TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010--CONFERENCE REPORT--Resumed -- (Senate - December 11, 2009)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Republican Senators be permitted to engage in a colloquy during our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, my grandfather was a Santa Fe railway engineer. He lived in Newton, KS. So far as I can tell, he was one of the most important men in the world. I was 5, 6, 7 years old when I would go out there. He drove one of these great big steam locomotives. If there were as many yellow flags and red flags along the track when he was driving that Santa Fe locomotive as there are with the health care locomotive that is going through the Senate today, I think my grandfather would have been guilty of gross negligence if he did not slow it down and see what those red flags and yellow flags meant.
There is a lot of talk about making history with this bill, but there are a lot of different ways to make history. One of the things I hope we will be very careful to do in the Senate is not to make a historic mistake with this health care legislation.
Now we have even one more red flag to consider. It came out last night from Chief Actuary Richard Foster of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is not a Republican organization nor a Democratic organization. It is in the Obama administration. But it is the agency in charge of the Federal Government's spending for health care, which, according to Mr. Samuelson, who wrote a column in Newsweek recently, was 10 percent in the year 1980 and 25 percent today of our government's total expenditures.
If we go back to the reason we started all this debate on health care, let's remember that the reason we started the debate was first to see if we can bring down the costs of health care because the red flags and the yellow flags are everywhere for small businesses, for individuals, for our government. We cannot continue to afford the increasing cost of health care in America. So our first goal here is to bring down the costs.
Yet, Mr. Foster, the Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, in a lengthy report delivered last night on the health care bill--most of which we have seen but some of which we do not know about yet; it is still being written in the back room--says that it will increase costs. Instead of reducing costs, it will increase costs. It points out the obvious, which is that the taxes in the bill will raise the premiums for the 180 million of us pay who have employer-based insurance, and for those who have individual insurance. It talks about the millions of Americans who will be losing their employer insurance by the combination of provisions in this bill, many of whom will end up in Medicaid, where 50 percent of doctors will not see a new patient. But maybe the most important finding is the most obvious finding, the one which we have been suggesting to our colleagues day-in and day-out. It is one we ought to pay attention to and one which almost every American can easily understand. And it is this--it has to do with Medicare, the government program on which 40 million seniors depend. This bill would cut $1 trillion--let's start this way. Medicare, the program we depend on, its trustees say it is going broke in 5 years. It is already spending more than it brings in, and it will be insolvent between 2015 and 2017. Those are the Medicare trustees telling us this.
What does this bill do to that?
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. ALEXANDER. If I may finish my point.
What does this bill do? It would cut $1 trillion from Medicare. I ask the Senator from Arizona, if the program is going broke and you cut $1 trillion out--and then it has been suggested over the last few days that we add several million more people into Medicare--what do you suppose the result would be?
Mr. McCAIN. The answer is, obviously, that I don't know.
I would like to say to the Senator from Tennessee--and Dr. Barrasso is here as well--a lot of Americans have heard of the Congressional Budget Office. I am not sure many have heard of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services. Are they not the people whose entire focus is not on the entire budget, as CBO's is, but just on Medicare and Medicaid, so that they can make determinations as to the future and the impact of various pieces of legislation on specifically Medicare and Medicaid? Is that a correct assessment?
Mr. ALEXANDER. The Senator from Arizona is exactly right. I believe I have my figures right. I think Mr. Samuelson said in his column the other day that in 1980 the Federal Government was spending 10 percent of all our dollars on health care and today it is 25 percent. And this is the agency in charge of most of that massive Federal expenditure every year.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend. Because the findings as of December 10, 2009, which is entitled ``Estimated Financial Effects of the `Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009,' as Proposed by the Senate Majority Leader on November 18, 2009,'' have some incredibly, almost shocking results, I say to my friend from Tennessee.
We know the bill before us does not bring costs under control. But as I understand this--and it is pretty, may I say, Talmudic in some ways to understand some of the language that is in this report, but is it not true that the Reid bill, according to this report--this is not the Republican policy committee but the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services--doesn't it say:
The Reid bill creates a new long-term insurance program--called the CLASS Act--that the CMS actuaries found faces ``a very serious risk'' of becoming unsustainable as a result of adverse selection by participants. The actuary found that such programs face a significant risk of failure and expects that the program will result in ``net Federal cost in the long term.''
