Search Form
Now choose a category »

Public Statements

Unanimous Consent Request - H.R. 3590

Floor Speech

By:
Date:
Location: Washington, DC

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCAIN. Maybe we can talk a little bit about his remarks.

I have to say, I appreciate the eloquence and the passion the Senator from Illinois has brought to this debate. He makes some very convincing points. One of the major points--and I would be glad to listen to the Senator. I think it is fair for us to respond to each other's comments very quickly. The Senator from Illinois said we have been engaged in the negotiations and inputs have been made into the formulation of this bill.

I have to tell the Senator from Illinois, I have been engaged in many bipartisan compromises, whether it be issues such as campaign finance reform, whether it be--a whole large number of issues, including defense weapons acquisition reform. I say to the Senator from Illinois, do you know what the process was? People sat down at the table together when they were writing the legislation. I am a member of the HELP Committee, OK? I say to the Senator from Illinois, do you know what the process was--because I am on the committee. A bill was brought before the committee without a single--Senator Enzi will attest to this--without a single period of negotiations, where we sat down together with the chairman of the committee, where they said: What is your input into this legislation?

We had many hours of amendments in the committee, all of which, if they were of any real substance, were rejected on a party-line vote.

I have to tell the Senator from Illinois he can say all he wants to that there have been efforts to open this to bipartisanship. There have not. My experience in this Senate--I know how you frame a bipartisan bill and that has not been the process that has been pursued by the majority.

I understand what 60 votes mean. But in all due respect, I say to the eloquence of my friend from Illinois, that has not been the process which I have successfully pursued for many years, where people have sat down together at the beginning, where you are there on the takeoff and also then on the landing.

I would be glad to hear the response of the Senator from Illinois.

I ask unanimous consent if the Senator and I could engage in a colloquy.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DURBIN. First, those who are watching, this is perilously close to a debate on the floor of the Senate, which rarely occurs in the world's most deliberative body, where Senators with opposing views actually, in a respectful way, have an exchange. I thank the Senator----

Mr. McCAIN. Respectful but vigorous.

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Arizona. Here is what I understood happened. I know Senator Dodd came to the HELP Committee with a base bill to start with, but it is my understanding, in the process, 100 Republican amendments were accepted on that bill. If I am mistaken, I know the Senator will correct me, but----

Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to correct the Senator from Illinois. Senator Enzi is here. None of those amendments were of any significant substance that would have a significant impact on the legislation, I have to say to the Senator from Illinois. For example, medical malpractice, we proposed several amendments that would address what we all know, what the Congressional Budget Office says is $54 billion--other estimates as much as $100 billion--in savings. There were no real fundamental amendments.

I have to say that some of those amendments were accepted. But it still doesn't change the fact that at the beginning, as the Senator from Illinois said--the bill came to the committee without a bit, not 1 minute of negotiation before the bill was presented to the committee. The ranking member is on the floor. He will attest to that. Please go ahead.

Mr. DURBIN. I would say to the Senator from Arizona, I went through bankruptcy reform with Senator Grassley and a similar process was followed when the Republicans were in the majority. He produced the base-line bill, and I made some modifications and, ultimately, at one point in time, we agreed on a bill, came up with a common bill. The starting point is just that, a starting point. But I say to the Senator from Arizona, look at what happened to the issue of public option. I believe in public option passionately. I believe it is essential for the future of health care reform, for competition for private health insurance companies to give consumers a choice, to make sure we have one low-cost alternative at least in every market. Yet, at the end of the day, I did not get what I wanted and what is being proposed, now at the Congressional Budget Office, is not my version of public option.

We ended up bending toward some of the more moderate and conservative members of the Democratic caucus and toward the Republican point of view. I don't know of a single Republican who came out for public option. Maybe I am forgetting one. At the end of the day, the point I am making to the Senator is there was an effort at flexibility and an effort at change to try to find some common ground. Unfortunately, the ground we are plowing has only 60 Democratic votes. It could have been much different. It could still be much different.

Mr. McCAIN. May I ask my friend, wasn't the reason the public option was abandoned was not because of a Republican objection, it was because of the Democratic objection? The Senator from Connecticut stated, unequivocally, the public option would make it a no deal.

I appreciate the fact that Republican objections were observed. But I don't believe the driving force behind the abandonment of this public option, if it actually was that--we have not seen the bill that is going to come before us--was mainly because of the necessity to keep 60 Democratic votes together.

Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Arizona is correct. But I add, Senator Snowe has shown, I believe, extraordinary courage in voting for this bill in the Senate Finance Committee and made it clear she could not support the public option. We are hoping, at the end of the day, she will consider voting for health care reform. That was part of the calculation.

Mr. McCAIN. We are hoping not.

Mr. DURBIN. I understand your point of view, but I would say--you are right. But we were moving toward our 60 votes, but it would be a great outcome if we end up with a bill that brings some Republicans on board, and it was clear we couldn't achieve that if we kept the public option in. There are other elements here. We are going to have a real profound difference when it comes to the issue of medical malpractice and how to approach it. But I think, even on that issue, we could have worked toward some common ground, and I hope someday we still can.

Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask my friend about the situation as it exists right now? Right now, no Member on this side has any idea as to the specifics of the proposal the majority leader, I understand, has sent to OMB for some kind of scoring. Is that the way we want to do business, that a proposal that will be presented to the Senate sometime next week and voted on immediately--that is what we are told--is that the way to do business in a bipartisan fashion? Should we not at least be informed as to what the proposal is the Senate majority leader is going to propose to the entire Senate within a couple days? Shouldn't we even know what it is?

Mr. DURBIN. I would say to the Senator from Arizona, I am in the dark almost as much as he is, and I am in the leadership. The reason is, because the Congressional Budget Office, which scores the managers' amendment, the so-called compromise, has told us, once you publicly start debating it, we will publicly release it. We want to basically see whether it works, whether it works to continue to reduce the deficit, whether it works to continue to reduce the growth in health care costs.

We had a caucus after this was submitted to the Congressional Budget Office, where Senator Reid and other Senators who were involved in it basically stood and said: We are sorry, we can't tell you in detail what was involved. But you will learn, everyone will learn, it will be as public information as this bill currently is on the Internet. But the Congressional Budget Office has tied our hands at this point putting it forward. Basically, what I know is what you know, having read press accounts of what may be included.

Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask my friend from Illinois--and by the way, I would like to do this again. Perhaps when he can get more substance into many of the issues.

Mr. DURBIN. Same time, same place tomorrow?

Mr. McCAIN. I admit these are unusual times. But isn't that a very unusual process, that here we are discussing one-sixth of the gross national product; the bill before us has been a product of almost a year of sausage-making. Yet here we are at a position on December 12, with a proposal that none of us, except, I understand, one person, the majority leader, knows what the final parameters are, much less informing the American people. I don't get it.

Mr. DURBIN. I think the Senator is correct, saying most of us know the fundamentals, but we do not know the important details behind this. What I am saying is, this is not the choice of the majority leader. It is the choice of the Congressional Budget Office. We may find that something that was sent over there doesn't work at all, doesn't fly. They may say this is not going to work, start over. So we have to reserve the right to do that, and I think that is why we are waiting for the Congressional Budget Office scoring, as they call it, to make sure it hits the levels we want, in terms of deficit reduction and reducing the cost of health care.

It is frustrating on your side. It is frustrating here. But I am hoping, in a matter of hours, maybe days, we will receive the CBO report.

I would like to ask the Senator from Arizona, if he wouldn't mind responding to me on this. Does the Senator believe the current health care system in America is sustainable as we know it, in terms of affordability for individuals and businesses? Is the Senator concerned that more and more people do not have the protection of health insurance; fewer businesses offer that protection?

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The 10-minute time period has expired.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DURBIN. Is the Senator concerned as well with the fact that we have 50 million Americans without health insurance and the number is growing; that in many of the insurance markets across America there is no competition, one or two take-it-or-leave-it situations? Does that lead him to conclude we cannot stay with the current system but have to make some fundamental changes and reforms?

Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend, everything he said is absolutely correct. I am deeply concerned about the situation of health care in America. I know the Senator from Illinois is deeply concerned about the fact that it is going to go bankrupt, about the fact that the Medicare trustees say that within 6 or 7 years it is broke. From what we hear, there is now a proposal over there to extend eligibility for Medicare, which obviously puts more people in the system, which obviously, under the present setup, would accelerate a point of bankruptcy, at least from what I know of this.

But the fundamental difference we have, in my opinion, is not what we want--we both share the deep ambition that every American has affordable and available health care--it is that we believe a government option, a government takeover, a massive reorganization of health care in America will destroy the quality of health care in America and not address the fundamental problem. We believe the quality is fine.

We think the problem is bringing costs under control. When you refuse to address an obvious aspect of cost savings such as malpractice reform, such as going across State lines to obtain health insurance, such as allowing small businesses to join together and negotiate with health care companies, such as other proposals we have, then that is where we have a difference. We share a common ambition, but we differ on the way we get there. I do not see in this bill, nor do most experts, a significant reduction in health care costs except slashing Medicare by some $ 1/2 trillion, which everybody knows doesn't work, and destroying the Medicare Advantage Program of which in my home State 330,000 seniors are a part.

Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator two or three things. First, the CBO tells us this bill will make Medicare live 5 years more. This bill will breathe into Medicare extended life of 5 additional years. Second, I have heard a lot of negative comments about government-sponsored health care. I ask the Senator from Arizona, is he in favor of eliminating the Medicare Program, the veterans care program, the Medicaid Program, the CHIP program to provide health insurance for children, all basically government-administered programs? Does he believe there is something fundamentally wrong with those programs that they should be jettisoned and turned over to the private sector?

The second question, does the Senator from Arizona want to justify why Medicare Advantage, offered by private health insurance companies, costs 14 percent more than the government plan being offered, and we are literally subsidizing private health insurance companies to the tune of billions of dollars each year so they can make more profits at the expense of Medicare?

Mr. McCAIN. First, obviously I want to preserve those programs. But every one of those the Senator pointed out is going broke. They are wonderful programs. They are great things to have. But they are going broke. He knows it and I know it, and the Medicare trustees know it. To say that we don't want these programs because we want to fix them is obviously a mischaracterization of my position, our position. We want to preserve them, but we all know they are going broke. It means cost savings. It means malpractice reform. It means all the things I talked about. The Senator mentioned Medicare Advantage. That is called Medicare Part C. That is part of the Medicare system. There are arguments made that there are enormous savings over time because seniors who have this program, who have chosen it, who haven't violated any law, are more well and more fit and have better health over time, thereby, in the long run, causing significant savings in the health care system which is what this is supposed to be all about. I ask in response: How in the world do you take a Medicare system which, according to the trustees, is going broke and then expand it to people between age 55 and 64? The math doesn't work. It doesn't work under the present system which is going broke. To add on to it, any medical expert will tell you, results in adverse selection and therefore increases in health care costs.

Mr. DURBIN. If I may respond, why is Medicare facing insolvency? Why is it going broke? Why are the other systems facing it? Because the increase in cost in health care each year outstrips inflation. There is no way to keep up with it unless we start bending the cost curve. We face that reality unless we deal with the fundamentals of how to have more efficient, quality health care. Going broke is a phenomena not reflective in bad administration of the program but in the reality of health care economics.

What I am about to say about the expanded Medicare is based solely on press accounts, not that I know what was submitted to CBO in detail. I do not. But the 55 to 64 eligibility for Medicare will be in a separate pool sustained by premiums paid by those going in. If they are a high-risk pool by nature, they will see higher premiums. What happens in that pool will not have an impact on Medicare, as I understand it. It will be a separate pool of those receiving Medicare benefits that they will pay for in actual premiums. It won't be at the expense or to the benefit of the Medicare Program itself. What I have said is based on press accounts and not my personal knowledge of what was submitted to CBO.

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator has seen the CMS estimates this morning that this will mean dramatic increases in health care costs. You may be able to expand the access to it, but given the dramatic increase, one, it still affects the Medicare system and, two, there will obviously be increased costs, if you see the adverse selection such as we are talking about.

I see the staff is getting restless. I ask my friend, maybe we could do this again during the weekend and during the week. I appreciate it. I think people are helped by this kind of debate. I respect not only the passion but the knowledge the Senator from Illinois has about this issue.

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator.


Source:
Skip to top
Back to top