Speeches & Floor Statements
Posted on June 23, 2009
Mr. President, this morning one of our bipartisan breakfasts occurred which we have here every so often. Senator Lieberman and I and other Senators organized it. 16 Senators there attending this morning’s breakfast. The Presiding Officer is often a participant in those meetings. At this morning’s breakfast we discussed health care. As we listened to the chairman, ranking member, and other senior members of the Finance Committee one of the things we said is that we agree on about 80 percent of what needs to be done. But one of the areas where we do not agree is cost. Another area is whether a so-called government-run insurance option will lead to a Washington takeover of health care. A lot of us are feeling like we have had about enough Washington takeovers: our banks, our insurance companies, our student loans, our car companies, even our farm ponds, and now health care. Government-run insurance is not the best way to extend coverage to low-income Americans who need it. The chairman of the Finance Committee indicated that his bill would be paid for. But on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, on which I serve, that is not the case. The bill is not even finished yet, and already, as the Senator from New Hampshire has pointed out, in the 5th through the 14th year, 10 years, it would cost 2.3 trillion new dollars, raising the Federal debt to even further unimaginable levels. Let me mention an aspect of cost which is often overlooked. Federal debt is certainly a problem, but as a former Governor, I care about the State debt and State taxes. The States do not have printing presses, they have to balance their budgets. So when we do something up here that puts a cost on States down there, they have to raise taxes or cut programs. We know the programs they have to cut: education, and health care programs, both are important to people in Illinois and people in Tennessee. The Medicaid Program in the Kennedy bill that we are considering would increase Medicaid to 150 percent of the Federal poverty level, which sounds real good until you take a look at the cost. In Tennessee alone, if the State had to pay its share of the requirement, about one-third, that would be $600 million. It would be another $600 million if, as has been suggested, it is required that the State reimburse physicians up to 110 percent of Medicare. So that is $1.2 billion of new costs just for the State of Tennessee. The discussion has been that the Federal Government will take that over for a few years and then will shift that back to the States. Well, my response is that every Senator who votes for such a thing ought to be sentenced to go home and serve as Governor of his or her State for 8 years and figure out how to pay for it or manage a program like that. In our State, we talk about money. Up here, a trillion here, a trillion there. But $1.2 billion in the State of Tennessee equals to about a 10-percent income tax on what the people of Tennessee would bring in. We do not have an income tax. So that would be a new 10-percent income tax. So one of my goals in the health care debate is to make sure we do not get carried away up here with good-sounding ideas and impose huge, unfunded mandates on the States, which, according to the tenth amendment to the Constitution, we are not supposed to. But we superimpose our judgment upon the Governors, the legislators, the mayors, the local politicians who are making decisions about whether to spend money to lower tuition or improve the quality of the community college or provide this form of health care or build this road or bridge. That is their decision. And if we want to require something, we should pay for it from here. I am going to be very alert on behalf of the States and the citizens of the States to any proposal that would shift unfunded mandates on State and local governments. I hope my colleagues will as well. My suggestion to every Governor in this country is, over the next few days, to call in your Medicaid director, ask that Medicaid director to call the Senate and say: Tell us exactly how much the Kennedy bill and the Finance Committee bill will impose in new costs on our State if the costs are shifted to the States. Then when we come back at the first of July, we can know about that cost. So my interest is not just in additions to the Federal debt but not allowing unfunded mandates to the States. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the New York Times from June 22, 2009, showing what condition the States are in. Almost all are in a budget crisis and not in any position to accept this. I also would like to thank the Senator from Arizona for allowing me to go ahead of him so I can go to the committee and offer an amendment.