS.
GAVE HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS
DOLLARS IN TAX BREAKS TO THE
WEALTHY, BAILED OUT WALL STREET,
MEDICARE PART-D PRESCRIPTION
DRUG PROGRAM WRITTEN BY THE
INSURANCE COMPANIES, ALL
UNFUNDED.
THOSE ARE THE REASONS WHY YOU
HAVE A DEFICIT.
SOCIAL SECURITY HAS NOTHING TO
DO WITH IT.
SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IN THE
MIDST OF ALL OF THIS FINANCIAL
INSTABILITY THAT'S OUT THERE,
WITH THE MIDDLE CLASS SHRINKING
AND POVERTY INCREASING AND
PEOPLE REALLY WORRIED ABOUT
THEIR RETIREMENT YEARS, ONE OF
THE MOST SIGNIFICANT THINGS THAT
WE AS A CONGRESS CAN DO IS STAND
UP AND SAY WE ARE THERE.
WE'RE GOING TO PROTECT SOCIAL
WE AIN'T GOING TO CUT IT AND
WE'RE GOING TO MAKE IT STRONGER
SO WHILE IT HAS DONE A GREAT JOB
FOR THE LAST 75 YEARS, IT WILL
CONTINUE TO DO A GOOD JOB FOR
THE NEXT 75 YEARS.
WITH THAT, MR. PRESIDENT, I
WOULD YIELD THE FLOOR.
THE
SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA.
MR. PRESIDENT.
I RISE IN STRONG SUPPORT.
McCONNELL AMENDMENT 13 THAT
WOULD COMPLETELY REPEAL
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S, IN MY VIEW,
UNCONSTITUTIONAL HEALTH CARE
OF COURSE I WAS AN ACTIVE
PARTICIPANT IN THE DEBATE IN THE
LAST CONGRESS ABOUT OBAMACARE
AND FOUGHT THAT TOOTH AND NAIL.
THE DAY AFTER IT PASSED INTO
LAW, I INTRODUCED A FREESTANDING
MEASURE TO REPEAL IT COMPLETELY.
THE FIRST DAY OF THIS NEW
CONGRESS THAT I COULD FILE
BILLS, I REINTRODUCED THAT
MEASURE.
AND OF COURSE, FOR ALL THOSE
REASONS, CERTAINLY SUPPORT THIS
AMENDMENT THAT ACCOMPLISHES THAT
IMPORTANT GOAL.
LET ME BEGIN BY RESPONDING TO MY
DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUE FROM
VERMONT'S SUGGESTION.
EVERYBODY WHO WANTS TO REPEAL
THIS LAW, INCLUDING ME, WE DON'T
WANT TO DO AWAY WITH THE IDEA
THAT YOU SHOULDN'T BE SHOVED OFF
INSURANCE BECAUSE OF PREEXISTING
YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE PORTABILITY.
YOU SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO MEET
THOSE OBLIGATIONS.
WE DON'T THINK THAT AT ALL.
WE ARE, HOWEVER, FOR COMPLETE
REPEAL FOR A VERY SIMPLE REASON.
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS BILL,
WHAT'S WRONG WITH OBAMACARE
ISN'T ONE DETAIL HERE AND ONE
COMMA THERE.
PLAN.
IT'S AT THE HEART OF THE PLAN.
IT'S THE ESSENTIALS.
IT'S THE CORE OF THE PLAN.
WE CAN AND SHOULD AND MUST PASS
SIGNIFICANT REFORMS LIKE
PROTECTION FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH
PREEXISTING CONDITIONS.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE INTRODUCED
THOSE MEASURES.
WE HAVE ADVOCATED THOSE MEASURES
IN A TARGETED WAY.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN OR
SHOULD OR MUST PRESERVE THE
WHOLE OF OBAMACARE WHICH HAS
SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS AT THE CORE
OF THAT TKPWAR -- GARGANTUAN
BILL.
LET ME MENTION FOUR OF THOSE
VIEW.
FIRST IS MAYBE MOST FUNDAMENTAL,
MOST BASIC; THAT IS THERE ARE
IMPORTANT ELEMENTS AT THE CORE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
AND EVEN IF THEY WEREN'T
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THEY WOULD BE
UNWISE BECAUSE THEY ARE A
DRAMATIC EXPANSION OF THE POWER
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
THE MOST OBVIOUS IS AN ABSOLUTE
MANDATE IN THE BILL.
A MANDATE FROM YOUR FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT THAT EVERY MAN,
WOMAN, AND CHILD IN THE UNITED
STATES MUST BUY HEALTH
NOW THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED.
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A MANDATE
LIKE THAT FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT OR ANY LEVEL OF
GOVERNMENT.
THERE'S NEVER BEEN THIS FORCED
PURCHASING OF A PRODUCT IN THE
PRIVATE MARKETPLACE.
SOME PEOPLE BRING UP THE
COMPARISON WITH CAR INSURANCE,
BUT THAT'S NOT A CLOSE
COMPARISON AT ALL.
BECAUSE AT THE STATE LEVEL,
THAT'S NOT A FORCED MANDATE.
THAT IS SIMPLY SAYING IF YOU
WANT THE RIGHT, THE PRIVILEGE OF
DRIVING A CAR, WHICH IS NOT SOME
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEED RIGHT,
THEN PART OF THE DEAL IS YOU
HAVE TO COVER THE DAMAGES FROM
ANY ACCIDENT.
SO THAT'S NOT A GOOD COMPARISON.
SO THIS ABSOLUTE MANDATE THAT
EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN
THE UNITED STATES GO OUT AND
PURCHASE HEALTH INSURANCE,
PURCHASE A PRODUCT IN THE
PRIVATE MARKETPLACE IS
UNPRECEDENTED.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
AND IT'S AN UNPRECEDENTED
EXPANSION OF THE POWER AND ROLE
AND AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
IN THE LAST FEW DAYS THERE HAVE
BEEN HEARINGS, QUITE LATE TO THE
HOUR BUT THERE HAVE BEEN
HEARINGS IN THE SENATE IN
COMMITTEES ABOUT THE
CONSTUTIONALITY OR
UNCONSTUTIONALITY OF OBAMACARE.
OF COURSE THIS CENTRAL QUESTION
CAME UP.
I FOUND THE RESPONSE OF SOME OF
THE WITNESSES AT THE HEARINGS
WHO FAVORED OBAMACARE, WERE
ADVOCATES FOR OBAMACARE PRETTY
STARTLING ON THIS POINT.
ONE SENATOR IN THE COMMITTEE
ASKED THEM, WELL, IF WE CAN
MANDATE CONSTITUTIONALLY THAT
EVERY AMERICAN MAN, WOMAN AND
CHILD BUY HEALTH INSURANCE, WHY
CAN'T WE PASS A LAW THAT SAYS
OBESITY IS A REAL PROBLEM IN
THIS COUNTRY, WHICH IT IS?
AND, THEREFORE, WE'RE GOING TO
MANDATE THAT EVERY MAN, WOMAN,
AND CHILD IN AMERICA EAT CERTAIN
VEGETABLES AND CERTAIN HEALTHY
FOODS EVERY DAY.
