Speeches & Floor Statements
Posted on June 25, 2009
I congratulate the Senator from Nebraska on his resolution to recognize the importance of the United States continuing to trade in the world, especially with our friends in Latin America, especially when they are already taking advantage of low tariffs with us and we are not taking advantage of low tariffs with them. Our principal concern on the Republican side, and I am sure for many Democrats, too, is the cost of living for middle-class families in America. There are many issues that come before us that deal with that -- the level of taxes, the level of tuition, that we get Medicaid spending under control so States will be able to fund the Universities of Nebraska and Tennessee better -- but another way to do that is to trade with the world. People walk into stores in America, and they are looking, today, in bad economic times, for low costs. Are we going to erect barriers and raise costs? Are we going to say to families who do not have many extra dollars that it is in our national interest to raise our costs? Are we going to keep out of our country people with products and ideas causing them to keep our products and ideas out of their country? Are we that afraid of competing in the world? We Tennesseans have been much better off since Federal Express started flying in China and Nissan started building cars in Tennessee. Federal Express employs 30,000 people in the Memphis, TN, area, and Nissan just announced this week it is going to build electric cars, not in Japan but in Smyrna, TN. That is because we trade with the world. So this creeping protectionism that we see is a threat to the middle-class budget of every American. Senator Johanns has made an important step toward change. Let me talk about another threat to the middle-class family's budget, and that is health insurance. How do we pay for health care? I do not have to explain to anyone who might be listening or reading these remarks that health care, for most Americans, is a cost that is difficult to afford. It is difficult for most small businesses. We have many large businesses who are having a difficult time competing in the world marketplace because of health care costs. We think of the auto industry in Detroit which has claimed that the legacy costs of health care have put them out of business, unable to compete, even with car companies that locate in the United States and make cars here employing American workers. So we on the Republican side, like our friends on the Democratic side, want health care reform this year. President Obama is going to town meetings and saying what he is for. He is saying: Let's do it this year. He is saying: Let's make sure we cover the 47 million Americans who are uninsured. He is saying: Let's make sure we can afford it. "We do not want more debt," the President is saying. We certainly agree with that. He already has proposed, over the next 10 years, more new debt than it cost to wage all of World War II according to the Washington Post. So we agree with him, we do not want any health care bill that creates more new debt. We do not want a health care bill that puts more new taxes on States as they pay for State-operated health care programs such as Medicaid. We want to make sure that Americans who like their insurance are able to keep the insurance they have. About 177 million Americans have employer-sponsored health insurance which they like. They like the quality of the health care they get. We do not want to think about the 47 million who are uninsured, we want to think about all 300 million Americans. We Republicans agree with the President. We want health care reform this year. We want a health care plan that you can afford. We want a health care plan your Government can afford, so your children do not get a big debt piled on top of them, and we want to make sure all of the uninsured are covered as well. We want to make sure, on this side, that Washington does not come in between you and your doctor. In other words, you and your doctor make the health care choices, not some Washington bureaucrat who might cause you to wait in line or deny treatment that you and your doctor think is needed. So how does the Senate bill that we are working on stack up with the President's ideas that we should cover everybody, be able to pay for it, and allow people to keep their insurance? Well, I am very disappointed to report that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, which is the nonpartisan agency in the Congress -- and the Congress, of course, is majority Democratic, by a large margin -- has given us some very disturbing information about the bill we are working on in the HELP Committee, a place that I am about to go in a few minutes to continue considering parts of the bill, since we only have a little bit of the bill that we are being asked to consider. Here is what we know about cost: The Congressional Budget Office has said that in the first 10 years of the partial Kennedy bill which has been presented to us, it would add over $1 trillion to the debt, the national debt, $1 trillion. Senator Gregg of New Hampshire, who is the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, has pointed out that once the health care program envisioned in the Kennedy bill is up and going, that over a 10-year period, say years 5 through 14, it would be $2.3 trillion added to the debt, a debt that already has more new debt in the next 10 years, according to the Washington Post, than we spent in all of World War II in today's dollars. People in Tennessee and across this country are saying: Whoa. Wait a minute. This is getting out of control. We need some limits. We know you have got a printing press there in Washington, DC, but our children and grandchildren and even we are going to pay the consequences if we do not have some limits on the amount of debt. I would think the President would say to the Senators who are working on this: Wait a minute, Senators, I said this needs to be something that pays for itself. We cannot add $2.3 trillion. That is not all. We do not even have all the Kennedy bill. Some of the most important parts are yet to come. Some of the most expensive parts are yet to come. The assumptions that we are left to work with -- because we hear them discussed -- is that there will be a big expansion of the Medicaid Program that States help to operate and help to pay for, usually about 40 percent of the cost, and an increase in the reimbursement rates that go to doctors and hospitals who participate in the Medicaid Program. What would that cost? Well, in the State of Tennessee, if we increase Medicaid eligibility to 150 percent of the poverty level, which sounds pretty good, that adds about $600 million to the State cost of Medicaid in Tennessee. If we increase the Medicaid reimbursement rates, that adds another $600 million to the State costs of Medicaid. When the stimulus funding goes away after 2 years, which was sent to the States to help pay for Medicaid costs, that is another $600 million. Now we throw so many dollars around up here that it is hard to say what is important. But to give you one idea of what would happen if a Senator went home to be Governor and had to manage a Medicaid Program that expanded that much and were faced with a $1.2, $1.5, $1.8 billion new State cost about 2015, where would he or she get that money? A 10-percent income tax in our State would raise about $1.2 or $1.3 billion. So the costs we are talking about adding to States are astronomical. Most States are having a difficult time even balancing their budgets this year, some nearly bankrupt -- think of California -- and add to that huge new Medicaid costs, as well as a Federal addition to the debt of $2 or $3 trillion. It is an unimaginable prospect and totally inconsistent with what President Obama has said, who said very sternly to Congress 2 or 3 weeks ago: We need pay as we go. If we are going to spend a dollar, we need to save a dollar or we need to tax a dollar. So we would have to raise or save $2 or $3 trillion to pay for the Kennedy bill, as we know it, and if you live in a State that has increased Medicaid costs, you could have, depending upon what these provisions say, huge new State taxes to pay for it. That bill gets an "F" on the first aspect of the President's request, cost, and debt. The second is that we cover the 47 million uninsured. Unfortunately, even though we add perhaps $2 to $3 trillion to the Federal debt, and a lot of new State taxes, the bill we are considering in the Senate HELP Committee will only cover 16 million more people who are not now insured. In other words, we would reduce the uninsured from 47 to 30 million. We would have 30 million people left even though we added $2 or $3 trillion to the Federal debt and a lot of new State taxes. I think that is a flunking grade as well for this bill. Then what about allowing you to keep your insurance if you like it? Well, the Congressional Budget Office also had something to say about that. It said: If the Kennedy bill, as it is presently, were enacted, about 15 million people would go from private insurance that they now have to an existing or a new government-run health care plan. You might do that because you choose to, or you might do that because your employer says: I think I will quit offering the insurance you now have. So this does not seem to fit what the President is suggesting we do. With all respect, I know that there has been a lot of hard work done on this bill, but we need to stop and start over even to get close to the President's own objectives. Let's take the 46 or 47 million uninsured Americans. We need to be realistic about what we are dealing with here. Some 11 million of those are non-citizens, and about half of those are illegally here. So we deal with those in one way or another. About one-third of the uninsured, about 15 or 20 million, have incomes of over $75,000 a year. In other words, they could afford health insurance but do not have it. About 13 million are young and believe they are invincible and would only buy health insurance on their way to the hospital. So the question is, do we raise costs for everybody else in a failed attempt to try to pass a "one size fits all" for all of those 46 million uninsured Americans, or do we come up with different ways of trying to entice them or require them to have an insurance policy, at least a catastrophic insurance policy, so we all are not paying $1,000 more in insurance so you cannot have insurance and go to the emergency room when you have a problem? That is who the uninsured are. Then let us think about the approach the Kennedy bill and other bills are making to the so-called government-run programs. There are some competing polls in newspapers, depending on how you ask the question. The New York Times, the other day, had a huge headline: Everybody likes the government-run health care program. But the Wall Street Journal and other polls that have presented questions in different ways said that by a 2-to-1 margin most people preferred a private insurance policy that they choose themselves, which is what 120 or 140 million Americans have chosen today. Why do we need a government program? Let's think about that. The President said: Well, we need to keep the insurance companies honest. That is a little bit like saying: We need a government drugstore to keep the drugstores honest, or we need a government car company -- actually we have almost got one with GM -- to keep the other auto companies honest, or a government anything. That is not the way this country is supposed to work. We have a big free market system. We are entrepreneurs in this country. We want limited Federal Government. We ought to get out of the car and banking business and out of the insurance business and stop these Washington takeovers. Yet the most imposing feature of the health care proposals proposed by our Democratic friends is a big, new government-run program to keep everybody honest. I do not see that we need such a program under the proposals that Republicans have offered. I think we agree that whatever plan we have should require that everybody have a chance to be a part of it, that a preexisting condition you might have does not disqualify you, and that your rates need to be reasonable. We agree on that. We think competition is what helps keep prices low. The President says you need a government-run program for competition. But that is like putting an elephant, the government, in a room with a lot of mice and saying: All right, fellows, compete. After a while, there would not be any mice left. Your only choice would be big government, because it has the power to lower prices and subsidize itself to make sure it succeeds. What is wrong with that? Most Medicaid patients can tell you what is wrong with that. Some 40 percent of doctors restrict access to Medicaid patients. Why? Mostly because the reimbursement rates are so low. The government program is cheaper, but it does not allow you to get any health care. It is like giving you a bus ticket, but there is no bus to catch. So if what we chose to do in our plans is to expand the Medicaid Program, at enormous cost to State taxpayers, and have big increases in the Federal debt, we will be dumping low-income Americans into government programs that exist, and new government programs we create to which they might not gain admission. So we think we have better ideas. They are in the Wyden-Bennett bill, which is bipartisan. They are in the Burr-Coburn bill. They are in the legislation introduced by Senator Gregg of New Hampshire. They are in the legislation Senator Hatch and Senator Cornyn are working on. We would like to give dollars to low-income Americans so they can choose to buy an insurance policy and have the same kind of coverage that most of the rest of us can buy. We would rather give them choices in the private market, which is what, by far, most Americans have and choose today. We can do that without adding debt to the national debt. The Wyden-Bennett bill is scored at no extra debt. And we can do that in a way that reduces the number of uninsured more than the Kennedy bill does. So, Madam President, with respect, I suggest we start over, we do it in a bipartisan way, that we take some suggestions actually from the Republican side, which has not been done at all. That is another thing the President said. He said he wanted a bipartisan bill. We have had a completely partisan bill in the Senate. We do not like that. We came here to be a part of solving this big problem. We have our ideas on the table. They are not being considered. Everyone is being polite to us, but it is: We have the votes. We won the election. We will write the bill. I am afraid America will not be better off, and the President's goals will not be met because we will have added $2 or $3 trillion to the Federal debt, have a big new tax for states and locally, stuff low-income people into government programs, and we will still have 30 million people uninsured. Madam President, I yield the floor.