Health Care

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WICKER. I appreciate my colleague from Nebraska getting into the weeds because it is important that we know the details of the numbers here. I think there is also a sort of big-picture aspect to this. There are a lot of Americans out there who may not have read the details the Senator from Nebraska just outlined, but they instinctively know you can't do all this to one-sixth of our economy and save money for the Federal Government at the same time. They instinctively know this is going to turn out, as big entitlement programs always do, to be more expensive than has been estimated and it is going to cost the American taxpayer and future generations in terms of the national debt.

I would like to pivot and talk about what this is going to do to State governments because that is an additional aspect over and above the gigantic numbers the Senator from Nebraska mentioned.

Really, almost half of the additional coverage in this Senate bill, which the House is being asked to adopt lock, stock, and barrel without even changing so much as a semicolon, half of the coverage is going to be under Medicaid. We all know Medicaid requires a huge Federal investment, but Medicaid also always requires a State match. Under the provisions of this bill, if it is enacted, States will be told that the magnificent Federal Government has increased coverage, and now, Mr. State Legislator, Mr. State Governor, you figure out a way to pay your part of it.

I know this much: In my State of Mississippi, our legislators and our Governor have had to stay up late 2 years in a row figuring out a way to pay for the Medicaid match they are already being asked to pay, much less this new mandate of additional persons who would be covered under this Senate language. There is no way the State of Mississippi can stand this new Medicaid coverage without an increase in our taxes at the State level. I don't think we can cut teachers enough, although teachers might have to be cut to pay this Federal mandate. I don't think we can cut local law enforcement enough, although that might have to be cut too. It is just a huge, unfunded burden on the States. Quite frankly, even if all of the promises that are being made on the Senate side come true--that we will clean this up in reconciliation, which I frankly doubt can possibly happen--the States are going to be faced with this huge unfunded mandate.

You don't have to take our word for it on this side of the aisle. Democratic Governor after Democratic Governor has had press conferences, they have sent letters, they have sent messages, they have made themselves available to the press. Governor Bredesen of the State of Tennessee said this bill is the ``mother of all unfunded mandates'' and has urged, even at this late date, that we not go down this road.

So I appreciate my friend from Nebraska pointing out what this is going to do to the Federal budget, and I would simply commend the bipartisan State officials who have been talking to anyone within the sound of their voices saying that State governments cannot afford this mandate at the State level, and it will inevitably result in an increase in taxes at the State level--something we certainly don't need at this time of economic hardship.

Perhaps Senator Brownback has some thoughts he would like to add, and I know others may be joining us, too, Mr. President.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WICKER. The people back home want health care reform, but they certainly want the kind that is going to lower health care costs and lower health care premiums. The Senator mentioned CMS. It may be that some people within the sound of our voices do not realize this is a part of the administration. This is not some outside business group that has an ax to grind. The actuaries at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are called on to tell us the numbers as they see them. They had no choice but to answer the question accurately and the question is not one that lends itself to getting public support for this plan. I think that is why the poll numbers Senator Brownback mentioned are there. There is only about 25 percent of the American public that believes at this point we should pass this huge Senate bill lock, stock, and barrel and send it to the President for his signature.

Senator Barrasso mentioned the $ 1/2 trillion cut in Medicare. We spent a little time in December debating whether actually there was a cut in Medicare. Some of our friends on the other side of the aisle suggested this--the programs that were cut should not be considered part of the Medicare Program.

Obviously, there is one Democratic Senator who thought so much of these cuts in Medicare that he got an exemption for his State. That is what the minority leader has been calling the ``Gator aid.'' Florida, under the Senate bill--the bill the House is being asked to pass in its entirety without changes--the Senate bill says we are not going to cut Medicare Advantage for the State of Florida.

Why the people of the State of Florida are more deserving of Medicare Advantage and Medicare benefits than the people of Wyoming or Mississippi or Kansas or Nebraska, I do not know. But somehow the majority, 60 Members of this Senate, in their wisdom, believed Medicare was a good program and Medicare Advantage was a very good program for the people of Florida.

By the same token, I guess the Democratic Senator from Nebraska has now repudiated what was known as the ``Cornhusker kickback,'' which was basically saying Nebraska would not have to pay for their share of this huge Medicaid mandate; all the other States would. Somehow that State was singled out. Apparently, the people of Nebraska rose in horror at being singled out for some sort of favor the other people in America were not getting, so that is being proposed to be changed.

I ask Senator Johanns, if the House votes on this next week, they will not have a chance, will they, to take that out? The only choice the House is going to have is to vote for the ``Cornhusker kickback,'' the ``Gator aid,'' the ``Louisiana purchase,'' these special deals for labor unions, and all that will be sent to the President to be signed into law and will be part of the statute.

That is the way I understand the Democratic procedure. I ask Senator Johanns, am I correct?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WICKER. If I can interject, I think that was a very telling remark from the Speaker of the House yesterday, and if someone didn't catch that, she said we need to pass the bill so we can then find out what is in it. The comments are out there on the Internet for the American people to see. I would like to quote Senator LAMAR ALEXANDER about this entire process. He said:

What the President is doing is asking House Democrats to hold hands, jump off a cliff, and hope Harry Reid catches them.

I don't know that HARRY REID will be able to catch them. I will say this. If there are budget points of order that need to be waived in this scheme the majority leader has about cleaning up this statute in conference, I am not going to be a part of 60 votes to waive that point of order. It will all be on Mr. Reid and his teammates over there to get this done because I will not be a part of waiving points of order, helping them get to a supermajority to clean up something, even if it needs to be done.

This process needs to be stopped, and I would say the next 10 to 14 days are going to tell the tale. The American people do not want this bill, and it is up to the House of Representatives and to us, saying what we can on the Senate side, to see if we are going to listen to the people and stop this bill, go back to the drawing board and try something that works.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source