Recognition Of The Minority Leader

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. I rise to tell my colleagues why I am going to vote against the Lincoln executive compensation amendment. This amendment picks out one set of executives in the entire health care arena and singles out that one set of executives for limits on compensation. In the entire health care sector of the economy, this amendment suggests that only one group of executives warrants this sort of special treatment, and that happens to be the executives of health insurance companies. This amendment then takes that excess compensation that apparently Congress knows is the appropriate amount for compensation and devotes that excess money to the Medicare trust fund.

Well, a very commonsense question in this town of nonsense is, why not limit compensation for executives in other areas of health care? What about the executives of hospitals? Shouldn't their excess compensation go to protect Medicare? Why not executives of nursing homes then? Why not executives of medical device manufacturers? Why not limit compensation on the people who run home health agencies? Why not limit compensation for doctors? Why not limit compensation for executives at the drug companies?

Well, let's wait a second on that one. We know the answer to the one about why not include drug companies. This amendment can't touch drug company executives because their industry cut a secret deal where they agreed to some things in this bill, and they are going to get a huge payoff in profits once this goes into effect, as long as they don't open their big mouth and fight this legislation.

Of course, this all adds up because if you are watching TV at home, or even here on the Hill, big PhRMA is running ads all over the country in support of this 2,074-page Reid bill.

If the idea is for Congress to set the precedent of limiting compensation to protect the Medicare trust fund, then shouldn't we branch out even beyond the health care industry? We could get a lot of compensation--or we could get a lot of income into the Medicare trust fund by limiting compensation beyond health care to say, for instance, executives of trade associations or union leaders or trial lawyers or baseball players or movie stars. But, no; this amendment focuses on one specific group of executives who weren't going to be bought off by this bill. So let's just call this amendment out for the brazen political stunt it is, and if we do that, vote it down.

I wish to remind everyone in closing that I asked the sponsor to include drug company executives in her amendment but was turned down.

I yield the floor and yield 5 minutes to Senator Brownback.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I might consume on this side.

I listened to the distinguished majority whip. I don't know how many times we on this side have to tell him that if they want to read Republican bills here is an opportunity to come and read them. They do exist and they have existed for a long time, going back to some of their entries into the Senate in the spring.

Another thing I heard was that Republicans have no ideas, taking on the insurance companies. I would refer him to the Coburn-Burr bill that does away with the discrimination, that insurance companies cannot deny health insurance because of preexisting conditions.

I heard him say we are newfound supporters of Medicare. Let me suggest to him that when we learned from the complaints of his party 4 years ago, when they were berating the fact that we wanted to take $10 billion out of Medicare and how that was ruining Medicare--we are faced now with $464 billion out of Medicare and we think they have talked out of both sides of their mouth, in the sense that 4 years ago, if Medicare would be hurt if $10 billion were taken out, surely if $464 billion were taken out, it is hurting Medicare.

I rise not to take on the Senate majority whip at this point but I rise because we keep hearing from the other side about how premiums are going to go down. I referred in previous remarks in this past week to a letter sent to Senator Bayh that provides a very comprehensive analysis of what health insurance premiums will look like as a result of this Reid bill now before us.

That reminds me of one other thing the Senate majority whip said, that we want to delay action on this bill. What we want to have is 99 Senators have the time to consider what is in this 2,074-page bill, when you have to remember that in the secrecy of the Senate leader's office, Senator Reid's office, from October 2 until about the Saturday before Thanksgiving, it took that long in secrecy to put two bills together out of two separate committees. That is one Senator putting together the 2,074-page bill we have before us. Don't you think that 99 other Senators ought to have at least that same period of time to consider what is in this bill? I think so.

