Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act Of 2009--Continued

Floor Speech

SERVICE MEMBERS HOME OWNERSHIP TAX ACT OF 2009--(Continued) -- (Senate - December 03, 2009)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I intend shortly to call up an amendment once the procedural posture is clarified and has been cleared on the Republican side, an amendment to protect the Social Security surplus and the CLASS program savings in this act. When I do, I will then ask for its immediate consideration, but at the moment, that is still being worked out from a parliamentary standpoint, so my words will come in advance of that.

I wish to describe the amendment for my colleagues. It is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that demonstrates the Senate's commitment to meaningful deficit reduction in this legislation while also protecting both the Social Security surpluses generated by the legislation and savings generated from a significant element of the bill, the long-term voluntary insurance program created by the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act, what we call the CLASS Act. The amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that surpluses generated by this bill for the Social Security trust fund be reserved for Social Security and that the savings for the long-term insurance program created by the CLASS Act be reserved for the CLASS program.

The CBO has estimated that this bill will save $130 billion over the first 10 years and roughly $650 billion over the next 10 years. This amendment stands for the proposition that these impressive savings will be protected vis-a-vis the CLASS Act and the Social Security trust fund.

I wish to speak in particular today about the CLASS Act. This act creates a voluntary insurance program for seniors and individuals with disabilities. This program will enable them to afford long-term care even after they have exhausted coverage offered by Medicare or their private insurer. Let me make clear that this is not a mandatory program. It does not increase taxes on anyone. It is a completely voluntary program that offers an additional insurance option for the disabled. Without such insurance, disabled people often cannot afford the massive costs of long-term care. Under current law, they are often forced to sell their homes or otherwise what is called ``spend down'' their assets until they meet a poverty threshold before they can begin receiving the help they need.

Certain colleagues on the other side of the aisle have argued that the CLASS plan would lead to a financially unstable entitlement program and would rapidly increase the Federal deficit. That is simply not accurate. The CLASS plan is fully self-sustaining and actuarially sound, funded by the premiums paid by those individuals who voluntarily opt into this insurance plan. There are no taxpayer dollars involved.

After individuals pay premiums for 5 years, they become eligible to receive a cash benefit of no less than $50 per day to assist with the various costs associated with the onset of a disability or long-term health condition. These benefits could be used to pay for transportation to work, for instance, or the construction of a wheelchair ramp or the hiring of a personal aide--the sorts of things that so often make the difference between somebody remaining an independent and productive member of society and requiring the support of assisted living or nursing home care.

I think we can all agree that it is in everyone's best interest to try to provide this kind of assistance to people when an unexpected disability begins to affect their lives, to allow them the support they need to continue as best they can in their homes, in their apartments, with their families, at their jobs, and remain, as I said, both independent and productive.

The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that this plan is fiscally solvent. In fact, it projected that the program would be solvent for at least 75 years.

There was a helpful amendment offered in the HELP Committee when we considered and debated and passed that piece of legislation. The amendment was offered by the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, your colleague, Senator Gregg, the ranking member on the Budget Committee. It passed unanimously, and it ensures and requires that the program be actuarially sound for 75 years.

CBO has projected that, in fact, it would be solvent for at least 75 years. CBO further estimated that the program would reduce the deficit by $72 billion over 10 years, saving $1.6 billion for Medicaid during the first 4 years of the program. So it has a substantial fiscal upside.

I am surprised that our colleagues on the other side are criticizing this element of the bill. It seems to run contrary to the findings that have been made by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. It is certainly a stark contrast to their tolerance for their own Medicare Part D Program, the pharmaceutical program the other side touted so proudly, which is different from the CLASS Act in many respects: It was vastly expensive; it was completely unpaid for; it was a massive handout to the pharmaceutical industry, containing within it the, to me, appalling proposition that the government was forbidden by law, forbidden by a previous Congress, to negotiate with the pharmaceutical industry over the price of drugs and had to take it or leave it, whatever the pharmaceutical industry charged. Frankly, it is irresponsible to put the government into that situation. It is fiscally irresponsible, and it is irresponsible from a management point of view. It is irresponsible in more ways than I can name. Yet they happily went that way, the path of fiscal irresponsibility, when it suited the pharmaceutical industry. Of course, in order to do so, they had to leave a hole in the Part D pharmaceutical program for seniors to fall into, what the Presiding Officer knows well and what my colleagues know well as the dreaded doughnut hole that has caused so many unsuspecting seniors so much surprise, chagrin, fear, anxiety, and misery. Now, having been the architects of that program, they criticize the CLASS Act even though the CBO has found it to be fiscally sound.