I would like to mention two other provisions to my friend from Tennessee and Dr. Barrasso, who is very familiar not only with this center but with Medicare and Medicaid services.
The Reid bill funds $930 billion in new Federal spending by relying on Medicare payment cuts which are unlikely to be sustainable on a permanent basis. As a result--according to CMS--providers could ``find it difficult to remain profitable and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the Medicare program.''
The Reid bill is especially likely to result in providers being unwilling to treat Medicare and Medicaid patients, meaning that a significant portion of the increased demand for Medicaid services would be difficult to meet.
They go on to say:
The CMS actuary noted that the Medicare cuts in the bill could jeopardize Medicare beneficiaries' access to care. He also found that roughly 20 percent of all Part A providers (hospitals, nursing homes, etc.) would become unprofitable within the next 10 years as a result of these cuts.
Finally, he goes on to say:
The CMS actuary found that further reductions in Medicare growth rates through the actions of the Independent Medicare Advisory Board--which is one of the most controversial parts of this legislation--which advocates have pointed to as a central lynchpin in reducing health care spending, ``may be difficult to achieve in practice.''
This is a remarkable study, I say to my friend from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Arizona for being so specific about this and making it clear that this is not a Republican Senator talking, this is a Republican Senator reading the report of the Federal Government's Chief Actuary for the Medicare and Medicaid Program. Senator Barrasso, a physician for 25 years in Wyoming, brought to our attention some of these things earlier this week when he pointed out what this also says.
Isn't the point that if we keep cutting Medicare, there are not going to be any hospitals and any doctors around to take care of patients who need care?
Mr. McCAIN. May I also ask, in addition to that question, has Dr. Barrasso ever heard of the CMS being biased or slanted in one way or another? Isn't it one of the most respectable and admired objective observers of the health care situation as far as Medicare and Medicaid are concerned?
Mr. BARRASSO. My answer to that is they are objective. That is why we did not get this report--I have the same copy my colleague from Arizona has. This just came out, and the reason is because they wanted to take the time to study the bill which they got in the middle of November. So they needed the time to actually go through point by point what the implications were.
The Senator talked about the one segment where they talk about they ``face a significant risk of failure.'' They actually go on to say: ``This will eventually trigger an insurance death spiral.'' This is for people who depend upon Medicare for their health care.
There is an Associated Press story out today that says this provides a sober warning--a sober warning--today to Members of the Senate. This is a time when the Senate raised the debt limit in this country by over $1 trillion. As the old saying goes--I say to my friend who served in the Navy--they are spending money like drunken sailors, and yet they want to keep the bar open longer. They want to increase the debt at a time when our Nation cannot afford it, when we have 10 percent unemployment.
The folks who know Medicare the best and can look at this objectively and share with the American people what their beliefs are as to what the impact is going to be say that is going to be devastating for patients who rely on Medicare for their health care--our seniors--and devastating for small community hospitals. I see the former Governor, now Senator of Nebraska, is here, and he knows, as I do from Wyoming, the impact on our small community hospitals.
But as the Senator from Tennessee said, this is all being done in a back room. We are not privy to the newest changes, which I think are actually going to make matters worse. The New York Times today says Democrats' new ideas would be even more expensive. Questions exist about the affordability. What we are dealing with is a situation that is unsustainable, and that is why the newest poll out today by CNN--certainly not biased one way or the other--finds that 61 percent of Americans oppose this bill. It is the highest level of opposition to date because more and more people are seeing and learning the truth about what is being proposed in the bill before the Senate.
Mr. McCAIN. This is the information on the bill as it is; correct--the original bill? This is without the expansion of Medicare taken into this study, which already, as the Senator quoted from the New York Times and other health care experts, is going to increase costs even more. As you expand Medicare, among other things, you run the risk of adverse selection, which means the people who are the sickest immediately enroll, which then increases the cost, and then who would be paying the increased Medicare payments? The young and the healthy. I ask my friend from Wyoming, should we do that to the next generations of Americans?
Mr. BARRASSO. Well, we should not. We need to be fair. We need to deal with this in a realistic way. But the bill in front of us now is going to raise taxes $500 billion, it is going to cut Medicare by almost $500 billion for our seniors who depend upon it, and for people who have insurance they like, it is going to increase their premiums. They are going to end up paying more than if no bill was passed at all.
That is why, across the board, more people would rather have this Senate do nothing than to pass this bill we are looking at today. They understand the impact on this Nation and our future is devastating. This will cause us to lose jobs, with the taxes; it will cause us to lose care in small communities; and for our seniors who depend upon Medicare, they are going to throw more people into Medicaid, another program where half the folks now can't find a doctor who will see them.
All in all, there is nothing I see about this bill or any of the new changes and certainly nothing in this report that says to the American people: Hey, you might want to think about this. The American people have thought about it. This report tells the American people this is not what they want for health care in this Nation.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the summary of the report of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask the Senator from Georgia, while this is a complex document, in many ways, isn't it a matter of common sense that if you take a program that is going broke and you take $1 trillion out of it and you add millions of people to it, isn't the end result going to be there is not going to be anyone left to take care of the patients who need help? Isn't that the logical result, just as this report says?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Not only does that report say that, but as you say, common sense ought to tell you that. Unfortunately, it is pretty obvious the folks on the other side of the aisle who are promoting this bill don't get that message.
Let me quote the chairman of the Finance Committee, who today issued this statement relative to the CMS report the Senator has in his hand. He said:
The report shows that health reform will ensure both the Federal Government and the American people spend less on health care than if this bill does not pass.
That statement is directly contrary to the statement in the CMS report that Senator Alexander just referenced, which says:
..... we estimate that total national health expenditures under this bill would increase by an estimated total of $234 billion (0.7 percent) during calendar years 2010-2019.
Not only that, but the report says that national health expenditures would increase as a percentage of GDP from $1 of every $7, which is about 16 percent, to $1 out of every $5, which is 20 percent.
What the report concludes is not only are our health care costs going to go up, but as the Senator from Arizona said, 20 percent of all Part A providers--nursing homes, hospitals, home health--would become unprofitable within the next 10 years as a result of the provision in this bill relating to the Medicare cuts the Senator from Tennessee talked about.
The American people do get it. That is why these poll numbers the Senator from Wyoming just stated coming out of CNN and why the FOX poll I saw this morning said 57 percent of the people in America are opposed to this bill. The American people are getting it but, for some reason, our friends on the other side of the aisle are not.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I see the Senator from Nebraska is here, and we had a conversation earlier about the attitude of people in Nebraska. It is very helpful to have independent evaluators who tell us that if you cut $1 trillion out of a program that is going bankrupt and then add more people to it, doctors and hospitals are going to go broke. We have heard that before from the Mayo Clinic, and I think Senator Johanns has been hearing that in the State of Nebraska.
Mr. JOHANNS. I have heard it all over the State. Today, let me say, the fog cleared. The fog cleared and the Sun is shining brightly on this mammoth experiment with 16 percent of the economy. This actuary says, very clearly--and he has no ax to grind with anyone--that costs are going to go up under this bill; that care is going to be jeopardized under this bill; that the very linchpin, the essence of what this bill was supposed to be all about, can't happen.
If I might, I wish to refer to something which I will ask to be a part of the Record to gain some perspective.
I wish to applaud my colleagues on this side, and here is why. We wrote to the majority leader back in the first part of November and we said CBO had not been able to tell us what the ultimate impact would be on health care costs and we felt strongly we needed a second opinion. So we asked that this bill be submitted to scrutiny by CMS, and that is what we are getting today. Twenty-four of us signed onto that.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter to the majority leader, dated November 12, 2009.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ALEXANDER. If I could ask the Senator from Nebraska this question. Did a rural hospital in Nebraska or Wyoming or some State not--did I notice in a letter from the Mayo Clinic this week, they said cuts such as this or an expansion of Medicare under these circumstances would cause them to--well, to drop Medicare, period; they lost $840 million this year, and they are beginning to say to some citizens from Nebraska, Montana, other areas: We can't take you if you are a Medicare patient or if you are a Medicaid patient.
Mr. JOHANNS. They are saying that, and that is what is happening because they are losing money. They are definitely losing money on Medicaid and they are losing money on Medicare.
So what the Reid bill does is it says: Mr. Alexander, you sell whatever--cars. Let's use that as the analogy--and I know you are losing $100 on every car. But let's just give you twice as many to sell. Well, you are going to lose twice as much money. That is their solution to the health care crisis in this country.
But what this actuary points out, what the Mayo Clinic points out, and what so many analysts now have pointed out is that this bill is going to put hospitals under and it is going to put nursing homes under.
Here is another point that gets lost in this complex debate. That nursing home or that hospital may be the only major employer in that community. When you lose that, you not only lose your medical care, but you lose those jobs. I have said on the floor before that this bill is a job killer. It is a job killer. There is no way of getting around it. Those jobs will disappear in that small town, that rural area, and even in the big cities.
I hope our friends on the other side study this very carefully. This is a roundhouse blow to the Reid plan--to the Reid-Obama plan. This, in my judgment, proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this is going to crush health care in our country.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I would ask the Senators from Wyoming and Georgia, who are here, to go back to the beginning. When we began this debate, the President, in his summit at the beginning of the year, very correctly--and I applauded him for that--all of us said we have to reduce health care costs--costs to us, costs to small businesses, and costs to our government. But doesn't this report of the chief actuary of the government say the Reid bill will actually increase health care costs?
Mr. BARRASSO. It does say that. The President has said he wanted to bend the cost curve down. This report says, if we do these things that are in the Reid bill, costs of care will actually go up faster than if we did nothing at all. That means for people who buy their own insurance, the cost of their premiums will go up faster than if this Senate passed nothing at all.
Mr. ALEXANDER. So if I am understanding it, we are going to cut $1 trillion, when fully implemented, out of Medicare; we are going to add $1 trillion in taxes, when fully implemented; we are going to run up the debt, we believe on this side; we are going to increase premiums and costs are still going up?
Mr. BARRASSO. For people all across the country, costs are still going to go up. The cost of doing business will go up. For families who buy their own insurance, the cost of their premiums will go up. For people who are on Medicare, they are going to see tremendous cuts into that program, and they depend on that for their health care. So costs are going up for people who pay for their own and for businesses that try to build jobs.
We know small business in this country is the engine that drives the economy, and according to the National Federation of Independent Businesses, 70 percent of all new jobs come from small businesses. They are going to be penalized to the point they are not going to be able to add those new jobs. The NFIB says we will lose across the country 1.6 million jobs over the next 4 years as the government keeps collecting the taxes but doesn't even give any of these health care services because those have all been delayed for 4 years.
Mr. ALEXANDER. We have about 6 minutes remaining in our time. I wonder if the Senator from Georgia, having heard the comments, has any additional recommendations on the chief actuary's report.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I wish to ask a question or two of the Senator from Wyoming, who is a medical doctor and who, prior to coming to the Senate, was an active orthopedic surgeon.
I have had physicians come into my office by the droves and talk to me about Medicare before we ever got into this health care debate, and what I heard was in reference to the reimbursement rate under Medicare to physicians and to hospitals being so low.
In fact, the American Hospital Association has come out just in the last 24 hours and pointed out that hospitals across the Nation get a return of about 91 cents for every dollar of care provided. That is not 91 cents of the amount of charges from the hospital to Medicare, it is 91 cents of the cost of the care provided. So the return is about 10 percent less to a hospital than the cost that the hospital has in it.
My understanding is that at least 10 percent less than the cost provided for a physician is reimbursed to the physician under Medicare. As a result of that, the younger physicians, particularly, who are coming out of med school with these huge debts they have incurred as a result of the long years they are required to be in school, simply cannot afford to take Medicare patients and they are not taking Medicare patients. Is that in fact what is happening in the real world? And will that not get worse under this proposal?