Anyway, getting back to the increase in premiums and Senator Bayh's letter from the Congressional Budget Office saying that premiums are going to go up, I wonder if anyone has actually read that letter. I hear a lot of people saying this letter proves that premiums would go down under the Reid bill, even though that is not what that letter says. So I am here to tell people what the letter says. The letter makes it very clear that premiums will increase on average 10 to 13 percent for people buying coverage in the individual market. I think you saw a specific figure given by the Senator from Texas, that in his State for a large percentage of the individual market premiums would go up, just for people in the State of Texas.

I have a chart here in case you missed what this letter actually says. The people who keep saying premiums are going to go down conveniently forget to mention this 10 to 13-percent increase that is going to happen for the individual market. No, they would prefer to talk about 57 percent of Americans in the individual market who are going to get subsidies. Yes, it is true. The Government is spending $500 billion of hard-earned taxpayers' dollars in addition to the cuts they are having in home health care that is a pending amendment before the Senate. These cuts and these tax increases cover up the fact that this bill drives up premiums faster than current law.

I repeat, premiums will go up faster under this bill. Supporters of this bill are covering up this increase in costs by then handing out these subsidies. But if you are 1 of the 14 million people who does not get a subsidy--well, what? You are out of luck. You are stuck with the fact that this is 10 to 13 percent more expensive and, coupled with it, an unprecedented new Federal law that mandates that you buy and purchase insurance.

Some may say this is the individual market, it only accounts for a small
portion of the total market. Again, if you are comfortable, as the other side seems to be, with 14 million people paying more under this bill than they would under current law.

I wish to also have you look at the employer-based market. The Congressional Budget Office analysis says this bill maintains the status quo in the small group and large group insurance market. Is this something we ought to be celebrating, maintaining the status quo? Are expectations so low at this point that Democrats are celebrating that this bill will increase premiums for some 14 million people and maintain the status quo for everybody else?

I am being generous in using the phrase status quo, because this bill actually makes things worse for millions of people. This bill is so bad that Democrats are trying to convince the American people that this is more of the same when even that is not the case.

What happened to bending the growth curve? In other words, the inflation we have historically had in health care costs, going up three or four times the rate of inflation, going up now 8 or 9 percent even when we have deflation in the economy at large? What about the President's promise that everyone will save $2,500? According to CBO, almost every small business will pay between 1 percent more or 2 percent less for health insurance. That means compared to what businesses would have paid under current law, this bill will raise premiums 1 percent or maybe decrease them by a whopping 2 percent. That doesn't sound like this bill is providing real relief, and $2,500 in savings for every American, as President Obama pledged repeatedly during the campaign, is not going to happen.

The larger businesses will pay the same or up to 3 percent less for health insurance. Once again, that doesn't sound like relief, it sounds like more of the same. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that between now and the year 2016, premiums will continue to grow at twice the rate of inflation.

I thought Congress was considering health reform to put an end to the unsustainable premium increases. This bill cuts Medicare by $500 billion, raises taxes by $500 billion, restructures 17 percent of our economy, spends $2.5 trillion, and some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are celebrating that they have achieved the status quo when in fact the situation will be worse. I thought the status quo was not something that was acceptable to most Members of this body.

Our constituents want to lower costs. That is their main concern. That is what our constituents begged for, lower costs. But this bill fails to address that concern. It raises premiums and, despite offering new ideas throughout the committee process and on the floor, Republicans are being accused of supporting the status quo when our bills are right here for anybody to look at if they think there are not any ideas we would put forth.

The Congressional Budget Office has spoken and it is pretty clear my colleagues across the aisle are not only OK with the status quo, they are OK with making things worse--higher taxes, higher premiums, increased deficits and less Medicare. Just think, we are approaching the Christmas holiday season and a Christmas gift coming from this Senate, with a 2,074-page bill: higher taxes, higher premiums, increased deficits, $464 billion cuts in Medicare and not doing anything about inflation in health care costs. They are celebrating that they spend $2.5 trillion to raise premiums for 14 million people, not bending this growth curve, not cutting costs.

Don't take my word for it. You have to read this letter from the Congressional Budget Office. It is there in black and white as evidenced by the chart I have here.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT