Health Care

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask my colleague, it seems to me, as he described this reconciliation trailer bill that the House will use, first, to try to fix elements of the Senate bill they do not like, and then that reconciliation bill would come back to the Senate, I ask the Senator: Is it not true that the House and Senate already passed their health care bills? Why then is this second vehicle, this reconciliation bill necessary?

It seems to me at least the House, if it were to vote on the Senate-passed bill, that would put into law most of the provisions that are included in that bill. So why is the second process necessary, I ask my colleague from New Hampshire?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Let me, if I might, explore this a little further with the Senator from New Hampshire and follow up with a question that the Senator from Texas asked.

As I understand this then, the Cadillac tax provisions that were in the
GPO's PDF Senate bill--and that bill is now over in the House and going to be voted on--because of the changes that have been proposed to it now, it would delay the implementation of the Cadillac tax. Of course, the Cadillac tax, as the Senator from New Hampshire explained, would cap the amount of health care benefits that would be tax free, essentially, so above and beyond that would then become taxable. There is an assumption made that there would be a shift from health care benefits from employers to cash compensation, which would be taxable and generate more payroll tax revenues. That was the Senate bill as it passed here. The additions or modifications that are being considered in the House would delay the implementation date. Therefore, there is a lot of payroll tax revenue that would be coming in under Social Security that would no longer be realized or at least not be realized until the year 2018, which affects the amount of revenue that would be coming in under the Senate-passed bill, if these changes are adopted.

As I understand what the Senator from New Hampshire is saying, that will impact Social Security revenues. Those are payroll tax revenues, and any changes that are made to Social Security create a violation of the reconciliation process in the Senate--the Byrd rule, as the Senator from Texas referred to--and, therefore, a point of order would lie against that reconciliation bill when it comes back over here.

The majority, I assume, would move to waive that point of order, but what happens if that point of order is not waived? If the majority is not successful in having that point of order waived, what happens to that reconciliation bill, which at that time would be under consideration in the Senate.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Well, is it possible, I would ask both my colleagues, that the process the House is using--and by the way, this deeming the bill passed seems to be a very curious way of trying to pass legislation of this consequence, which literally impacts one-sixth of our economy and literally impacts every American in a very personal way--is meant to somehow divorce themselves from the accountability or the responsibility that comes with voting for this in the House; therefore, they are going to use this deeming provision that would essentially pass this bill without having to have a recorded voted on it? By the way, I find that incredibly ironic for a legislative body, which is supposed to be about debating and voting on legislation.

But let's assume that happens and they pass the Senate bill and then attach this reconciliation vehicle, which both my colleagues have referred to. Then it comes over here and these points of order that have been raised against the bill, which the Senator from Texas and the Senator from New Hampshire have both referred to--the Byrd point of order and this section 310(g), if that point of order is raised and the Chair sustains it, I guess--or essentially validates that is a valid point of order--there would be a motion to waive it. But this point of order on this extraneous Social Security provision that could be raised against the bill would sink the bill entirely, as I understand what the Senator from New Hampshire is saying. This other--the Byrd rule point of order--would punch holes in it, but it would, in any case, have to go back to the House of Representatives.

So if you are a Member of the House of Representatives, the best you can hope for is that you are going to get a bill back to the House that has a lot of provisions you cared about knocked out. The worst is that it might completely tube that process in the Senate, if this point of order, the Social Security point of order that could be raised against it, is actually not waived by the Senate. Our Republican Senators--41 of us--have signed a letter saying we will oppose waiving points of order that are raised against the reconciliation bill when it gets to the Senate.

I guess my question for my colleagues is: Under that type of scenario, what happens next? Do the House Members who are going to be voting for this, assuming the Senate will fix all these things, then have to have that bill come back? Is there any way in which all these fixes that they hope are going to be eventually attached to the Senate-passed bill will be attached or that these things

they hope to fix in this bill are going to be fixed?

It seems to me it is very curious that they are betting on the come, so to speak, and trusting the Senate to fix these things and that is an incredible leap of faith.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source