Mr. BARRASSO. It is happening. It will get worse under the proposal that is ahead of us. That 90-percent figure is actually a high number. I know a number of physicians and hospitals, especially in rural communities, that get reimbursed less than that. The ambulance services do not even get reimbursed enough from Medicare--these are volunteer ambulance services--to fill the ambulance with the gas for taking somebody the long distances from where they may have fallen and hurt themselves, broken a hip, to get them all the way to the hospital. This is across the board bad for America.
We say we want patients to be able to get care. If you throw a whole bunch more people on to this boat that is already sinking, which is what the Democratic leader is now trying to do, it is going to make it that much harder for our hospitals to stay open, especially in these communities where there is only one hospital providing care--much more difficult. But with any young physician coming out with a lot of debt, trying to hire the nurse and pay the rent and the electricity and the liability insurance and all of that, these do not even cover the expenses. That means they have to charge more to the person who does have insurance, the cost shifting that occurs.
As a result, for people who have insurance, they are going to see their rates going up. For people who rely on Medicare, it is going to be harder to find a doctor. For those who are put onto Medicaid, with the aid for those who need additional help, which the Senate majority leader is trying to put more people into that area, it is going to be harder for them to find care.
Across the board, there is nothing good with this proposal. What we have seen today documented from the folks who are objective and look at the whole picture, they think it is actually as bad--they admit it is as bad as we have been saying it is. They say you guys have been right, what you are saying about the cost of care, the impact on health care. And their phraseology is such that I think they absolutely pinpoint all of the reasons that the American people, now by a number of 61 percent, oppose this bill we are taking a look at. That is why the Mayo Clinic has said, in the letter from their executive director of their Health Policy Center, ``Expanding this system to persons 55 to 64 years old will ultimately hurt patients by accelerating the financial ruin of hospitals and doctors across the country.'' That is what we are looking at.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains 1 1/2 minutes.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, if I could conclude our time, with the permission of the Senator from Georgia and Wyoming, instead of racing down this train track with yellow flags and red flags flying everywhere, people often ask us: What would you do? What we would do is what we think most Americans would do when faced with a big problem, not try to solve it all at once but to say, What is our goal? Our goal is reducing cost. What are the first four or five steps we can take to reduce costs? Can we an agree on those? We think we can. Let's start taking them. For example, small business health plans to allow small businesses to offer insurance to their employees at a lower rate. That legislation is prepared and before the Senate.
Reducing junk lawsuits against doctors. That reduces costs.
Allow competition across State lines for insurance policies. That reduces costs.
Going step by step to re-earn the trust of the American people to reduce health care costs is the way to go, instead of making what this new report from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services helps to show again would be a historic mistake.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ALEXANDER. I wonder if I might ask the Senator from Idaho and the Senator from Kansas, both the Senators are on the Finance Committee, I believe, and have been working on this health care bill for a long time. It is typical of a big, complex bill such as this that it is difficult to pass, and you get a sense every now and then of whether it is likely to pass or unlikely to pass. This week has been a particularly difficult week for the bill. I have noticed the majority leader trying to create a sense of inevitability about the bill.
But, increasingly, it seems to me, with it becoming clear that with so much of it being paid for by new taxes, and then last night the chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services saying the cost is going up, premiums are going up; with the Mayo Clinic saying it is beginning to not take Medicare patients, and the idea of putting millions more Americans into a program already going broke which you are taking $1 trillion out of is a bad idea; I wonder if in all--and all this talk about history being made and the inevitability of this bill, that the Senator from Idaho might not think, looking back over this whole debate, that maybe there are a lot of different ways to make it--that maybe a growing number of Senators might be thinking--not saying yet--might be thinking that this bill would be an historic mistake and that all the king's horses and all the king's men are not going to be able to push this up over the top.
Mr. CRAPO. The Senator from Tennessee is right, and he has put his finger on one of the key issues that is going on here in the Senate that sometimes isn't highlighted as closely as I think maybe it should be. That is, while we are talking about the need to make sure this bill does not raise taxes on the middle class, to make sure that the bill does not increase the cost of health insurance premiums, and to make sure that we maintain quality of health care and don't cut Medicaid and Medicare, the real battle here is an effort to create a legacy to essentially put the government in control of the health care economy. That is the debate. That is the legacy. That is the history that those who are pushing the bill are seeking to make, and they are seeking to make it at the expense of those on Medicare, of those of the taxpayers in America; and of the costs, the cost curve that they said they want to drive down, dealing with the cost of our health care.
I see our leader is here.
Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friends from Tennessee and Idaho, December 11, 2009 may be remembered as the seminal moment in the health care debate for those who are writing about what finally happened on this issue. There were two extraordinary messages delivered on this very day on this health care issue. They were delivered from CMS and from CNN. CNN told us how the American people felt about it: 61 percent, as the Senator from Idaho pointed out, telling us please don't pass this bill. A week ago, Quinnipiac said 14 percent more disapproved than approved; the week before Gallup said 9 percent more disapproved than approved. We can see what is happening here: widening public opposition.
And then CMS, the actuary, the independent government employee who is an expert on this, says this bill, the Reid bill, doesn't do any of the things it is being promoted to accomplish. So two important messages on December 11 delivered from CNN and from CMS.
Mr. ROBERTS. Would the Senator yield?
Mr. CRAPO. Yes.
Mr. ROBERTS. I wish to thank our distinguished leader for pointing that out. It has been a seminal event. As I said before, I have the privilege of being chairman of the Rural Health Care Caucus. There are probably 30 of us in a bipartisan caucus to try to protect and improve the rural health care delivery system. I took that report by Mr. Foster, who is the actuary of CMS, and said, this is required reading. I made the point that if you mention CMS to a beleaguered hospital administrator or a member of the board or any medical provider--doctor, nursing home, home health care, hospice; even hospice is cut in regard to the cuts--they know if a CMS representative is knocking on the door, that is a lot like sending a cold shiver down their spine thinking it is Lizzie Borden. Of all of the agencies that now are shining the light of truth into darkness in regard to the nature of this bill in increased costs, and yes, rationing--no, it is not a scare tactic--CMS is that agency. It would be amazing if we could get CMS to report back on, if we knew what it was--the media reports are how we get the information on this new iteration of a bill where allegedly we are going to add in people from 55 years old into the Medicare system. You do that, and now all of a sudden even the national organizations, let alone the State provider associations who have been opposed to this, to say, Whoa, we can't do that. That is going to break the system.
What I wish to point out and what I think is another piece of information that has sort of been overlooked, the CBO has estimated the cost to the Internal Revenue Service to implement taxes and penalties and enforce them--I am talking about the IRS now, not CMS, but the IRS that is going to implement and administer and enforce taxes and penalties on the bill--that cost is $10 billion estimated by CBO. That would double the budget size of the IRS. We have to train these people, and then you have to figure out what kind of questions they are going to ask of employers and employees in regard to the fines and the fees, you have to read the fine print. The American people understand this tremendous tax increase is going to be administered by the IRS and that is not going to be a happy circumstance. But those two things that the leader has brought out are absolutely primary in this debate.
I think a side-by-side is a straw man. I think it is very clear about that. I am
happy to comment on that further. I wish to give others an opportunity to speak.
Mr. ALEXANDER. If I can make a short comment, I thank the Senator from Idaho for his leadership on taxes. But Senator McConnell's comment about those two events on December 9--the poll from CNN and the report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services chief actuary--made me think about the immigration bill 2 years ago, in 2007. There were a lot of our best Senators working to pass comprehensive immigration bill, including Senators MCCAIN, KENNEDY, KYL, MARTINEZ, Members on both sides of the aisle, who worked very hard to do it. There seemed to be a sense of inevitability that that bill might pass. The President was even behind it.
But then it began to have so many problems, and the red flags began to pop up just like they are popping up with this comprehensive health care bill. There came a time, perhaps much like December 10, when the sense of inevitability was replaced by a sense that we were making a historic mistake, and a bill that got on the floor with 64 votes only had 46 to get off.
I have a feeling this bill, the more we learn about it, the wiser thing to do is to let it fall of its own weight. Then we can start over, step by step, to reearn the trust of the American people by reducing health care costs. We can do that. That is the sense I have.
I appreciate the Republican leader's observation about those important events on the 9th.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT