Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act Of 2009
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we have all been waiting for many weeks while the Democratic leadership worked behind closed doors, out of public view, to write this new health care reform bill, and this process, of course, is very much contrary to what the President promised during the campaign--that negotiations on the health care reform bill would even be on C-SPAN so everybody in the country could see it. So now a very secretly put together bill is out for our consideration with just a few days to consider it.
Last week, they were considering expanding Medicare to people between 55 and 64 years of age--also, increasing Medicare to cover people up to 150 percent of poverty--and thirdly, having a government-run plan run by the Office of Personnel Management.
Now we have something entirely different. We have the Reid amendment, and it is chock full of special deals. It does nothing to fix the fatal flaws in the 2,074-page bill we started with, and now we have a bill that is probably 400 pages longer than 2,074 pages.
What kind of changes does this new amendment make to the original Reid amendment? Well, one tax disappears--it was a tax on cosmetic surgery--and in its place we have a new tax, a tax on tanning bed services. The dial on the Medicare payroll tax is turned up. So the first-time marriage penalty in a Medicare tax--one that hits about half the two-earner couples--is enhanced. Well over 1 million couples get to look forward to that tax hit--can you believe it?--just for being married. So the old marriage penalty is back. The dial on the insurance fee is also turned up in the back end of the bill.
But with respect to a few favored insurance companies, the fee is turned off. The very limited small business tax credit is expanded--over $ 1/2 trillion in new taxes, according to the official congressional scorekeepers. What kind of tax changes stay the same? Basically, the managers' amendment in the underlying Reid amendment still imposes new taxes--new taxes on everything from tanning beds to insurance companies to wages to heart valves to drugs and even more.
Contrary to what has been said on the Senate floor this very day, the tax burden still rests on many middle-class folks. As has been said, there is a sizable subsidy that 12 million tax-filing families and individuals receive. We do not dispute that. But what the other side does not want to acknowledge is this: There are 42 million tax-filing, middle-class families and individuals who will pay higher taxes under this 2,000-plus page bill. For every middle-class, tax-filing family who receives an insurance subsidy, three middle-class families will pay higher taxes.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of a corrected version of an article from Congressional Daily, dated December 18, of this year.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. This new compromise does not fix any of the core problems in this original 2,074-page Reid bill. It is still that long of a bill. It is still a $2.5 trillion massive bill as far as costs are concerned. The Reid amendment actually adds 400 more pages.
These closed-door negotiations did not produce a better product. Quite the opposite. It still taxes middle-class families, seniors, and veterans. Millions of people still will not be able to keep what they have, as the President promised in the last campaign. A lot of people who were hoping to pay less as a result of the word ``reform'' will still end up paying more.
I am not just talking about the young and the healthy. It still imposes higher premiums for prescription drug coverage on seniors and the disabled. It still permanently cuts all annual Medicare provider payment updates based on productivity gains outside of health care. These cuts still go into effect, even if it means providers will get a negative payment update, and these permanent cuts still threaten Medicare access to care.
The bill still cuts $120 billion from Medicare Advantage, cuts that will reduce Medicare benefits for 11 million beneficiaries, contrary to what the President told us in his speech in September--that nobody is going to get cut in Medicare. This bill still creates a new body of unelected officials with broad authority to make further cuts in Medicare beyond the $40-some billion that are in this bill.
This bill still unwisely makes the board permanent. This bill still requires this board to continue making even more cuts in Medicare and to do that forever into the future.
The damage this group of unelected people could do to Medicare is unknown, but we certainly do know how impossible it will be to undo any damage that unelected board does, if Congress decides we ought to undo it. That is because whatever cuts they make we have to offset, and stirring up that money is very difficult for offsets.
This bill passes a $26 billion unfunded mandate on to the States because the Reid amendment even made this problem worse by adding $1 billion to that unfunded mandate for States under Medicaid. These increased costs will cause States to raise taxes, maybe cut education, maybe cut transportation, and maybe cut law enforcement. But it is still money the States have to dig up.
This bill still has the CLASS Act in it, even though the administration's own Health and Human Services Chief Actuary says it runs the risk--a great risk--of being unsustainable.
It still has a special carve-out for committee and leadership staff from having to use the health insurance exchanges. This is a cute move on the part of somebody in these closed-door offices. I got an amendment through the Senate Finance Committee on a unanimous basis that, if the people of this country have to use the exchange, employees and Congressmen on Capitol Hill ought to use it. But, no; when you get to the secrecy behind doors, just the Congressmen and their permanent staffs but not the thousands of people who serve on leadership staff or committee staff, they still got the deal they have today. So they are not going to know what the American people are going through by using the exchange.
This bill still has special deals for brand-name drug makers that will reduce access to generic drugs, making drug costs even higher for everyone. What this process has shown is that there is a clear and significant philosophical difference between this side of the aisle versus that side of the aisle. Those differences are still there, and the lines between us on this specific piece of legislation become brighter still, even though maybe on 90 percent of the legislation going before this body, there is bipartisan cooperation. But on this one, restructuring one-sixth of the economy, health care being a life-or-death issue for 306 million Americans, this is different from anything this body has tried before. On something such as this, maybe there is a legitimate reason for having differences.
Republicans tried to reduce the overall cost. They said no. They increased the spending in the bill. Republicans tried to reduce the pervasive role of government. They said no, and they increased the role of government. Republicans tried to make it harder for illegal immigrants to get benefits. They said no, and that still has not been fixed. Republicans tried to guarantee that Federal funding for abortions would not be allowed under this bill. That has been the Federal policy since 1976. That has even had bipartisan support ever since the Hyde amendment was put in place that year. But they said no. They wouldn't agree to apply that policy. That still has not been fixed. Republicans tried to allow alternatives to the individual mandate and the harsh penalties associated with it. They said no. They have subjected even more people to the mandate, and they have raised penalties. Republicans tried to raise medical malpractice reform. They said no. Real lawsuit reform is still not in this bill.
We have watched while the other side has expanded government coverage. Since this process began, the other side has been working hard to move millions of people from private coverage to government-subsidized coverage. The bill creates new government programs that cover families making close to $100,000 a year. When we hear about that in rural America, in the Midwest part of the United States, they think we have gone bananas in this body by subsidizing families making $100,000.
At the end of the day, after raising billions in new taxes, cutting about $ 1/2 trillion from Medicare, imposing stiff new penalties for people who don't buy insurance and increasing costs for those who do, still 23 million people will not have health insurance. I don't think this is what the American people had in mind when we promised to fix health care.
The Reid bill imposes a $2.5 trillion tab on Americans. It kills jobs with taxes and fees that go into effect 4 years before the benefits of the bill take hold. It kills jobs with that employer mandate. It imposes $ 1/2 trillion in higher taxes on premiums, on medical devices, on prescription drugs, and yet more. It jeopardizes access to care with massive Medicare cuts. It imposes higher costs. It raises premiums. It bends the cost curve in the wrong way because people would expect you to bend inflation down, but this bill takes it up. This is not what people have in mind when they think about health care reform.
We have been hearing repeatedly from the majority whip from Illinois that the Republican side has offered only four amendments. I found this to be rather astonishing. The majority whip should know, because they are filed at the desk, that Republicans have put forth 214 amendments. In addition to striking some of the bad ideas in the Reid bill, these amendments also contain Republican proposals that are improvements over the Reid bill. But in this rush to get it done, the majority has decided they don't want to consider any more of the 440 amendments filed at the desk.
Let's be clear. We keep them so people can have access to them anytime they want to, the 440 amendments that have been filed, that we are accused of not offering any suggestions or improvements. Right here in these three binders, any one of the amendments you want, it is there.
Since this happens to be the case, I would like to take them up on their interest in considering additional amendments. The majority leader and my friend, the Senator from Montana, have both said they want this bill to fill the doughnut hole in the Medicare Part D Program. I share my colleagues' desire to provide even more protection than seniors get under Medicare. I filed an amendment that is in this binder, amendment No. 3182, that would use the savings from medical liability reform, which happens to be about the second or third thing that always comes up at my town meetings that the people in this country feel we ought to be working on if we are going to make real the word ``reform.'' It would put that $50 billion into savings toward eliminating the doughnut hole. The amendment puts the needs of 27 million seniors ahead of the needs of trial lawyers. I can't speak for my colleagues, but that seems like a pretty easy decision.
To my good friend from Montana, I only have one unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to offer amendment No. 3182, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the doughnut hole will be filled. I have made that promise. Senator Reid has made that promise. The White House made that promise. When the bill is presented on the President's desk, the doughnut hole will be filled but not in the way suggested by my friend from Iowa. He is one of my best friends in the Senate, and it is with regret that I must object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I find it disappointing that we would miss the opportunity to forgo $50 billion in savings that could make prescription drugs more affordable for 27 million seniors. Even though my friend has just said they are filling the doughnut hole, I would quickly say it is being filled in a way that the big pharmaceutical companies are going to make sure they are selling prescription drugs, prescribed drugs, for a long period of time and not have the savings that ought to come from using generics to a greater extent. This $50 billion--actually $54 billion--that CBO says we would save with medical malpractice reform would be a better way of filling that doughnut hole.
I have a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I want to make a parliamentary inquiry about the pending managers' amendment. My inquiry will be whether the pending amendment, which everyone agrees is critical to the health care reform legislation before us, complies with Senate rule XLIV.
Senate rule XLIV was adopted as part of major ethics and government reform legislation. It was passed in 2007. Its title was the ``Honest Leadership and Open Government Act.'' The Democratic leadership made it the first bill introduced when they took over the majority in 2007. It enjoyed broad bipartisan support. I wish the reform had been tougher. The part of the legislation that became Senate rule XLIV dealt with the transparency of earmarks. They are technically defined as ``limited tax benefits'' and ``congressionally directed spending items.''
Rule XLIV applies to floor amendments such as the pending managers' amendment. Rule XLIV requires the sponsor of the amendment--in this case, Senator Reid--to provide a list of these narrow provisions. Senator Reid has not provided the list. We received the several-hundred-page amendment yesterday morning. Republican staff have performed a preliminary review. That review finds that some items might--I repeat, might--be limited tax benefits. There are press reports about narrowly crafted exceptions to the insurance fee.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the Dow Jones article dated December 19, 2009.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Likewise, single State Medicaid provisions might be determined to be congressionally directed spending items. Under rule XLIV, the determinations are not made by the minority staff.
In order to ensure transparency of narrow provisions, the burden is on the sponsor to provide the list.
This is my parliamentary inquiry: Does rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate require that if a Senator proposes an amendment containing congressionally directed spending or a limited tax benefit, that the sponsor of those provisions and the names of the Senators requesting them be printed in the RECORD?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Paragraph 4(a) of rule XLIV requires that a Senator proposing an amendment containing a congressionally directed spending item ensure as soon as practicable that a list of such items be printed in the Congressional Record.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Has the majority leader provided a list of these special deals and of the Members requesting them for the Record as required by the Senate rules?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is not aware of whether that has occurred at this time.
Mr. GRASSLEY. So what is the situation as far as the rule being provided, as long as the Senate has not been made aware of this?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. This part of rule XLIV simply requires that the Senator mentioned make a good-faith effort to comply with paragraph 4(a). It does not impose a condition that would precede the amendment, that it could not be heard.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source