YOU KNOW WHAT THE RESPONSE WAS
FROM THIS ADVOCATE OF OBAMACARE?
WELL, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN
MANDATE THAT THEY EAT THE FOOD.
YOU CAN ONLY MANDATE THAT THEY
BUY THE FOOD.
GREAT.
REAL REASSURING.
TO ME, THAT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT
FOR THE CONSTUTIONALITY OF
OBAMACARE.
THAT'S A CLEAR ARGUMENT FOR THE
UNCONSTUTIONALITY AND DANGER OF
THE OBAMACARE FEDERAL POWER
THERE ARE MANY OTHER ASPECTS OF
OBAMA CARE WHICH ALSO POSE
SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS.
MY POINT IS THAT THESE ARE BIG
PROBLEMS, AND THEY AREN'T MINOR
DETAILS WHICH WE CAN TWEAK WITH
THEY GO TO THE HEART OF THIS
GARGANTUAN BILL.
SIMILARLY IS THE DRAMATIC
EXPANSION OF GOVERNMENT AND THE
COST OF THAT EXPANSION.
INSTEAD OF CONTROLLING AND
LOWERING HEALTH CARE COSTS,
OBAMACARE IS EXPANDING
GOVERNMENT AND EXPANDING HEALTH
CARE COSTS.
THE SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE
ESTIMATES THE BILL WILL COST
$2.6 BILLION FOR THE FIRST TEN
YEARS OF FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF
ALL OF THAT NEW SPENDING DOESN'T
LOWER HEALTH CARE COSTS, AND
THERE ARE MULTIPLE SOURCES
AFFIRMING THAT.
YET, PRESIDENT OBAMA CONTINUES
TO CLAIM THAT THE ACT WILL --
QUOTE -- "SLOW THESE RISING
COSTS."
MAYBE HE DIDN'T SEE THE C.M.S.'S
CHIEF ACTUARY RICHARD FOSTER WHO
SAID OVERALL NATIONAL HEALTH
INSURANCE -- EXCUSE ME.
OVERALL NATIONAL HEALTH
EXPENDITURES WILL INCREASE BY A
TOTAL OF $311 BILLION OVER THE
NEXT TEN YEARS UNDER THE LAW.
AND WHEN THE C.M.S. ACTUARY WAS
ASKED DIRECTLY IF PRESIDENT
OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE BILL WOULD
HOLD DOWN UNSUSTAINABLE MEDICAL
COSTS, JUST LAST WEEK THAT
ACTUARY REPLIED -- QUOTE -- "I
WOULD SAY FALSE CLOSE QUOTE.
LAST YEAR THE C.B.O. ALSO
CONFIRMED OUR CONCERNS ABOUT THE
BILL'S INABILITY TO CONTAIN
COSTS, STATING -- QUOTE -- "IN
C.B.O.'S JUDGMENT, THE HEALTH
LEGISLATION ENACTED EARLIER THIS
YEAR DOES NOT SUBSTANTIALLY
DIMINISH THAT PRESSURE."
CLOSE QUOTE.
IN ADDITION, INCREASED COSTS FOR
THE GOVERNMENT AND PRESENT AND
FUTURE TAXPAYERS, HEALTH
INSURANCE PREMIUMS WILL INCREASE
FOR AMERICANS AND THEIR
IN FACT, THE C.B.O. ESTIMATED
THE PREMIUMS WILL INCREASE BY
$2,100 EVEN THOUGH AT LEAST
CANDIDATE OBAMA PROMISED TO
LOWER PREMIUMS BY $2,500 PER
FAMILY.
SO THAT BIG EXPANSION OF
GOVERNMENT AND COSTS, AND HEALTH
CARE COSTS INCLUDING TAXES AND
PARTLY CLOUDY PREMIUMS, IS
ANOTHER -- TAXES AND HEALTH CARE
PREMIUMS IS ANOTHER BIG PROBLEM.
THIS ISN'T A MINOR DETAIL WHICH
WE CAN FIX WITH A PERFECTING
BILL.
THIS GOES TO THE CORE OF THE
ENTIRE PLAN.
ANOTHER FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE WHICH
GOES TO THE CORE OF THE ENTIRE
PLAN IS THE FACT -- AND I THINK
IT IS A WELL-ESTABLISHED FACT --
THAT THE OBAMACARE PLAN WILL
COST US NOT JUST MONEY, NOT JUST
INCREASED TAXES, NOT JUST
INCREASED HEALTH INSURANCE
PREMIUMS, WILL COST US JOBS.
THAT SHOULD ALSO BE WORRISOME,
BUT IT SHOULD BE PARTICULARLY
WORRISOME AS WE STAND HERE TODAY
AND DEBATE THIS IN A HORRIBLE
ECONOMY, AS WE'RE TRYING TO COME
OUT OF THE WORST RECESSION SINCE
THE GREAT DEPRESSION OF THE
AGAIN, THIS ISN'T JUST ANY
PERIOD OF TIME.
THIS IS A TIME OF PROLONGED
HISTORIC UNEMPLOYMENT.
AND THIS BILL COSTS US JOBS.
AND THIS ABSOLUTELY DEBT MATES
JOB CREATE.
THE BILL TAXES JOBS, PLACES MORE
BURDENS ON JOB CREATORS.
THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
INDEPENDENT BUSINESSES,
REPRESENTING THOUSANDS OF
AMERICAN SMALL BUSINESSES,
INCLUDING MANY IN LOUISIANA --
MY HOME STATE -- SAID THAT --
QUOTE -- "IF NEW TAXES, NEW
MANDATES AND GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
IN PPACA -- THAT'S THE OBAMACARE
BILL -- REMAIN INTACT, THE LAW
WILL STIFLE THE ABILITY TO HIRE,
GROW AND INVEST."
CLOSE QUOTE.
IN ADDITION TO THE OFTEN
DISCUSSED 1099 PAPERWORK
NIGHTMARE FOR SMALL BUSINESS,
THE BILL ALSO INCLUDES A PAY OR
PLAY MANDATE ON JOB CREATORS.
THIS COMPLICATED NEW TAX PENALTY
IMPOSES A TAX ON BUSINESSES WITH
MORE THAN 50 WORKERS IF THEY DO
NOT OFFER COVERAGE OR DO OFFER
COVERAGE BY WORKERS ELECT TO
DECLINE THAT BENEFIT.
AGAIN, THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL
PROBLEM WITH THE BILL THAT GOES
TO THE HEART OF THE BILL, NOT
THE PERIPHERY.
NOW, THIS ASPECT OF THE BILL
WILL HAVE MANY DIRE
FIRST, BECAUSE THE $2,000
PENALTY FOR NOT OFFERING
INSURANCE IS LESS THAN THE
6,100 AVERAGE EMPLOYER BENEFIT
CONTRIBUTION, BUSINESSES ARE
ACTUALLY GIVEN AN INCENTIVE TO
DROP COVERAGE, SO THERE IS A
CONCRETE MONEY INCENTIVE, A
MAJOR MONEY INCENTIVE FOR
BUSINESSES TO DROP COVERAGE AND
COVERAGE.
MANY HAVE RIGHT NOW.
SECOND, BUSINESSES THAT ARE ABLE
TO GROW AND HIRE MORE WORKERS
MAY CHOOSE NOT CREATE JOBS AND
TO STAY UNDER THE 50-EMPLOYEE
THRESHOLD TO AVOID ALL OF THESE
DISINCENTIVES AND DIFFICULTIES.
BECAUSE OF ALL THIS THE
NONPARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET
OFFICE CONCLUDED THAT THE BILL
-- QUOTE -- "WILL ENCOURAGE SOME
PEOPLE TO WORK FEWER HOURS OR TO
WITHDRAW FROM THE LABOR MARKET"
-- CLOSE QUOTE, AND IT SAID --
QUOTE -- "ON NET, IT WILL REDUCE
THE AMOUNT OF LABOR USED IN THE
ECONOMY" -- CLOSE QUOTE.
NOW, IS THAT WHAT WE WANT TO
ENCOURAGE IN ANY ECONOMY?, BUT
PARTICULARLY IN A HORRIBLY DOWN
COMIRKS WE'RE TRYING TO COME OUT
OF THE WORST RECESSION SINCE THE
GREAT DEPRESSION, AND DO WE WANT
TO REDUCE LABOR OPPORTUNITY IN
OUR ECONOMY?
THESE ARE STUNGING CONCLUSIONS
THAT SO MANY OF US WARNED
AGAINST DURING THE DEBATE,
CONCLUSIONS THAT THE MAJORITY OF
AMERICANS FEEL.
TAXING AMERICAN JOB CREATION,
STICKING BUSINESS WITH MORE
GOVERNMENT COMPLIANCE
REQUIREMENT AND COST IS
ABSOLUTELY THE WRONG APPROACH,
PARTICULARLY IN A DOWN ECONOMY.
FINALLY, MADAM PRESIDENT, THERE
IS ANOTHER CONCERN THAT I SHARE
WITH SO MANY OTHERS IN THIS BODY
THAT, AGAIN, GOES TO THE HEART
OF THE BILL.
IT'S NOT A MINOR DETAIL.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN
SOLVE WITH A PERFECTING
IT IS NOT AT THE PER RIVER RE,
IT IS NOT CHANGING A COMMA,
CHANGING A SENTENCE.
IT IS AT THE HEART OF THE BILL.
AND THAT IS THAT THE BILL
CONTAINS, AT ITS HEART, OVER
$500 BILLION IN MEDICARE CUTS.
YES, OVER HALF A TRILLION DOLLAR
CUT TO MEDICARE.
AND THESE CUTS AREN'T INVESTED
BACK IN MEDICARE.
THEY DON'T HELP MEDICARE STAY
SOLVENT.
THEY DON'T HELP MEDICARE SURVIVE
SOLVENT FOR LONGER.
THEY DON'T HELP FIX THE LOOMING
MEDICARE CHALLENGE.
THEY'RE STOLEN FROM MEDICARE TO
PAY FOR BRAND-NEW STUFF FOR
OTHER PEOPLE IN OBAMA CARE.
THESE MEDICARE CUTS DIRECTLY
IMPACT SENIORS, AND ONE STUDY
SHOWS THAT THE MASSIVE CUTS TO
MEDICARE ADVANTAGE WILL HIT
LOUISIANA SENIORS PARTICULARLY
HARD.
FOUNDATION SHOWS THAT LOUISIANA
SENIORS ENROLLED IN MEDICARE
ADVANTAGE PLANS LOSE MORE THAN
ANY OTHER STATE IN THE NATION
BILL.
THE REPORT SAYS THAT PROJECTED
ENROLLMENT IN MEDICARE ADVANTAGE
WILL DROP BY OVER 125,000
LOUISIANANS, 62%.
BENEFITS WILL BE CUT BY $5,000
PER BENEFICIARY.
SO THIS BILL TAKES AWAY BENEFITS
AND CHOICES FOR SENIORS, NOT TO
FIX MEDICARE, NOT TO PRESERVE
MEDICARE, NOT TO PRESERVE ITS
SOLVENCY FOR LONGER, BUT STEALS
IT FROM MEDICARE, STEALS IT FROM
SENIORS FOR BRAND-NEW PURPOSES
FOR OTHER FOLKS.
AND THIS DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS
THE PRESIDENT'S PROMISE THAT --
QUOTE -- "IF YOU LIKE WHAT YOU
HAD, YOU CAN KEEP IT" -- CLOSE
QUOTE.
NO, YOU CAN'T, MR. PRESIDENT.
THOUSANDS OF LOUISIANA SENIORS
IN FACT, C.M.S.'S CHIEF ACTUARY
ALSO VERIFIED THAT THE PROMISE
WILL BE BROKEN, CONFIRMING THAT
AMERICANS MAY LOSE THEIR CURRENT
HEALTH CARE COVERAGE REGARDLESS
IF THEY WANT TO KEEP IT OR NOT.
SO, MADAM PRESIDENT, I RESPOND
DIRECTLY TO MY FRIEND AND
COLLEAGUE FROM VERMONT BY
SAYING, WE WANT FULL REPEAL OF
OBAMA CARE FOR A VERY SIMPLE
REASON:
THE BIG PROBLEMS WITH THE BILL,
THE BIG PROBLEMS WITH THE PLAN
AREN'T AT THE MARGIN, THEY'RE AT
THE CORE.
AND THE BIG PROBLEMS CAN'T BE
FIXED WITH A PERFECTING
AMENDMENT, THE CHANGING OF A
COMMA, CHANGING PUNCTUATION,
REVISING ONE OR TWO OR FIVE OR
TEN SENTENCES.
THE BIG PROBLEMS ARE AT THE CORE
OF THE PLAN, STARTING WITH THE
MANDATE FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, UNPRECEDENTED, THAT
EVERY MAN, WOMAN, AND CHILD IN
AMERICA NEEDS TO GO INTO THE
MARKET AND BUY A PARTICULAR
PRODUCT.
THAT'S WHY WE DEMAND REPEAL.
THAT'S WHY WE'LL CONTINUE TO
PURSUE REPEAL UNTIL IT HANGARS
AND THAT'S WHY -- UNTIL IT
HAPPENS, AND THAT'S WHY WE'LL
REPLACE THIS HUGE, BURDENSOME
BILL WITH TARGETED REFORMS LIKE
PROTECTING FOLKS WITH
PREEXISTING CONDITIONS, LIKE
REIMPORTATION, GENERICS REFORM
AND OTHER MEASURES TO REDUCE
PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES, LIKE
ALLOWING AMERICAN CITIZENS TO
SHOP FOR HEALTH INSURANCE ACROSS
STATE LINES AND TO POOL TOGETHER
THROUGH THEIR SMALL BUSINESSES,
THROUGH OTHER MEANS, THROUGH
ASSOCIATION HEALTH PLANS.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
WITH THAT, I URGE ALL OF MY
COLLEAGUES TO COME TOGETHER.
LET'S REPEAL THIS REALLY
PROBLEMATIC PLAN, AND LET'S
START ANEW WITH FOCUSED,
TARGETED REFORMS THAT THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ASKING
FOR.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE
FLOOR.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I SUGGEST THE
ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
THE
CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
A SENATOR: MADAM PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI.
I ASK UNANIMOUS
DISPENSED WITH.
OFFICER WITHOUT OBJECTION.
I RISE TODAY IN
SUPPORT OF THE McCONNELL
AMENDMENT TO THE F.A.A.
REAUTHORIZATION BILL.
WHAT WE HAVE THIS AFTERNOON
ACTUALLY IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
SHOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT WE
ARE LISTENING TO THEM.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT THE
OBAMA CARE LAW, THE AFFORDABLE
HEALTH CARE LAW, AS IT'S KNOWN,
TO BE REPEALED AND REPLACED WITH
SOMETHING LESS EXPENSIVE AND
SOMETHING WORKABLE.
POLLS SHOW THIS.
THE INDIVIDUALS THAT WE TALK TO
WHEN WE GO HOME TELL US THIS.
AND THIS VOTE WILL BE AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO SHOW THEM
THAT WE ARE LISTENING.
NOW, I'VE HEARD SOME OF MY
COLLEAGUES COME TO THE FLOOR
THIS WEEK AND SUGGEST THAT THIS
MASSIVE 2,000-PAGE
TAX-INCREASING, JOB-KILLING BILL
IS EXACTLY JUST WHAT WE NEED.
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THERE ARE A
NUMBER OF FACTS THAT INDICATE
OTHERWISE.
THE OTHER SIDE WOULD HAVE YOU
BELIEVE THAT WITHOUT THIS HEALTH
CARE LAW, THIS COUNTRY IS GOING
TO FALL OFF THE TRACKS, AND THE
WORLD WILL VIRTUALLY COME TO AN
END P.
END
AND THEY TRY TO CITE ONE OR TWO
POPULAR PROPOSALS THAT ARE IN
THIS LAW, WHICH OF COURSE COULD
PRACTICALLY BY UNANIMOUS
CONSENT.
AND IGNORE THE FATAL FLAWS IN
THE LAW.
THE FORMER SPEERVEGHT HOUSE
UNANIMOUS -- THE FORMER SPEAKER
OF THE HOUSE, NANCY PELOSI,
DURING CONSIDERATION OF THIS ACT
IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE, FAME
US/TOLD A GRASS-ROOTS GROUP THAT
CAME TO WASHINGTON, D.C.,
TWEERCHEDZ HURRY UP AND PASS THE
IN IT.
INDEED, SINCE THE
PASSAGE -- WE WILL, INDEED,
SINCE THE PASSAGE AND SIGNING OF
THE LAW BY PRESIDENT OBAMA, THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE FINDING OUT
SOMETHING NEW THAT IS IN THE
BILL THAT THEY DON'T LIKE AND AS
A MATTER OF FACT IT TURNS OUT
THAT MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE AND
SENATE WHO VOTED FOR OBAMA CARE
ALSO DID NOT KNOW PRECISELY WHAT
WAS IN THE BILL AND CERTAINLY
DID NOT ANTICIPATE THE
RAMIFICATIONS OF THIS MASSIVE,
ILL-ADVISED LAW.
UNDER THE NEW LAW, IT IS
ABSOLUTELY A FACT -- AND WE KNOW
THIS -- THAT MEDICARE WILL FACE
OVER $500 BILLION IN CUTS, AND
SENIOR CITIZENS WILL HAVE A
RIGHT TO BE CONCERNED.
FUTURE SENIOR CITIZENS VARIETY
TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THESE
CUTS.
THEY INCLUDE $15 BILLION FROM
HOSPITALS, $202 BILLION FROM
MEDICARE ADVANTAGE, $15 BILLION
FROM NURSING HOMES, $40 BILLION
FROM HOME HEALTH AGENCIES, AND
$7 BILLION FROM HOSPICE.
CUTS FROM THESE FEDERAL
EXPENDITURES IN MEDICARE TO PAY
LEGISLATION.
EVERYONE AGREES THAT MEDICARE
NEEDS TO BE MADE MORE SOLVENT
AND WE NEED TO WORK ON MEDICARE,
BUT THESE RECKLESS CUTS WILL
ONLY MAKE MEDICARE'S PROBLEMS
WORSE.
ANOTHER THING AMERICANS HAVE
FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS AFFORDABLE
HEALTH CARE LAW THAT IS BEING
IMPLEMENTED EVEN AS WE SPEAK IS
THAT THE LAW FALLS SHORT OF THE
PRESIDENT'S GOAL OF CONTROLLING
RUNAWAY COSTS.
AND, IN FACT, RAISES PROJECTED
SPENDING.
LAST WEEK IN HIS STATE OF THE
UNION ADDRESS, PRESIDENT OBAMA
SAID THE HEALTH INSURANCE LAW WE
PASSED LAST YEAR WILL SLOW THESE
RISING COSTS.
THIS IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE.
AND TO SUPPORT MY ASSERTATION
THAT IT IS NOT TRUE, I WOULD --
I WOULD CITE THE PRESIDENT'S OWN
ACTUARY.
C.M.S. REPORTS THAT, IN FACT,
SPENDING WILL BE INCREASED BY
ABOUT 1% OVER WHAT IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN OVER 10 YEARS.
THAT INCREASE COULD GET BIGGER,
OF COURSE, THE REPORT POINTS
OUT, SINCE THE MEDICARE CUTS
THAT I'VE ALREADY POINTED OUT
MAY BE UNREALISTIC AND
POLITICALLY UNSUSTAINABLE,
ACCORDING TO THE REPORT.
KRRMT M.S. -- C.M.S. SAID THAT
OVER ALL HEALTH EXPENDITURES
UNDER THE HEALTH REFORM ACT
WOULD INCREASE BY $11 BILLION
AND HEALTH EXPENDITURES WILL BE
21% OF THE CROSS DOMESTIC
PRODUCT BY THE YEAR 2019.
BUT IT'S NOT JUST THE GOVERNMENT
BEAN COUNTERS THAT ARE WORRIED.
HERE'S WHAT THE NATIONAL
FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESS SAID, SMALL BUSINESS
OWNERS EVERYWHERE ARE RIGHTFULLY
CONCERNED THAT THE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL NEW MANDATES,
COUNTLESS RULES AND NEW TAXES IN
THE HEALTH CARE LAW WILL
DEVASTATE THEIR BUSINESS AND
THEIR ABILITY TO CREATE JOBS.
THAT'S THE NATIONAL FEDERATION
OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MANUFACTURERS SAYS THAT
MANUFACTURERS REMAIN ADAMANTLY
OPPOSED TO THE EMPLOYER MANDATES
AND TO THE MEDICARE HOSPITAL
INSURANCE TAX INCREASES.
THESE EMPLOYERS ARE FACED WITH
INCORPORATING THE FIRST ROUND OF
HEALTH CARE CHANGES AND ARE
GRAPPLING, HAVING DIFFICULTY
DOING SO WITH HOW TO COMPLY WITH
THE LONG LIST OF NEW RULES.
THESE ARE NOT SCARE TACTICS.
THESE ARE NOT UNWARRANTED FEARS
BY A WOOED PUBLIC.
THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO WORK WITH
HEALTH CARE EVERY DAY AND ARE
TELLING US THAT THIS CONGRESS
HAS MADE A MISTAKE.
IN FACT, THERE ARE ALREADY REAL
CONSEQUENCES OF THIS HEALTH CARE
REFORM LAW.
ABBOTT LABORATORIES SAID IT IS
CUTTING ABOUT 1,090 JOBS.
THAT'S -- 1,900 JOBS MUCH THAT'S
JUST A FACT.
THE JOB CUTS COME -- QUOTE --
"DUE TO CHANGES IN THE HEALTH
CARE INDUSTRY INCLUDING HEALTH
CARE REFORM AND THE CHANGING
REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT.
THAT IS SIMPLY A FACT.
IT'S NOT CONJECTURE.
BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA
RECENTLY STUNNED INDIVIDUAL
POLICYHOLDERS WITH A HUGE RATE
INCREASE EFFECTIVE MARCH 1st,
SEEKING CUMULATIVE HIKES OF AS
MUCH AS 59% IN PREMIUMS FOR TENS
OF THOUSANDS OF THEIR CUSTOMERS.
THIS SAN FRANCISCO-BASED BLUE
SHIELD SAID THAT THE INCREASES
WERE THE RESULT OF FAST-RISING
HEALTH CARE COSTS AND OTHER
EXPENSES RELATING TO THE NEW
HEALTH CARE LAWS.
PRESIDENT.
IT'S ALSO AN ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY
THAT STATE TAXES ARE GOING TO GO
UP AND THEY'RE GOING TO GO UP
BIG TIME UNLESS WE REPEAL THIS
HEALTH REFORM LAW.
IN MY STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, THE
LEGISLATION WILL COST THE STATE
STATE $1.7 BILLION OVER 10 YEARS
INCLUDING $443 MILLION IN YEAR
10 ALONE FROM FISCAL YEAR 2014
TO FISCAL YEAR 2020, THE MASSIVE
EXPANSION OF MEDICAID WILL COST
MISSISSIPPI TAXPAYERS
TAXPAYERS $225 MILLION
TO $250 MILLION EXTRA EACH YEAR.
OUR GOVERNOR, ONE OF THE
STAUNCHEST OPPONENTS OF TAX
HIKES THAT I HAVE EVER HEARD OF
HAS STATED THAT THIS LAW WILL
CERTAINLY FORCE THE STATE OF
MISSISSIPPI TO INCREASE THEIR
TAXES UNLESS IT IS REPEALED.
AGAIN, THESE COSTS ARE SIMPLY
FACTS.
THEY RESULT FROM THE MANDATE.
MADAM PRESIDENT, THERE'S ALSO
BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION TO THIS
LAW.
WE DIDN'T SEE MUCH BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT FOR ITS REPEAL IN THE
OTHER BODY, AND I WAS
DISAPPOINTED BY THAT.
BUT WHEN YOU GET OUT TO THE
PUBLIC, WHEN YOU GET OUT OFF OF
CAPITOL HILL AND OUT TO
INDIVIDUALS, IT'S NOT A
REPUBLICAN ISSUE, IT'S NOT A
DEMOCRAT ISSUE, IS IT A
BIPARTISAN AMERICAN OPPOSITION
TO THIS LAW.
AND I ARE HAVE REPEATEDLY QUOTED
FORMER GOVERNOR PHIL BRETISON OF
TENNESSEE, SOMEONE WHO RAN AS A
DEMOCRAT IN HIS STATE
SUCCESSFULLY TWICE AN RAN AS THE
STANDARD BEARER FOR HIS PARTY
THREE TIMES, A LOYAL DEMOCRAT,
WHO, OF COURSE, CALLED THIS LAW
THE MOTHER OF ALL UNFUNDED
BUT AFTER THE LAW WAS ENACTED,
HE -- HE WROTE AN OP-ED IN "THE
WALL STREET JOURNAL,"
OCTOBER 21, 2010, AND I ASK AT
THIS POINT -- MADAM PRESIDENT,
I'LL ASK THAT THIS OP-ED BE
POINT.
OBJECTION.
AND, AMONG OTHER
THINGS, GOVERNOR BRETISON, WHO
WAS STILL GOVERNOR AT THE TIME
SAID THAT OUR DEFICIT IS AT
UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS AND OUR
AMERICANS CAN ILL AFFORD ANOTHER
ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM THAT ADDS
SUBSTANTIALLY TO IT.
BUT OUR RECENT HEALTH REFORM HAS
CREATED A SITUATION WHERE THERE
ARE STRONG ECONOMIC INCENTIVES
FOR EMPLOYERS TO DROP HEALTH
CARE COVERAGE ALL TOGETHER.
THE CONSEQUENCE WILL BE TO DRIVE
MANY MORE PEOPLE THAN PROJECTED
AND WITH THEM MUCH GREATER COSTS
SUBSIDIZED SYSTEM.
THE DEMOCRATIC, ELECTED --
DEMOCRATIC ELECTED GOVERNORROR
OF TENNESSEE -- GOVERNOR OF
TENNESSEE CRITICIZING THIS ACT
AND POINTING OUT OTHER FACTS
THAT ARE WRONG.
AND IN HIS SUBSEQUENT BOOK ON
THE SUBJECT, PHIL BRETISON ALSO
CRITICIZES THE HEALTH CARE LAW
SAYING IT WILL CAUSE DEFICITS TO
GO UP, COSTS TO CONTINUE
INCREASING, EMPLOYERS TO DROP
COVERAGE, STATE COSTS TO
INCREASE GOVERNMENTS TO GROW AND
WILL MAKE OUR CURRENT PROBLEMS
WORSE.
OBAMA CARE IS NOT WHAT THE
DOCTOR ORDERED ACCORDING TO
GOVERNOR BRETSON.
MY TIME IS LIMITED.
I COULD GO ON AND AND ON MEMBERS
OF -- OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE
COULD AND WILL GO ON AND ON AS
WE FACE THIS ISSUE IF WE DON'T
WIN IT TODAY.
THE FACTS ARE THERE.
THIS IS A TERRIBLY FLAWED PIECE
OF LEGISLATION.
FACTS ARE STUBBORN THINGS AND
THE CONSEQUENCES HAVE ALREADY
STARTED TO MOUNT UP.
OPPOSITION IS STRONG, SUPPORT
FOR REPEAL IS STRONG AND
AND FOR THOSE REASONS I WILL
VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE McCONNELL
AMENDMENT WHEN WE CONSIDER IT
LATER ON TODAY.
MADAM PRESIDENT?
SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I
CAN'T SAY WITH ANY CERTAINTY
ANYTHING ABOUT THE CRITICS OF
THE GOVERNMENT -- OR THE
AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE PLAN
EXCEPT ONE THING, EACH OF THE
CRITICS ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE
OF THE AISLE OF WHAT THEY CALL
GOVERNMENT ADMINISTERED HEALTH
CARE, GOVERNMENT ADMINISTERED
HEALTH INSURANCE, EVERY SINGLE
SENATE REPUBLICAN CRITIC IS
CURRENTLY PROTECTING HIS OR HER
FAMILY WITH GOVERNMENT
ADMINISTERED HEALTH CARE.
IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT'S GOOD
ENOUGH FOR THEIR FAMILY
SHOULDN'T BE GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE
REST OF AMERICA.
I THINK, AS A SHOW OF GOOD
FAITH, THAT THE REPUBLICAN
SENATORS SHOULD COME TO THE
FLOOR TODAY TO SAY, NOT ONLY ARE
WE GOING TO VOTE FOR REPEAL OF
THE HEALTH CARE REFORM, WE'RE
GOING TO SHOW OUR PERSONAL
COMMITMENT OF THIS BY WALKING
AWAY FROM THE FEDERAL HEALTH
INSURANCE PROGRAM.
I WOULD ADMIRE THEM SO MUCH IF
THEIR ACTIONS AS SENATORS
REFLECTED THEIR SPEECHES ON THE
BUT THEY DON'T.
THEY ARE DENYING TO THE REST OF
AMERICA WHAT EVERY SINGLE MEMBER
OF CONGRESS HAS AVAILABLE TODAY
TO PROTECT THEIR FAMILIES.
THAT, TO ME, IS INDEFENSIBLE.
NOW, THIS WEEK A JUDGE IN
FLORIDA DECIDED THAT THIS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
BUT BEFORE WE GET CARRIED AWAY
WITH THAT DECISION, STEP BACK.
THIS LAW HAS BEEN CHALLENGED 16
TIMES IN FEDERAL COURTS.
16 TIMES.
12 COURTS HAVE DISMISSED THE
CHALLENGES ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS
SAYING THAT THE PERSON WHO FILED
THE SUIT DIDN'T HAVE A STANDING
IN COURT.
FOUR OF THE FEDERAL COURTS
DECIDED IT ON THE MERITS.
TWO OF THE FEDERAL COURTS
LAW.
AND TWO SAID IT WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
YOU SAY TO YOURSELF, WOW, TWO
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS SAID
THIS LAW WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
AREN'T YOU WORRIED?
WELL, I DON'T TAKE ANYTHING FOR
GRANTED, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND A
LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY.
WHAT OTHER LAWS IN AMERICA WERE
FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY LOWER
COURTS AND THEN CONSTITUTIONAL
BY THE SUPREME COURT?
ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT?
SOCIAL SECURITY WAS FOUND
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
THEN THE SUPREME COURT SAID, NO,
IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL.
THE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE LAW WAS
FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY A
LOWER COURT AND THE SUPREME
COURT SAID IT WAS
CONSTITUTIONAL.
THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 WAS
FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY A
LOWER COURT AND THE SUPREME
COURT SAID IT WAS
CONSTITUTIONAL.
SO LET'S NOT GET CARRIED AWAY
WITH LOWER COURT DECISIONS
CLEARLY SPLIT ON THE ISSUE THE
WE HAD A HEARING IN THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE THAT I
BROUGHT IN CONSTITUTIONAL
EXPERTS FROM ACROSS THE UNITED
STATES.
IT WAS A GOOD, SPIRITED HEARING,
LOTS OF DIFFERENT OPINIONS
REPUBLICANS.
BUT I THINK THE CASE IS CLEAR
AND STRONG THAT WE HAVE A POWER
UNDER ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION TO REGULATE
COMMERCE.
IS THERE ANYONE ON THE
REPUBLICAN SIDE WHO'S GOING TO
STAND HERE AND ARGUE THAT THE
HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY, THE HEALTH
INSURANCE INDUSTRY, WHICH
REPRESENTS 18% OF THE ECONOMY OF
AMERICA IS NOT COMMERCE?
WELL, OF COURSE IT IS.
AND THEN, OF COURSE, WE HAVE THE
AUTHORITY UNDER THAT SAME
SECTION TO PASS LAWS NECESSARY
AND PROPER TO CARRY OUT THE
RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITY
GIVEN US.
WELL, HERE'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING
TO DO.
WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT
EVERYONE IN AMERICA HAS HEALTH
INSURANCE.
WE SAY TO THE 83% OF AMERICANS
WHO CURRENTLY ARE INSURED, YOU
DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THIS
YOU ALREADY HAVE HEALTH
INSURANCE.
FOR THE 17% UNINSURED, MANY OF
THEM ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE
PREEXISTING CONDITIONS AND HAVE
BEEN DENIED COVERAGE, CAN'T
SOME OF THEM ARE PEOPLE THAT,
FRANKLY, CAN'T AFFORD COVERAGE
EVEN IF THEY DON'T HAVE A
PREEXISTING CONDITION TO FAMILY.
THIS LAW MOVES US TO THE POINT
WHERE MORE AND MORE AMERICANS
WILL BE COVERED WITH HEALTH
INSURANCE.
AND WE SAY AT THE END THAT THOSE
WHO CAN AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE
AND DON'T BUY IT WILL PAY A TAX.
BECAUSE OF THE DECISION.
NOW, IS THAT HEARTLESS?
IS THAT A FEDERAL MANDATE ON
PEOPLE WHO JUST WANT TO BE LEFT
YOU KNOW, IF THEY WERE JUST
BEING LEFT ALONE, IT'S ONE
THING, BUT I'LL TELL YOU WHAT
HUMAN EXPERIENCE TEACHES US.
THESE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GO IT
ALONE, DON'T BOTHER ME I'M ON MY
OWN, ARE GOING TO GET SICK SOME
AND WHEN THEY GET SICK AND GO TO
TREATED.
AND WHEN THEY CAN'T PAY FOR
THEIR TREATMENT, DO YOU KNOW WHO
WILL PAY?
ALL THE REST OF US.
EVERYONE ELSE PAYING HEALTH
INSURANCE PREMIUMS HAS TO ABSORB
THE COST OF THOSE WHO ARE FREE
LOADING ON THE SYSTEM.
IT'S NOT FAIR.
IT USED TO BE THE CONSERVATIVE
RESPONSIBILITY.
WHEN WE PUT PERSONAL
RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS LAW, ALL
OF A SUDDEN THEY DON'T LIKE IT.
I THINK PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
STILL COUNTS AND I BELIEVE IT IS
CLEARLY CONSTITUTIONAL TO
INCLUDE IT.
I LISTENED TO SOME OF THE
ARGUMENTS ABOUT REPEALING THIS
LAW.
I HEARD THE SENATOR FROM
MISSISSIPPI SAY HOW BIPARTISAN
THE SUPPORT IS FOR IT.
I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE ASKED
HIM HOW HE EXPLAINS THE FACT
THAT FOUR OUT OF FIVE PEOPLE IN
AMERICA, 80% OF AMERICANS,
OPPOSE REPEAL.
THEY DON'T THINK THE LAW'S
MANY OF THEM SAY, IMPROVE IT, IF
YOU CAN.
BUT 80% OPPOSE REPEAL.
THE SIGNATURE ISSUE FOR THE
HOUSE REPUBLICANS AND NOW THE
SENATE REPUBLICANS IS THE REPEAL
OF AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE, IT
WOULD BE DEVASTATING IF WE DID.
THE FIRST THING YOU'LL NOTICE IF
YOU READ -- AND IT'S ONLY THREE
PAGES -- THE AMENDMENT FILED BY
SENATOR McCONNELL, THE
REPUBLICAN LEADER, IS THAT ON
THE SECOND PAGE, HE MANAGES TO
INCLUDE IN HERE THE STATUTORY
PAY-AS-YOU-GO ACT OF 2010 AS
PASSED AND PRINTED BY THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES.
UNLESS YOU'RE A PERSON WHO
FOLLOWS CLOSELY WHAT'S GOING ON
AROUND HERE, YOU MAY NOT KNOW
WHAT THAT SAYS.
WHAT IT SAYS IS SENATOR
McCONNELL WANTS US TO IGNORE
THE FACT THAT THE REPEAL OF THE
HEALTH CARE ACT WILL ADD
ADD $230 BILLION TO OUR NATIONAL
DEFICIT OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS
AND MORE THAN $1 TRILLION IN THE
DECADE AFTER THAT.
A PARTY THAT COMES TO THE FLOOR
EVERY SINGLE DAY TELLING US
THEIR PASSIONATE DETERMINATION
TO END OUR DEFICITS AND ADDRESS
OUR DEBT WITH THE McCONNELL
AMENDMENT WILL ADD $230 BILLION
TO OUR NATIONAL DEFICIT OVER TEN
YEARS AND $1 TRILLION MORE IN
THE NEXT TEN.
THIS IS A BUDGET-BUSTER
THIS WILL ADD MORE TO THE
DEFICIT IN ONE FELL SWOOP THAN
ANY SINGLE THING WE HAVE DONE IN
CONGRESS IN THE TIME THAT I HAVE
SERVED, AND IT'S BEING OFFERED
RESPONSIBILITY.
I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT WHEN WE
TALK ABOUT PREMIUM INCREASES
CURRENTLY TAKING PLACE UNDER
HEALTH INSURANCE POLICIES ACROSS
AMERICA, I UNDERSTAND IT.
WE HAVE ALL LIVED THROUGH IT.
WE'VE SEEN IT.
BUSINESSES SEE IT ALL THE TIME.
THERE IS A PROVISION IN OUR
AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT WHICH
ADDRESSES IT THAT WOULD BE
REPEALED BY THE McCONNELL
AMENDMENT.
THE PROVISION IS CALLED MEDICAL
LOSS RATIO, AND IT SAYS THAT A
HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY HAS TO
SPEND 80%-85% OF PREMIUM DOLLARS
ON ACTUAL HEALTH CARE.
THEY CAN'T TAKE IT AWAY IN
ADVERTISING, IN ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS, IN SALARIES AND BONUSES
FOR THEIR C.E.O.'S.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WILL
THEIR WAY AND REPEAL HEALTH
CARE, THE HEALTH INSURANCE
COMPANIES WILL BE ALLOWED TO
RAISE PREMIUMS AT ANY LEVEL AS
QUICKLY OR AS MUCH AS THEY WANT
WITHOUT BEING HELD TO THIS
MEDICAL LOSS RATIO.
THOUGH.
ANY PERSON IN AMERICA WHO HAS
BEEN RAISED IN A FAMILY WHERE
SOMEONE IN THE FAMILY SUFFERS
FROM WHAT'S KNOWN AS A
PRE-EXISTING CONDITION KNOWS
THAT YOU ALWAYS LIVE IN FEAR
THAT YOU WON'T HAVE HEALTH
INSURANCE, AND FEAR THAT IF YOU
HAVE TO GO OUT AND BUY IT ON THE
OPEN PUBLIC MARKET, YOU WILL
NEVER BE ABLE TO AFFORD IT.
THIS LAW THAT SENATOR
McCONNELL AND THE REPUBLICANS
WANT TO REPEAL TODAY, THIS LAW
SAYS THAT NO HEALTH INSURANCE
COMPANY IN AMERICA CAN
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ANYONE
UNDER THE AGE OF 18 WHO HAS A
PRE-EXISTING CONDITION.
NOW, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT ANY
PARENT WOULD APPRECIATE.
YOU NEVER KNOW IF THAT BEAUTIFUL
SON OR DAUGHTER OF YOURS IS
GOING TO HAVE PROBLEMS WITH
ASTHMA, DIABETES, CANCER, MENTAL
ILLNESS, AND YOU CERTAINLY WANT
THAT CHILD, THAT LOVE OF YOUR
LIFE TO HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE
SENATOR McCONNELL AND THE
REPUBLICANS WANT TO REPEAL THE
PROTECTION FOR FAMILIES THAT
HAVE CHILDREN WITH PRE-EXISTING
THAT'S FACT.
IT ISN'T AS THOUGH THEY'RE
OFFERING EXCLUSIONS AND SAYING
NO, NO, WE'LL KEEP THAT.
THEY HAVE ELIMINATED THE ENTIRE
LAW WITH THIS THREE-PAGE
THEY HAVE ELIMINATED THESE
AND HOW ABOUT THE PROTECTION FOR
THOSE WHO, IF DIAGNOSED WITH A
SERIOUS ILLNESS AND FIND THEIR
HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES
CUTTING THEM OFF COMPLETELY,
PUTTING A CAP ON THE AMOUNT OF
MONEY THEY'LL SPEND TO PROVIDE
TREATMENT.
SAYING AT SOME POINT THEY'RE
GOING TO ELIMINATE THEIR
POLICIES ALTOGETHER BECAUSE THEY
FAILED TO MAKE A DISCLOSURE ON
AN APPLICATION FORM.
IT HAPPENS TOO OFTEN.
IN MY STATE OF ILLINOIS, SADLY,
WE LEAD THE NATION IN WHAT'S
KNOWN AS RESCISSIONS.
HEALTH CARE INSURANCE COMPANIES
THAT CANCELED COVERAGE WHEN
PEOPLE GET SERIOUSLY ILL.
PREDICAMENT?
HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE FACING
A SERIOUS ILLNESS THAT KEEPS YOU
AWAKE AT NIGHT TOSSING AND
TURNING ABOUT WHETHER YOU'RE
GOING TO LIVE OR DIE AND THEN
FIGHT A HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY
DURING THE DAYLIGHT HOURS IN THE
HOPES THAT THEY'LL COVER THE
PRESCRIPTIONS AND TREATMENT YOU
NEED TO STAY ALIVE?
THAT IS THE REALITY, A REALITY
THAT IS ADDRESSED BY THE HEALTH
CARE ACT, A REALITY THAT WOULD
BE REPEALED BY SENATOR
McCONNELL AND THE REPUBLICANS'
THOSE ARE THE REAL RESULTS OF
WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.
IT ISN'T JUST ABOUT WHO ENDS THE
POLITICAL DEBATE AND HAS THE
OVER.
IT'S ABOUT REAL-LIFE CHANGES.
HOW ABOUT SENIOR CITIZENS, THOSE
UNDER MEDICARE.
MANY OF THEM STRUGGLE TO PAY FOR
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.
EVEN WITH THE MEDICARE
PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLAN, THERE IS
A GAP IN GOVERNING CALLED THE
DOUGHNUT HOLE.
WE START TO CLOSE THAT GAP AND
SAY TO SENIORS IF YOU HAVE
EXPENSIVE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS,
WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE
ULTIMATELY THAT THEY ARE COVERED
COMPLETELY, FROM THE FIRST OF
YEAR.
NOW THERE IS A GAP IN COVERAGE.
THE REPUBLICANS AND SENATOR
McCONNELL WANT TO REPEAL THAT
PROVISION OF THE HEALTH CARE ACT
WHICH PROVIDES FOR SENIORS, NOT
ONLY MORE COVERAGE FOR THEIR
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS BUT ALSO AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR AN ANNUAL
PHYSICAL, AND THE KIND OF
PREVENTATIVE CARE THAT THEY NEED
TO STAY HEALTHY AND STRONG AND
INDEPENDENT IN THEIR HOMES FOR A
LONGER PERIOD OF TIME.
THAT IS WHAT SENATOR McCONNELL
AND THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS WANT
TO DO WITH THE REPEAL OF THIS
AND WHAT ABOUT JOB CREATION?
WELL, THE SENATOR FROM
MISSISSIPPI TALKED ABOUT ONE
COMPANY CUTTING SOME EMPLOYEES.
I'M NOT SURE OF THE PARTICULARS
IN THAT COMPANY, BUT ONE OF THE
THINGS WE DID IN THIS LAW WAS TO
TAKE A LOOK AT TAX SUBSIDIES TO
MEDICAL DEVICE AND
PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES AND IF
THEY WERE DUPLICATIVE OR OVERLY
GENEROUS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY
GOT CLOSER TO THE REALITY OF
WHAT A COMPANY NEEDS TO HAVE
INCENTIVES TO GROW.
IT'S TRUE, SOME OF THOSE TAX
SUBSIDIES WERE ELIMINATED AND
SOME OF THE COMPANIES WEREN'T
HAPPY ABOUT IT, BUT THE BOTTOM
LINE WAS WE WERE TRYING TO MAKE
SURE THAT HEALTH CARE IS
AFFORDABLE.
WE CAN'T AFFORD TO PROVIDE
MASSIVE SUBSIDIES TO PROFITABLE
COMPANIES ON AN UNLIMITED BASIS.
THIS BILL THAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT, THE ONE THE REPUBLICANS
WANT TO APPEAL, WILL CRACK DOWN
ON FROWD AND MEDICARE AND
MEDICAID.
IT WILL SIMPLIFY PAPERWORK FOR
PRIVATE INSURERS.
IT INVESTS IN PREVENTION,
CREATES A PATHWAY FOR GENERIC
BIOLOGIC DRUGS AND TESTS NEW
WAYS TO PAY HEALTH CARE
PROVIDERS TO REWARD VALUE RATHER
THAN VOLUME.
IF THE LAW IS REPEALED, WE'LL
HAVE FEWER JOBS AND HIGHER COSTS
FOR FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES.
THE NUMBER-ONE COMPLAINT OF
ILLINOIS SMALL BUSINESSES ACROSS
OUR STATE IS THE COST OF HEALTH
IF THE REPUBLICANS HAVE THEIR
WAY TODAY AND REPEAL IT, THIS
LAW THAT WE HAVE PASSED, THE
COST OF HEALTH INSURANCE WILL
GROW, THE COST TO BUSINESSES
WILL GROW, THE NUMBER OF
EMPLOYEES WILL SHRINK.
A 1% OR 1.5% GROWTH IN HEALTH
CARE COSTS ABOVE THE RATES UNDER
THE NEW LAW WILL PREVENT
EMPLOYERS FROM CREATING
2.5 MILLION TO FOUR MILLION JOBS
OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS.
TALK ABOUT A JOB DESTROYER, THE
REPUBLICAN REPEAL AMENDMENT DOES
JUST THAT.
REPEAL MEANS GOING BACK TO THE
SAME BROKEN SYSTEM WE'VE HAD FOR
SO LONG WITH INSURANCE COMPANIES
ONCE AGAIN FREE TO OVERCHARGE
FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES TO
PROTECT THEIR CORPORATE PROFITS
AND C.E.O. BONUSES.
THE SAME BROKEN SYSTEM WITH
WORKERS SEEING THEIR PAYCHECK
SHRINK AS MORE AND MORE OF THEIR
HARD-EARNED WAGES ARE DEDUCTED
TO COVER SKYROCKETING PREMIUMS.
THE SAME BROKEN SYSTEM WITH
SENIORS BEING FORCED TO SHOULDER
THE FULL COST OF PRESCRIPTION
DRUGS IN THE DOUGHNUT HOLE AND
THE SAME BROKEN SYSTEM WITH
SMALL BUSINESSES CLOSING THEIR
DOORS AND LAYING OFF WORKERS
BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD THE
CRUSHING COST OF HEALTH
INSURANCE.
THE REPUBLICAN CLAIM THAT THIS
HEALTH CARE BILL IS A JOB KILLER
IS JUST PLAIN FALSE.
THE ECONOMY HAS BEEN GAINING
PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS SINCE
PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNED THE BILL
A YEAR AGO AFTER LOSING JOBS FOR
A LONG PERIOD OF TIME BEFORE.
SINCE THE PRESIDENT SIGNED THE
BILL, WE'VE CREATED MORE THAN
1.1 MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS,
AND IN CONTRAST IN THE TEN YEARS
BEFORE WE HAD LOST 3.3 MILLION
PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS.
AVERAGE REAL INCOMES FOR
AMERICANS ARE BACK ON THE RISE
AFTER YEARS OF BEING STALLED
UNDER THE OLD HEALTH CARE
JUST THIS WEEK, THE COMMERCE
DEPARTMENT REPORTED THAT AVERAGE
REAL DISPOSABLE INCOME HAS RISEN
1.3% OVER THE PAST YEAR, AFTER
FALLING .1% IN EACH OF THE
PREVIOUS TWO YEARS.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I WILL CLOSE BY
SAYING THIS: OUR HEARING TODAY
BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE ON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY QUESTION MAKES
IT CLEAR TO ME THAT THE COURT,
THE SUPREME COURT, IF IT FOLLOWS
THE CLEAR PRECEDENTS THAT HAVE
BEEN HANDED DOWN FOR DECADES, IF
SUPREME COURT JUSTICES WHO HAVE
SPOKEN ELOQUENTLY AND DIRECTLY
ON THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WILL VIEW
THIS HEALTH CARE ACT IN THE SAME
CONTEXT, THEY WILL FIND IT
CONSTITUTIONAL.
ON.
PERHAPS AT THAT POINT THE
REPUBLICANS WILL STOP BEATING
THIS DRUM ON REPEALING HEALTH
CARE, WILL JOIN US IN MAKING IT
EVEN A STRONGER BILL AND WILL
FOCUS ON CREATING JOBS INSTEAD
OF KILLING JOBS, AS THIS
McCONNELL AMENDMENT WOULD DO.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I REQUEST
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT CODY LYNN
HAILLA, A FELLOW ON SENATOR
INOUYE'S STAFF, BE ALLOWED FLOOR
PRIVILEGES FOR THE DURATION OF
THE SENATE'S CONSIDERATION OF S.
223, THE AIRWAY MODERNIZATION
AND IMPROVEMENT ACT.
OBJECTION.
THANK YOU, MADAM
PRESIDENT, AND I YIELD THE
FLOOR.
MADAM PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I'D