Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act Of 2009

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask my friend from Montana, Senator Baucus, to be alert because I want to raise a similar request to set aside. But before I do that, I want to explain why I am doing this. I worked for 6 years to pass the Congressional Accountability Act, which was signed into law by President Clinton in 1995. I worked so hard because I strongly believed there should only be one set of laws in this country.

Prior to 1995, there were two sets of laws--one for Capitol Hill and one for the rest of the country because Congress exempted itself. That is why, following on that practice of 1995, I offered an amendment during the Finance Committee markup to require that Members of Congress and congressional staff get their employer-based health insurance through the same exchanges as our constituents. That is something for which I also heard complaints from the grassroots of Iowa during my town meetings. I did offer that amendment, and it was adopted without objection.

But then after careful consideration and examination of the bill Senator Reid put together--and this was done by the Congressional Research Service--it was revealed that my amendment was changed under this closed-door merger process. Something cute happened. Under the bill we now have before us, this requirement would not apply to staff for committees of the Congress or leadership offices, it would apply to Members and their personal staff but not leadership. That is a real cute thing, to give exemptions for some people on Capitol Hill but not for others.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an analysis from the Congressional Research Service.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. This carve-out creates a double standard and is totally unacceptable. This amendment goes beyond just going where my original amendment went to cover all people on Capitol Hill. The amendment I am asking consent for would also include the President, Vice President, political appointees, and senior-level staff of the executive branch. It is only fair that if this bill becomes law, these leaders should themselves be subject to the reforms that make our constituents go through the exchange.

I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to offer amendment No. 3178 which is at the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Mr. BAUCUS. I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Democratic leadership and the White House have spent months talking about accountability. With this objection, the majority will not even consider an amendment to make sure the White House and all Members employed on Capitol Hill, not just those in our personal offices, live under the same new health care system the rest of the country lives under. That sure doesn't sound like accountability to me.

There is widespread agreement that the health care system in this country has serious problems. Costs are rising at three times the rate of inflation. Many Americans are uninsured. Millions more fear losing their insurance in a weak economy or because of preexisting conditions. Doctors are ready to close their doors over high malpractice costs and lower government reimbursements, and we do not do anything in this bill about high malpractice costs.

Something has to be done, everyone seems to agree. But tomorrow the Senate will vote on a bill that makes a bad situation worse. It is unfortunate that we are voting on a bill that a significant majority--61 percent--of Americans oppose. The American people, providers, advocacy groups as well, are simply reacting to the fact that this bill slid rapidly down the slippery slope to more and more government control of health care.

It contains the biggest expansion of Medicaid since 1965. It creates a long-term care insurance program called the CLASS Act that the CMS Actuary says runs a significant risk of being unsustainable, and one of the most significant Members of this body referred to it as a Ponzi scheme similar to what Madoff did. It imposes an unprecedented Federal mandate for coverage backed by the enforcement authority of the Internal Revenue Service. It increases the size of government by $2.5 trillion when fully implemented. It creates dozens of new Federal bureaucracies and programs to increase the scope of the Federal role in health care. That is a lot of power over people's lives concentrated in the Federal Government, and there are 1,697 delegations of authority to the Secretary of HHS to do things beyond authorities specifically given in this legislation.

The excesses of this bill appear willfully ignorant of what is going on in the rest of the economy outside of health care. These excesses make it far worse than doing nothing.

At this point in our Nation's history, we are facing very challenging economic times. We have seen the auto industry go into bankruptcy. We have seen banks shutter their doors. The chart behind me shows how the Federal debt has increased by $1.4 trillion since inauguration. The chart also shows the growing amount of debt the Federal Government is taking on. The amount of increased debt added just since inauguration puts $11,000 more of debt on each household, and that total debt now exceeds $12 trillion for the first time in history.

At the beginning of this debate, one of the key promises of health care reform was that it would bring down health care costs. This needs to be done before health spending sinks the Federal budget and saddles taxpayers. I have a chart that illustrates the upward expenditures of health care costs by $160 billion over the next decade, and that comes from this bill. The red area on this chart is the net additional Federal health spending according to not this Senator but the Congressional Budget Office.

Americans have rightly lost faith when, in the face of the current economic crisis, Congress thinks this $2.5 trillion restructuring of the health care system is a good idea. From rationing care to infringing on the doctor-patient relationship, this government-run system will guarantee U.S. taxpayers a staggering tax burden for generations to come.

When the debate began last year, interested legislators of both parties set forth benchmarks that were at the time no-brainers and still are. But this bill does not conform. Health care reform should lower the cost of premiums. It should reduce the deficit. Now, this bill does over the 10-year window, but if you look at when the program really starts, 4 years from now, and look ahead 10 years at that time, you will find it does not. It should bend the cost curve of health care the right way, but it does not do that. The Reid bill does not do any of these things we set out to do at the beginning of the debate.

As we end this debate, I urge my colleagues to listen to the American people. The Reid bill is the wrong direction.

Mr. President, with widespread agreement that our health care system has serious problems, why do we have a partisan debate?

There is a column from the Financial Times by a commentator, Clive Crook, that sheds some light on the cause of the partisanship.

Mr. Crook, a Brit, is sympathetic to the goals and methods of my friends on the other side. But, as one who knows a system of the universal coverage our friends on the other side seek, he is sober about the consequences.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Mr. Crook's article entitled ``The Honest Case for a Bungled Health Care Reform,'' be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. I am going to try and break through the partisan wall and connect with my friends on the other side.

Costs are rising at three times the rate of inflation.

Many Americans are uninsured, millions more fear losing their insurance in a weak economy or because of preexisting conditions.

Doctors are ready to close their doors over high malpractice costs and low government reimbursement rates.

Something has to be done. Everyone agrees on that much.

But tomorrow, the Senate will vote on a bill that makes a bad situation worse. Mr. Crook describes the state of play well:

[t]he health care bill in its current state is a mess--and an unpopular mess to boot.

It is unfortunate that we are voting on a bill that a significant majority--61 percent--of Americans oppose.

The American people, providers, and advocacy groups are simply reacting to the fact that this bill slid rapidly down the slippery slope to more and more government control of health care.

Mr. Crook states:

Popular fears that the bill will drive up insurance premiums and add to public borrowing are probably justified. The measure is timid about changing incentives to promote efficiency: it proposes lots of experiments, but little compulsion.

All through this process, it is as if Republicans and Democrats have been living in parallel universes. Republicans have focused on the elements of the policy and asked tough questions about the cost of the change.

Mr. Clive captures that sobering reality:

Adverse selection is likely to be a bigger problem than reformers say: new rules would stop insurance companies denying coverage to the sick, and the quid pro quo of mandatory insurance may be insufficient to offset this. If the insurers' risk pools deteriorate, premiums will rise. ..... Higher taxes as well as higher premiums are the likely result of this reform.

Members on this side of the aisle, at each stage of the process, have focused on this reality. While recognizing the worthy goal of expanding coverage, we have been concerned about the effect on the currently insured.

This bill contains the biggest expansion of Medicaid since it was created in 1965.

It cuts Medicare by a staggering half a trillion dollars over the next decade.

It creates a long-term care insurance program called the CLASS Act that the CMS Actuary says runs a significant risk of being unsustainable.

It imposes an unprecedented Federal mandate for coverage backed by the enforcement authority of the Internal Revenue Service.

It increases the size of the government by $2.5 trillion when fully implemented.

It creates dozens of new Federal bureaucracies and programs to increase the scope of the Federal role in health care.

That is a lot of power over people's lives concentrated in the Federal Government.

And the excesses of this bill appear willfully ignorant of what is going on in the rest of the economy outside of health care.

The cost of these excesses make this bill far worse than doing nothing.

This summer, official scorekeepers fleshed out the size of this cost of achieving the other side's noble, but costly goal of expanded coverage. As on who agrees with the goal of universal coverage, Mr. Crook acknowledges it:

It is delusional to suppose that you can significantly widen access to healthcare at no net public cost. You cannot both transform a system and leave its basic structure unaltered. Trying to squirm around these unavoidable realities has brought the effort to its current pass.

And yet, despite these cold hard facts, our Democratic friends continue to quest for the Holy Grail of expanded coverage. Mr. Cook captures that sentiment:

In the end, I think, everything depends on the weight one attaches to achieving security of coverage as quickly as possible. In my view, this is the overriding consideration. Abandoning the effort now might postpone that goal for another decade or more. The country should regard this as unacceptable.

Does anyone doubt this is where our Members on the other side are coming from? Some are explicit about it, like my friend, the majority whip. I recognize that transparency. But to them the price--for everyone else, the insured, businesses, Federal and State taxpayers, and Medicare patients--is secondary.

Go back and look at the many pages in the RECORD and you will see two themes prove my point. One is the Democratic theme. Most of the debate from those on the other side has been about what they want this bill to do. They want it to expand the role of the Federal Government in health care. Hence, the prideful references to past efforts, successful and unsuccessful, in that regard. They want it to solve all problems the uninsured face. They recite case after case of uninsured and underinsured. The stories they tell are compelling. On our side, we see the point the other side is making.

Go look at all those pages of debate again. You will see another theme. It is the Republican theme. That theme is not about what we want the bill to do for the uninsured. It is about understanding and explaining what the costs and benefits of this bill are to all Americans: Insured and uninsured, young, middle-aged, and elderly, suburban, and rural. In this regard, Republicans reflect where the vast majority of Americans are right now.

Mr. Crook, again, firmly where our friends on the other side are, captures the polarity of the debate:

Once the reform is law ..... the real work begins. Getting a grip on costs will be even more urgent than it is already--especially when you recall the broader fiscal calamity that awaits the country during the next decade.

Mr. Crook is correct. At this point in our Nation's history, we are a Nation facing very challenging economic times. We have seen the auto industry go into bankruptcy. We have seen banks shutter their doors.

The Federal debt has increased by $1.4 trillion since inauguration. This chart shows the growing amount of debt that the Federal Government is taking on. Just the amount of increased debt added just since the inauguration is $11,535 per household.

It now exceeds $12 trillion for the first time in history.

In these perilous times, Mr. Crook notes the public is extremely sensitive to the fiscal consequences of the bill before the Senate. And that is where Republicans have focused all along. Mr. Crook describes the tension between the goal he shares with our Democratic Members and the public's focus on the questions Republicans have asked for almost a year now. On one side of that tension are the answers to Republican inquiries:

The honest case for reform along the lines of the Senate bill is not that it fixes U.S. healthcare; still less that, as the White House blithely maintains, it alleviates the country's fiscal distress. The truth is, it will create more problems than it solves.

On the other side of that tension is the goal Democratic Members seek. Their goal of trying to achieve ``universal coverage'' overrides all other considerations. As Crook puts it ``of surpassing importance.''

And, if the other side prevails, what does it mean for the future. From Mr. Crook, who shares my Democratic friends' goals, I quote:

Enacting this reform is not the end of the healthcare argument, but the beginning. If it does pass, it may well be looked back on as a mistake once its financial implications sink in. Yet the principle of universal coverage will have been accepted, and with luck there will be no going back, The price will be high, but is it worth it?

What is that price, Mr. President? To a certain extent, what we do know is that it is high for everyone, but the uninsured population. To the extent we don't and cannot know, it is likely to be higher.

From rationing care to infringing on the doctor-patient relationship, this government-run system will guarantee U.S. taxpayers a staggering tax burden for generations to come.

When the debate began last year, interested legislators of both parties set forth benchmarks that were no-brainers. Health care reform should lower the cost of premiums. It should reduce the deficit. It should bend the growth curve in health care the right way.

How does the Reid bill measure up?

CBO tells us premiums rise.

What about health spending? As this chart here illustrates, this bill bends the Federal spending curve further upward by $160 billion over the next decade. The red area on this chart is that net additional Federal health spending according to the Congressional Budget Office.

How about deficit reduction? Americans have rightly lost faith when in the face of the current economic crisis, Congress thinks this $2.5 trillion restructuring of the health care system is a good idea.

The Reid bill doesn't measure up on any of those things.

The unfortunate state of this partisan floor debate goes to the tension Mr. Crook identified:

I was raised by FDR Democrats. From a lifetime of public service, I know a little bit about my Democratic friends' political DNA. A big part of that political DNA is one principle. It is this. Expanding health insurance trumps everything else.

I respect and understand that view.

Where we, on our side, differ, is whether it is an absolute or relative principle. Does the principle of universal coverage trump everything else? Does it trump cost containment? Does it trump the tax burden it brings with higher Federal and State taxes?

Does it trump the financial burden it places on small businesses and other employers? Does it trump the financial burden related premium cost increases will bring? Does it trump the negative impact it will have on the Medicare Program that our seniors count on?

For those of us, on this side, expanding coverage is a worthy goal. But it is not an absolute goal. We prefer to expand coverage through better access and affordability. But that goal of expanded coverage must be balanced with other goals.

We view it as relative to those other goals. It is relative to whether the related Federal and State tax burden is bearable. It is relative to realistic cost containment reforms. It is relative to whether the cost burden on employers, especially small businesses, is bearable. It is relative to whether the impact on Medicare services and solvency is bearable.

The American people have tuned into this debate. They don't like the partisanship. They agree with all of us that reform is needed. They have been telling us that expanding coverage is important, but not absolute.

I urge the other side to make the honest case for reform to the American people. That will lead to a bipartisan response, process, and product. Americans don't want bungled health care reform.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source