It seems there is an enormous double standard between programs designed for the benefit of, say, the pharmaceutical industry, or perhaps the insurance industry, and the standards they would apply to programs that benefit people who suffer from the onset of a disability--regular Americans, regular families. This is something that happens to people across this country all the time.

That is really the most important effect of the CLASS Act. As good as it is on deficits, as much as the CBO has confirmed that it is to our fiscal advantage to proceed with the CLASS Act, the most important effect is not on deficits, it is on people.

It is on families. This insurance program will allow disabled people, young and old, to live more financially secure and productive lives, free from the fear that medical expenses will impoverish or bankrupt them, able to make those investments in their own adaptation to their disability so they can maintain the lifestyle, the job, and the home they are accustomed to and comfortable with. Studies show that less than a quarter of private long-term care insurance policies provide a lifetime of benefits. The CLASS Act fills an important void that has been left by the public sector for people who seek this protection and this insurance on a paid-for basis. The CLASS plan is a win-win for reducing costs in our health care system and protecting Americans who require long-term care. Our current system plain fails to protect those who aren't healthy or wealthy enough for private market coverage. It fails to create an opportunity for individuals to plan and save for their future lifetime care needs. It fails to provide a sustainable safety net for individuals who require long-term services and supports to keep the familiar aspects of their life around them--job, family, home, hearth.

I will shortly ask that my colleagues support the amendment when it is called up. It will put the Senate on record as protecting Social Security. It will put the Senate on record as protecting the CLASS Act savings scored by CBO. It will put the Senate on record as supporting the impressive deficit reduction in the bill. I look forward to favorable consideration when we have a parliamentary agreement on calling it up.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

AMENDMENT NO. 2870 TO AMENDMENT NO. 2786

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 2870, an amendment to protect the Social Security surplus and CLASS program savings in this act and ask for the amendment's immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Whitehouse] proposes an amendment numbered 2870 to amendment No. 2786.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I yield the floor to the distinguished assistant majority leader.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Will the assistant majority leader yield?

Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I just wanted to ask the distinguished assistant majority leader to yield for a question through the Chair. Since the distinguished assistant majority leader was here at the time, and I am newer to this body and was not here at the time when the Medicare Advantage Program was originally proposed, I wonder if the distinguished assistant majority leader would remind us of what the promises and assertions were that were made by the private insurance industry at that time as they sought this foothold to get their hands on this Medicare population.

Mr. DURBIN. It was very basic, I would say to the Senator from Rhode Island through the Chair. They just said: Now, listen. When it comes to insurance, the government never gets it right. The bureaucrats who work for the government, those Federal employees, don't get it right. We do this for a living. We can show you how to provide Medicare benefits and save money. So, please, would you just step aside? The private health insurance companies are going to demonstrate to you how much money we can save.

Initially, there were some savings; I will say that in fairness. But over the years, they got greedy, and their greediness led in most recent times to--I think in 2003, if I am not mistaken, with the Medicare prescription drug program, when they came in and these same private health insurance companies said: Now we really need subsidies to keep offering our wonderful programs, now they tell us they are charging 14 percent more than basic Medicare.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. No. I would say to the Senator from Ohio the difference is obvious. With Medicare, anyone who shows up age 65 is eligible for coverage, no questions asked, other than your age and whether you have contributed over the course of your lifetime. These health insurance companies cherry-pick the healthiest people they can, then try to deny coverage where they can as well, and that is how they make their profits.

Mr. BROWN. They are pretty good at it.

Mr. DURBIN. So good at it that they are one of the most profitable sectors in the American economy, and virtually everybody knows somebody they work with or someone in their family who has had a bad experience with a health insurance company in America. That is the reality we are facing today.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, if I could ask the Senator to yield for a question, it would appear, then, that not only is there this subsidy that goes to the private insurance industry, funded by a tax on all other Medicare recipients, but those private insurance companies are actually doing their level best to try to pick out a disproportionately healthy Medicare-eligible population, so what we end up doing is not only paying more for Medicare Advantage but also for a healthier population. So it is a double subsidy.

Mr. DURBIN. Make it a triple whammy because the third impact, of course, is that the healthier people are not part of Medicare. Those left in Medicare are sicker and more expensive, so the government-run program ends up being more expensive because those private health insurance companies cherry-pick out the healthiest people they can find.

There are those who want to defend Medicare Advantage who think it is great that we would pay $170 billion in subsidies to these companies over a 10-year period of time. This bill moves us away from that and says if these private health insurance companies can't basically compete and match what government Medicare offers, then it is time for them to get out of the business and get out of the way. I don't see why in the world we are arguing about a subsidy for private health insurance companies when they already make so much money.

So I would at this point yield the floor. I know Senator Hatch has asked for an hour to speak on his motion. I believe it is a motion to commit. I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HATCH. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I know the Senator from Pennsylvania wishes to speak very shortly, and I will yield to him when he is present on the floor. But I did wish to react to two points that were made by the very distinguished Senator from Utah. I say that with true sincerity. He has been a friend to me since I have been in the Senate. He sets a very valuable standard in this institution for collegiality and dignity and bipartisanship and scholarliness, and he comes from an extremely distinguished career, prior to his distinguished career in the Senate, as a lawyer, a leader of the Utah bar.

But I do think that, as easy as it is to make fun of a 2,074-page bill, the House bill, which is not significantly different in scale from this bill, was reviewed. If you look at the substantive language in it--in a bill, of course, there is a lot of language that simply connects things into place and is tables and indexes and things such as that. If you look at the actual language you would read if you were interested in the substance of the bill on the House side and do a word count on it, it has fewer words than a ``Harry Potter'' novel. I don't think it is too much to expect that Members of the Senate should be prepared to leaf through the equivalent of a ``Harry Potter'' novel when they are embarking on as significant an effort and endeavor as we are in reforming the health care system. I think it was about 256,000 words, if I am not mistaken. It is smaller print, admittedly, than a ``Harry Potter'' book because of the way in which the bill is presented in its traditional format. It is very few words per page, so it looks big and one can make very entertaining demonstrations with it on the floor. When you actually get down to reading it, it is about the same as plowing through--actually less than plowing through a ``Harry Potter'' novel, and I don't think that should be too much to expect.

I also suggest the reason for the lack of current bipartisanship on this bill might very well be the arrogance of power of the Democratic majority--it might be. But I would suggest the facts might also support a different hypothesis. If you look back at the history of the development of this bill, it began on a very bipartisan note. It began with Senator Baucus's ``prepare to launch'' program at the very beginning of the year, a full-day, bipartisan effort to begin to focus on the delivery system reform issues. It began with a bipartisan group negotiating in the Finance Committee. It began with a HELP Committee bill that allowed for 161, I believe was the number, Republican amendments in a very open and completely bipartisan process.

Then along came August and the townhall meetings and the beginning of the radicalization of the Republican Party. We heard, out of that process, charged buzz words such as ``death panels,'' ``socialized medicine,'' ``benefits for illegal immigrants,'' ``rationing of care''--all these words that incite and inflame passions but make no reasoned case and advance no helpful alternative.

We saw those words and those arguments presented with a crudeness and a venom that are frankly new to American politics; for example, the President portrayed with a Hitler mustache. I don't recall, for 8 years, President Bush ever being portrayed with a Hitler mustache. Poor President Obama comes in and within his first months people are running around America portraying him with a Hitler mustache because we want to reform health care.

Certainly, there are a great number of us who believed President Bush was less than truthful when he came and spoke to us about Iraq and other subjects, but nobody yelled out ``You lie.'' In President Obama's first appearance, he was heckled from the floor of the Congress of the United States.

This September, after the tea bag group and after the townhall death panel group had become active, 179 Republicans in the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States voted to support their heckler comrade.

Something changed with the radicalization of the Republican Party, and I am not the only one to have noticed this. A very well-regarded Philadelphia columnist wrote recently of the Republican right:

If they can get some mileage ..... nothing else matters.

The columnist went on to decry what he called ``the conservative paranoia'' and ``lunacy'' afoot in our national debate.

The editor of the Manchester Journal Inquirer editorial page wrote of the GOP, which he called ``this once great and now mostly shameful party,'' that it ``has gone crazy,'' that it is ``more and more dominated by the lunatic fringe,'' and that it has ``poisoned itself with hate.'' He concluded, they ``no longer want to govern. They want to emote.''

The respected Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, in her column eulogizing her friend, the late William Safire, lamented the ``vile and vitriol of today's howling pack of conservative pundits.''

A Nobel Prize-winning economist has said:

The takeover of the Republican Party by the irrational right is no laughing matter. Something unprecedented is happening here, and it's very bad for America.

A well-regarded Washington Post writer with a quarter century of experience covering government and politics, married to a Bush administration official--we are hardly talking about commentary from the leftward fringe--has noted about the House health care bill and the arguments surrounding it ``the appalling amount of misinformation being peddled by its opponents.'' She called it a ``flood of sheer factual misstatements about the health-care bill.'' She noted that ``[t]he falsehood-peddling began at the top'' of the Republican Party. Her ultimate question was this:

Are the Republican arguments against this bill so weak that they have to resort to these misrepresentations and distortions?''

Even the respected head of the Mayo Clinic has recently described the health care antics we have witnessed as ``mud'' and ``scare tactics.''

It is possible, as the distinguished Senator from Utah suggests, that the reason bipartisanship is elusive is because Democrats have been gripped by the arrogance of power. But as somebody who has been witness to intense efforts to try to recruit Republican support for this bill, the evidence at least as well supports the theory that something has happened to the Republican Party in the past months, as the radicalized Republican right has emerged and taken over and provoked all of these responses from respected, neutral, seasoned veterans observing the political scene. I suggest that is at least a possibility.

I would like to change topics for a moment, given that Senator Casey is not present, and make an additional point that I believe merits mention. I will yield as soon as he appears to have arrived.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I had the opportunity to be on the floor yesterday, and the time was all under agreement. My time was concluded, and I was leaving the floor. The Senator from Utah had the occasion to offer some very kind words about me. Because of the procedural posture we were in, I did not have the chance to reply or respond at that time. This is the first time we have been on the floor together since then, when I have had the chance to have the floor, and I do want to let him know how much I value what he had to say. I know there are very well-established standards of protocol here in which we say nice things about each other, but I felt that what he had to say was not just protocol but was sincere and heartfelt, and it really does mean a lot to me and is reciprocated on my part.

I think Senator Hatch brings enormous, as I said earlier, dignity, erudition, principle, collegiality--many good characteristics to the floor. He is a force for good in this body, and I am delighted to have him count me a friend.

I yield him the next 5 minutes.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Iowa as well as the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania. Whichever one of them would like to proceed, I am prepared to yield. It looks as if it will be the distinguished Senator from Iowa.

I had the very great honor of serving on the HELP Committee during the time that the HELP Committee section of this bill was prepared. One of the most vital and important elements of this bill is its new focus on wellness and prevention to help Americans stay healthy so that it truly is health care and not just sick care, so that the medical establishment is not incented to add more and more tests and procedures because that is what they get paid for but won't have an e-mail contact or won't have a phone call to help talk a patient through something because they can't get reimbursed.

The potential value of wellness and prevention in this country is astonishing. It has been underinvested in because the people who are responsible for making those choices really don't get the benefit of them under our present perverse system.

The Senator from Iowa has shown great leadership. He is now chairman of the HELP Committee, but he certainly chaired, through the committee deliberations, the health and wellness portions. It was my honor to watch him in action and see the astonishing results he achieved.

I yield the floor to him and ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Iowa, the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Casey, be recognized.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source