FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I have come to address two amendments that are before us. First, I wish to salute my colleagues Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison and all of those on both sides of the aisle who have brought this FAA bill before us. It is something that is needed. It is something that is long overdue. It is sad that in America we don't have a GPS system--and just about every western country does--even Mongolia does; Tibet does not--to move forward and modernize our airports. It is important for jobs. It is important for travelers' convenience, but I would say most of all it is important for America's productivity. When people sit and wait on a runway, when planes are delayed or flights canceled, the amount of output that our country loses is enormous. We are losing much more than France or Germany or England because they have these systems. It is about time we put them in.
I will make one more point about it. There are some who say, Let's go back to the 2006 level of spending. In 2006, the budget did not have a GPS system. Certainly we have to cut where there is waste, but just an across-the-board, roll-the-clock-back approach doesn't make much sense. Technology advances, the world advances, and we cannot march backward. There are certain things we need to keep this country strong, and the President talked about some of those in his address. Investments--and transportation has always been one since the days of the Erie Canal, which caused my city, New York City, to become the largest city in the country and it still is, praise God.
But I came to talk about the two amendments that are here before us. It is sort of a ``do and don't,'' in my opinion. We had a long debate on the health care bill. We all know how long it was. The American people decided--the majority did not want to repeal the bill. In fact, 80 percent don't. Even those who want to change it, the majority say, Don't repeal it, just change it. That is the point here.
Senator Stabenow is offering an amendment to change something in the bill that very much needs changing. The change in the reporting requirements to 1099 put an onerous obligation on small business people. My dad was a small businessman, and I know how small business people struggle. To ask them to file paperwork every time they bought something new, even at low cost, is a bit over the top. So I am glad we are repealing that. No one is claiming ownership. It is going to pass in a bipartisan way.
None of us on this side of the aisle is saying the health care bill can't be improved, but just repealing it without putting anything in place creates a number of problems. One problem, which we will see tomorrow when the actual vote is called, is it would increase the deficit by $260 billion in the first decade and $1 trillion in the second, because the health care bill actually does cut some costs, and we know there is a tremendous amount of duplication, inefficiency, waste in our health care system. It is the best in the world. It is also probably the least efficient in the world. Our goal and our job is to keep that quality of care for people but at the same time reduce the inefficiencies that cost the government and cost businesses. So it does reduce the deficit.
When our colleagues are calling for repeal, when Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, calls for its repeal, he is going to increase the deficit. So we have all this talk: ``We have to reduce the deficit,'' and then the first move the other side makes, whether you like the health care bill or not, is to increase the deficit. Why wouldn't they propose $260 billion in other cuts to at least keep the bill deficit neutral?
The second point I would make is this: Repeal says get rid of everything. It is simple, it is easy, it is quick. It is wrong. There are many good things in this bill supported not only by the majority of Americans--the vast majority--many of which are supported by the majority of Republican voters who were polled, but even supported by many Members on the other side of the aisle. I have heard them speak. Even the new freshman class that is coming into the House--very militant--says, But I am not for repealing this, or I am not for repealing that. So why can't our colleagues on the other side of the aisle at least acknowledge there are very good things people like?
When they say repeal, do they want to repeal the provision that makes it easier for senior citizens to pay for prescription drugs? That is the so-called doughnut hole that says after you--and this comes from the Medicare bill that George Bush put forth, not from this health care bill, but they didn't have enough money to pay for it. So they said that after $2,500, seniors would have to pay prescription drug costs on their own. Any of us who buy prescription drugs--I do; I am taking one for my back because my back went out yesterday--knows how expensive they are. You get up to $2,500 when you are a senior citizen and need eight medications--one to lower your blood pressure, one for diabetes, one for cholesterol, you
name it. When you get up to that number, our seniors in my State and I am sure in the Presiding Officer's State and in any one of the other 48 States, are having real trouble paying for prescription drugs once they reach that doughnut hole, once they reach the level after which Medicare no longer pays. Well, in the health care bill, we deal with that. We reduce their costs 50 percent in the first year. That saves the average senior citizen--and this is not chicken feed--$550. By the time it is fully implemented, we save them $2,400 a year. They want to repeal that? Well, when they vote for repeal, they are voting to repeal it.
How about this one: There are countless American families who have kids in their early 20s. They get out of college, they get a job, let's hope. It is hard to get a job these days. By the way, we should be focusing on job creation, not on repealing this bill, and the FAA bill does that, as I mentioned. They have a dilemma. These jobs are new, they are not paying top dollar, most of them, and they don't come with health care. What are these young people to do? They can't afford health care themselves--$800, $900, $1,000 a month. They are not making that much money, but they know, God forbid, if they get into a car accident or they get a serious disease, how can they be without health care? It is a dilemma that has plagued American families from coast to coast, from North to South and East to West. The health care bill corrects it. Here is what it says, very simply: Any young person 21 to 26 can stay on their family's health care plan. It is a great idea. It is very popular. I wish to ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are going to vote for repeal, are they for taking away the benefit of young people 21 to 26 to stay on their family's health care plan if they wish? I doubt it.
How about this one: We all know preventive medicine saves billions, so in the health care bill every senior citizen on Medicare gets a wellness checkup free once a year to encourage them to go in. Why? Not because we want some giveaway, but the statistics show overwhelmingly and without doubt conclusively that when senior citizens get a preventive care checkup, not only are they healthier, but it saves the Medicare system billions and billions of dollars. God forbid someone has a melanoma. Before the melanoma gets into the lymph nodes, it is a simple operation rather than thousands and thousands of dollars and months and months of agony and illness. Do they want to stop those checkups? When people get a colonoscopy or any of these other preventive exams, including mammography, it saves the taxpayers much money. The recipient is healthier. That is why we put it in the bill. Do they want to repeal those? Do they want to tell every senior citizen, You don't get that wellness checkup which will save billions? I can't believe they would want to do that, I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
How about this one: Small businesses. Small businesses are not required to have health care now, and under our bill, if they have under 50 employees, they won't be required to. But some of them provide health care for their employees. Some do it because it is a good way to retain a good, young employee, or a good middle-aged or a good older employee. Some do it because the employer is just a good guy or gal. Well, what we tell them is, if you have a business that makes less than $1.2 million and has fewer than 25 workers, we will give you a 35-percent tax credit for that health care. It is a great thing. Hundreds of thousands of businesses in my State of New York will benefit. It started January 1. What does it mean? It means, A, more people get health care; B, it means businesses have more money to spend on job creation, small businesses, because some of their health care costs are being defrayed; and C, it may mean a small business that wasn't going to provide health care for its workers can now. Do my colleagues on the other side want to get rid of that tax credit for small businesses, the mainstay of America? I don't think they do.
How about this one: We all have heard of people calling their insurance company and saying my wife, my husband, my daughter, or my son has gotten this terrible illness and it requires an operation that costs a whole lot of money. Then you get a call back from the insurance company and they say, You know what, your policy doesn't quite cover this. Or when you signed it, you were supposed to check this little box and you didn't. You are out. If you don't dot every I and cross every T--they usually let you get away with it because they are collecting your money, but not when somebody has a serious illness that might cost them thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars. Now the insurance company calls you and it is basically, Tough rocks, Jack. Under our bill, that can't happen anymore. And when the insurance companies decide to raise their rates dramatically, there is an insurance commissioner in the State and Federal authorities who can say, You have to show us that you needed to raise the rates as much as you did. Do my colleagues want to get rid of that and let insurance companies rule the roost? I don't think so.
There is so much in this bill that is good, that is supported by the overwhelming majority of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans.
There is so much in this bill that moves us forward. If you think there are things that should not be in the bill, come talk to us. Madam President, 1099 is a bipartisan effort. Senator Stabenow has been out front. Senators KLOBUCHAR, CANTWELL, and NELSON sent a letter to Speaker Boehner saying: Please get us a 1099 bill. Senator Johanns has done a good job. It is bipartisan.
We are not saying everything is perfect in this bill and that it can't be improved. We are saying: Let's work together in a bipartisan manner to make it better. But the other side is saying: Just repeal it--repeal the good things, the things they don't like, create a huge hole in our deficit, and leave us with nothing. The slogan was going to be ``repeal and replace,'' but we have only heard the first part of that. Where is the ``replace''? I will tell you why there is no replace. It is hard to take this huge, unwieldy, inefficient health care system and shape it up. That is why it took us so long, and that is why it created a great deal of controversy. I will be the first to admit that. But I don't see a substitute.
If you wanted to be fair and you were being straight with the American people about actually improving people's health care, you would have a replacement on the floor, and then we could compare the repeal of what you want to what you propose. We will wait. Maybe we should have a clock--the first day without repeal and replace, the second day, and so forth. I have a feeling we are not going to see a replacement. Do you know what that would say? That this is just political, throwing out some red meat, but don't dare show a replacement because, guess what, to replace is hard, and you really don't have a solution for replacement.
I urge that we vote strongly against the McConnell amendment. I urge my colleagues on the other side to rethink it.
I look forward to hearing the remarks of not only the chairman of the Commerce Committee, who is head of the FAA bill, but also the No. 2 person, the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee on which I serve, who has made so many invaluable contributions to the bill, on the cost-cutting side, in terms of the 80 and 85 percent rule and all the other things we have done.
With that, I will be happy to yield the floor so that we might hear my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from West Virginia, speak for a few minutes.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source