Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act Of 2009

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this is the 10th day in the debate on health care reform. I believe it is one of the most important issues we have ever debated, certainly in my time on the floor of the Senate. There have been a variety of amendments offered, and there has been a lot of work going on off the Senate floor. Before we could reach this point and start this debate, committees held hearings that went on for weeks and months. They started with the base bill and entertained hundreds of amendments. The HELP Committee, as well as the Finance Committee, devoted so much time to this.

The first time I can recall the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee MAX BAUCUS coming to see me personally on this was over a year ago. So over a year has gone into this effort to come to this moment. I might add, the negotiations and efforts to improve the bill have not stopped. As late as last night, a large group of members of the Democratic caucus in the Senate were meeting to work out pretty contentious issues relating to competition for private health insurance companies. They worked late into the night, night after night, and finally came up with a consensus where differing points of view had to make concessions and come up with the best way to move forward. That is what has gone into the base bill that is before us.

This is it, 2,074 pages put together through all of the work I have just described. I understand the responsibility of the minority party in the Senate is to disagree. But we hope they will do it in a constructive fashion. In this situation, we have invited them in from the beginning. In fact, in each of the committees, Republican Senators have been active participants offering amendments, many of which were adopted.

Beyond that, there were meetings off the Senate floor. The Senator from Wyoming was a party to meetings that went on for, I am told, more than 60 days in an effort to find a bipartisan middle ground. But the fact is, we come here today in the Senate debating this bill, and there are several realities. The first reality is, after the House of Representatives went through a similar exercise, only one Republican Representative, a Congressman from New Orleans, LA, voted for health care reform, only one. In the Senate to date, only one Republican Senator, Senator Snowe of Maine, has voted for health care reform in the Finance Committee. Not one single Republican Senator other than Senator Snowe has voted to move forward on health care reform.

There is a second reality. There is no Republican health care reform bill. None. They have a variety of different ideas, but each one is discrete and specific. They are not comprehensive. They don't really address the issues this bill addresses. They have not presented a bill which makes health insurance premiums in America more affordable. This bill does.

Don't take a politician's word for it. The CBO looked at this bill and said it will bring down premiums for the vast majority of Americans paying for health insurance today, something we definitely need because we are dealing with a situation where individuals, families, and businesses can no longer afford health insurance. There has not been a bill produced on the other side of the aisle which guarantees that 94 percent of Americans will have health insurance. This bill does. They haven't produced that bill. When this bill is enacted into law, we will have a larger percentage of our American citizens covered with health insurance than ever in our history.

They have not produced a bill which changes the way health insurance is managed and its relationship with its customers across America. This bill does. There is a bill of rights in here that says: American consumer, you have a right to have health insurance, even if you have a preexisting condition. You have a right to stand up to the health insurance companies when they deny you coverage, saying: We only cover you when you are well, not when you are sick. You have a right for your children to be covered under your family health insurance policy until they reach the age of 27. These are rights which we guarantee in the bill and have not been brought to the floor by the Republican side because they do not have a health care reform bill.

Before us at this moment is a motion to commit by a friend of mine, Senator Crapo, who raises a question about will there be taxes. Will people have to pay for what we are doing here? Well, I can tell you, we think we have struck a good balance in terms of shared responsibility. First and foremost, understand this: If we dropped this debate, as most Republicans would have us do at this moment, and walked away and said: We are not going to do anything, each and every American will continue to pay over $1,000 a year in added premium costs to cover the cost of uncompensated care.

In my hometown of Springfield, IL, we have some wonderful hospitals. When poor people with no insurance show up, they are treated, they are cared for. That hospital, then--whether it is St. John's or Memorial--has to pass along the cost of that health care to the other people who are paying for their care, which means each of us is paying $1,000 more a year for our families in health insurance premiums to cover those uninsured. So that $1,000 tax is already there.

Let me tell you what this bill does. This bill says, if you are making less than $80,000 a year, we will help you pay your health insurance premiums, give you tax breaks to pay those premiums. That means a lot of people who today cannot afford to pay for health insurance premiums will be able to. They will go to this exchange. They will be able to chose from health insurance options, and they will get a helping hand to pay for health insurance.

We also have special provisions in here to take care of the smaller businesses. If you have fewer than 25 employees and have a small business--and that represents a lot of businesses, mom-and-pop businesses, for example--we are going to give you a helping hand so you can pay for the health insurance coverage for yourself, the owner of the business, and the people who work for you.

What about those that are larger companies? Well, let's be honest about it. We expect them to step up and accept this shared responsibility. Most of these companies do not question whether they have to pay into unemployment insurance or workers' compensation. That is part of the cost of doing business. We are saying that in this era of health care reform, with shared responsibility, businesses should offer good health insurance for their employees. In most instances, they do, and they deserve our commendation for doing it.

But we also understand there are some that may not cover their employees, may have waiting periods that are unreasonable. We start moving our policy against that so people do have the peace of mind of knowing, when they go to work, they have good health insurance that is going to be there when they need it. It is a new look at it.

But we started with a real challenge. America is the only developed, industrialized country in the world where a person can die for lack of health insurance. We are the only one. There is not another country where that happens.

We are also the only developed country in the world where a person can be driven into bankruptcy because of medical bills. We kind of accept it. Well, so and so had an accident, went to the hospital, was there for a month, and has a huge medical bill. They did not have any savings or insurance, and it wiped them out. It wiped them out.

It does not happen in other countries. In developed countries, it does not happen because they take care of people, and they understand whether they are using private health insurance or public health insurance, there is a social obligation to make sure we all have the peace of mind of knowing that is not going to happen.

So we address this, and we help people pay for their premiums as well. There is $441 billion in tax relief in this bill for families over the next 10 years to pay their health insurance premiums. That is a tax break that will lead to more insurance coverage and more peace of mind. That is a reality. For the smaller businesses, with 25 and fewer employees, there is a helping hand for them to cover their employees as well.

We also provide some competition that in many places does not exist today. We provide that there is going to be health insurance options for people. Too many small employers whom I have run into say: It is a take it or leave it deal with our health insurance company. We will renew last year's policy at a higher cost with less coverage, and you better take it because there is no place else to go. That is going to change here. That is part of the change.

For all my Republican friends and colleagues who have come to the floor over the last 10 days critical of this health care reform bill, I understand, that is part of Senate debate, that is part of what we are here for. But make no mistake, these same Senate Republicans do not have a health care reform bill. Most of the amendments that have been offered have been to protect health insurance companies, companies that are wildly profitable, companies that, frankly, dictate in this system how much people are going to pay and whether they are going to have coverage.

Dutifully, now, the Republican Senators have stepped up saying: We have to protect these health insurance companies and their profits. I do not think that is my responsibility. My responsibility is to almost 13 million people in my State of Illinois and to the rest of the Nation, to make sure they have the same peace of mind we all want--to know they have quality, affordable health care, to extend the reach of health care and the peace of mind that comes with it to the largest percentage of Americans in history.

The last point I wish to make is one about the deficit. We hear a lot about the deficit. This health care reform bill will cut more money from the deficit--$130 billion over the next 10 years--than any single bill ever considered on the floor of the Senate. Again, that is not my conclusion but the conclusion of the Congressional Budget Office, which analyzes these bills for Democrats and Republicans--a $130 billion reduction in the deficit over 10 years and, in the next 10 years, an additional $650 billion. Because as we start to bend the curve to bring down the increase in health care costs, it means we pay less for Medicare services, less for Medicaid services, less for many services that are offered through government programs.

This bill is fiscally responsible. President Obama challenged us to make it such, and we did it. There has not been a bill offered by the Senate Republicans which reduces the deficit--not anywhere near this amount. No one has ever done it. It took a lot of hard work to reach this point.

I would say the net result of the motion to commit by Senator Crapo is, unfortunately, to delay this debate even further, to stop the momentum toward health care reform. I do not think that is what America wants or needs. This is a once-in-a-political-lifetime opportunity to address an issue on the mind of every American and to do it in a fair and comprehensive way.

Certainly, this bill is not perfect. As hard as we tried, it never will be. But to just continue to argue there are elements they want to question, without offering a comprehensive health care reform alternative, I do not believe is a fair debate. We have put the time into this. I stand by it. I will be proud to support it. There are things in it I do not agree with; most things I do. But the fact is, it is the right thing for us to do at this moment in history. We cannot miss this opportunity. I encourage my colleagues to oppose the Crapo motion to commit.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Twenty-four minutes 40 seconds for the Democrats.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how long have I spoken?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has spoken for 8 minutes.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I stand in support of the amendment that is being offered by the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan. Senator Dorgan has talked about drug reimportation, and he has raised an issue which troubles me. Why is it that pharmaceutical companies in America charge Americans more for their product than they charge customers in other countries buying exactly the same product? Senator Dorgan had a hearing once, and the response was obvious. The pharmaceutical companies say: We charge Americans more because we can.

In all those other countries, such as Canada, when they try to sell drugs to Canadians, the Canadian Government steps in and says: You are entitled to a profit, but don't go overboard. We will allow you to increase your profits only so much each year.

In the United States, there is no such mechanism and no such effort. So we continue as a nation to pay premium prices for drugs that are exactly the same drugs that are sold at a fraction of the cost around the world.

The AARP, which is the largest organization of seniors in America, did a study of drug prices published in April. It showed that the price of the most commonly used drugs has risen faster than general inflation every year since 2004. This year, drug prices are going to go up another 9 percent, for example.

So a lot of Americans are saying: If I can buy the same drug in Mexico or Canada at a lower price, why wouldn't I be allowed to do that? Why would you stop me under the law? Well, I do not think we should. I think we ought to give people that opportunity.

What Senator Dorgan has done is to build in his amendment safety features so we know we are not dealing with counterfeit drugs and we know there is accountability as to the source and the purity and the effectiveness of the drugs that are bought.

This amendment creates a role for the Federal Government in providing oversight, with the goal of ensuring that Americans have access to lower prices and the peace of mind of knowing their drugs are safe.

The bill allows pharmacies and drug wholesalers licensed in the United States to import FDA-approved medications from Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Japan and pass along the savings to their American customers. What does it mean? A 35- to 55-percent lower cost for some of the most widely used drugs in America.

This approach will reduce costs when people need it, particularly sick people who are dependent on drugs to stay healthy or to avoid even further illness.

The CBO estimates that the new policy will result in Federal savings of $19.4 billion over 10 years. I will tell you why I think this is critically important. There are a lot of drugs and drug companies that are doing very well. They are very profitable, and they are based in the United States. I think it is unfair they are charging the people of their own country higher prices than they are charging people in other countries around the world.

This reimportation is an effort to try to help bring down some of these drug prices. These companies, incidentally, say: Well, we need the money because we need to do research for new drugs. Well, certainly they need to do research for new drugs. But maybe they can stop and explain to me or to someone why they spend more money on advertising than they do on research. You have seen the ads on television, heard them on the radio, and seen them in magazines. They spend a fortune advertising, trying to lure people into using the highest priced drugs in America.

These pharmaceutical companies are doing very well. Their profits are sky-high, sometimes the highest in America. I think it is fair in this bill, as we try to bring down the cost of health care, that we also bring down the cost of these drugs by allowing the importation, with strict safety standards, of these drug into the United States.

I support the Dorgan amendment and look forward to making more affordable prescription drugs available across the United States.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source