The Official Truth Squad

Floor Speech

THE OFFICIAL TRUTH SQUAD -- (House of Representatives - July 11, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BLACKBURN. It is a pleasure to join you. And I appreciate the opportunity to come and talk with our constituents about this program.

It is amazing to me as we are looking at this and looking at the reauthorization of it and looking at what has been a very successful program when it has worked as a block grant program, and then look at the problems that would arise as it moves to being an entitlement program. And this is something, though, that, unfortunately, it seems to be more or less the method that the Democrat majority is using as they move forward.

This is the ``Hold on to Your Wallet'' Congress, and they are expanding programs. Today we have done the college cost of savings. It sounds good, but, my goodness, nine new entitlement programs that they have voted to establish today, nine. And it is not going to have an effect with making certain that people have the ability to get into college and then stay in college. You have got all these different programs that appeal to special interest groups but not to the average family that is sitting down at the table and taking out a pencil and a piece of paper and saying, How do we make all of this fit?

I have just been amazed listening to the debate today as it pertained to education. And, of course, we are seeing this as we are working through our appropriations bills. They are spending more money. They are spending above the President's request. They are proving Ronald Reagan right at every turn. He has said, ``There is nothing so close to eternal life on earth as a Federal Government program.'' And certainly we see that. They are given the opportunity, and what are they doing? They are starting new programs. They are starting the bureaucracy; certainly not the kind of change that the American people thought that they were going to get. And we see that as we look at the SCHIP program.

Now, those of us who have watched health care and worked on health care issues at both the State and the Federal level know the value of having this program and having it work and States having the flexibility that is there. But what we are seeing is the SCHIP program being hijacked to help the liberal left move their agenda of socialized medicine a little bit further toward the finish line. And when they talk about Medicare for everybody, when they talk about expanding Medicaid, and when they talk about moving SCHIP from a block grant to an entitlement and then expanding the reach of that program, that is what they are doing.

SCHIP is to be for children. We have States that are using it to pay for adult health care. SCHIP was originally capped at $40 billion over a 10-year period of time for block grants, for children's care. What has happened, Congress has granted an additional $676 million in new Federal spending for State bailouts through 2026. So, there again, we hear accountability and we hear our constituents talk to us about accountability and the importance of accountability, but what we see is our colleagues on the left who will say, ``Well, if somebody gets in trouble, let's pay for it. Let's pay for it. Let's let the Federal Government pay for it.'' But the problem here is we forget, this is not Congress's money. It is not the bureaucracy's money. It is not SCHIP's money. It is not CMS's money. It is the hardworking family that goes to work every day, that earns that money, that sends it to the Federal Government. This is taxpayer money.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And I thank the gentleman for yielding. Today we have 6 million children that are covered in SCHIP. We also have 600,000 adults that are covered in SCHIP.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Let me get this straight. In the Children's Health Insurance Program, there are hundreds of thousands of adults who are being covered? How is that possible?

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. That is happening because States are deciding that they are going to take the money and then use it for some things other than the children. Maybe they don't have enough children that fall below that poverty level or the 100, 200, 300 percent of poverty, wherever those levels may be for those specific State programs, so you have part of that money being used for adults.

Now, the problem that has come before us is SCHIP has to be reauthorized before September 30th, and the funding will expire. Now, this is a program we don't want to expire. We would like to see it continue as it was originally set up to continue. We do not want it to morph into other things and be a program that also covers adults, be a program that covers those that are not falling into the category of being needy children. We want to make certain that it remains a block grant, that States are given flexibility, and that the money is used to cover the children, the population for which it is intended. That is how accountabilities should work with these programs.

Now, our colleagues across the aisle want to make it permanent. They are not interested in addressing how the money is being spent or whether a less costly, more efficient system could end up serving children better and meeting the needs of those children in the appropriate way.

One of the things that they are also wanting to do is to change the income levels and include those that are at 400 percent of poverty. So what we would have is families that are making $60,000 to $84,000 a year would end up being eligible for SCHIP for their children. So what we would have is the IRS looking at a family's tax return and saying, ``You are rich. You are going to pay the AMT.'' And then the SCHIP program looking and saying, ``Well, you fall within the guidelines of 400 percent above poverty, and you qualify for this wonderful entitlement called SCHIP.'' So that is the kind of frustration that we see in the bureaucracy that causes frustration and a lot of questions from our constituents and causes them to say, ``Wait a minute. How is this money being used?''

Now, we also hear from our constituents that they don't want more of this control centered with the bureaucrat. They want to be able to preserve the doctor-patient relationship. They want to be able to make choices for themselves. And they sure don't want socialized medicine and government-run health care.

We have heard one of our colleagues say, do you really want the bureaucracy that can't seem to straighten out Katrina, that can't seem to handle homeland security, that can't seem to get their hands around passports, to then manage health care from cradle to grave? And those are the right questions for our constituents to ask. And as they bring those questions forward, we say: And one of the ways that we need to address this is through making certain that SCHIP stays as it was intended to be, a block grant program that was put in place to assist the States in providing health care for children at low-income levels, those needy children.

And I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman. And yes indeed. You know, one of the things that one of my constituents is fond of saying when they come to town hall meetings and gatherings is, Marsha, whatever the government giveth, the government sure can take away. And we need to keep our attention to as we talk about this health care. Do we really want to put a bureaucrat behind a desk making a decision for the type health care that our child is going to receive? Or do we want to make certain that we, as parents, and as patients, with a physician, have the opportunity to make those decisions about health care, and do we want to make certain that we are moving toward a market-driven health care system? Or do we want to move toward socialized medicine system? And those are questions that the American people are certainly asking.

You know, one of the things, as we've looked at this, and you hear the discussion about what it's going to cost, and generally, as with so many programs that come from the left, they will say, oh, but it's only going to cost this amount. And it's not going to be that much more expensive to pick up those extra 45 percent of the children to move us to 95 percent. It's not going to cost us that much. And it's going to pay dividends in the long run.

Well, you know, the interesting thing about that is the way government structures its budget. We're not looking at the 10-year, 20-year, 30-year cost. We're looking at a 5-year snapshot. Many of our States, when they construct their budgets, they're doing cost accounting, which is a 1-year view into what is taking place.

And even at this, you know, CBO has scored this bill at $50 billion, and we're finding out that the cost is more like a $108 billion to cover the cost between adding an additional 1 to 2 million extra children. And that doesn't even get into considering some of the income requirements for recipients. And this is going to be an interesting issue of debate.

And I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate that because you triggered in my mind something about cost-of-government programs. And I'm reminded of the fact that when Medicaid itself was instituted in the mid-1960s that there was a wonderful estimate that said that Medicaid, at the turn of the century, when 2000 rolled around, would only cost about $8 billion. In fact, it cost about $80 billion.

So the Federal Government is always off by a significant factor, and so when you hear an estimate that this will only cost $108 billion, in fact, we can say with relative certainty that that is a lesser amount than it would actually cost, and it would be much greater burden on the American taxpayer.

And I'm pleased to yield back.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Yes. And one of the points that I would make in this debate is that in fiscal year 2007 alone, SCHIP will cost the American taxpayer $11.5 billion. Now, under the plan that the Democrat leadership is pushing forward for expansion of this program, that cost would increase fivefold. That would increase fivefold. This is what it would cost turning it from a block grant with flexibility to the State and moving it to an entitlement where you're going to put it on auto pilot.

And people say, what are entitlements? What's the difference here? When you're talking about Medicare, when you're talking about Medicaid, when you're talking about some of our Social Service programs that are entitlements that every year they just grow right along. There's not a check and balance. You're not working on outcomes. You're not working on making certain that you're achieving efficiencies. You've got it on auto pilot.

Now we've established nine new today, nine new entitlement programs in education. That is what the Democrat leadership wanted. It's not what the American people wanted. That's what they wanted, entitlement programs. And what we know is they would increase the cost fivefold on this plan.

Another thing we need to keep in mind is that the SCHIP expansion would generate a real shift away from private health insurance and that private health insurance market for children. And for every 100 children who get public coverage as a result of SCHIP, there is a corresponding reduction in private coverage of between 25 and 50 children. So you change the way that market is going to work. And it is of concern to us. We know that this is something that will cause a lot of questions.

We are very concerned with what we hear they are pushing to do to try to make this palatable so that they can pull in votes to pass this SCHIP program. We know that our physicians have a problem with the payment system for Medicare reimbursement, and certainly, the gentleman from Georgia, being a physician, understands this so very well. And we've seen reductions in payments for Medicare payments to those physicians. And so they're going to include this in the SCHIP bill.

Well, the Medicare payments don't have anything to do with the SCHIP block grant. But in order to try to pull together those votes and pull together something that they think the Republicans can't afford to block, they're going to put that in there.

Now, if I were a practicing physician dealing with the SGR and with Medicare reimbursement, I would be highly offended that I'm going to be used as a bargaining chip in the Children's Health Care Insurance Program.

Now, they're also going to look for ways to improve programs that provide financial assistance to low income Medicare beneficiaries for premiums, cost sharing and prescription drugs. So they're going to set up a generational battle and say, well, we'll do this on SCHIP, but we're going to take away some of the benefits from the Medicare part D and the Medicare Advantage. So they're going to take away a little bit from the seniors and then try to put that into the children's health care.

Now, if I were a senior citizen, there again, if I liked my part D and my Medicare Advantage, I wouldn't like the fact that they're going to use me as a bargaining chip.

And then we find that they're going to provide a special focus on addressing the health care needs of those living in rural areas. Well, if I lived in a rural area, and if I had a community health center in my area, and of course, in my seventh District of Tennessee, I have plenty of rural areas and plenty of rural health centers. I wouldn't like the fact that I'm going to be a bargaining chip.

And it is unfortunate that this seems to be the path that they are going to choose to travel. Rather than addressing the issue straight up, rather than addressing the needs of the States, rather than addressing how do we best meet the needs of children, they're going to pull all these different things and pull them into one bill and try to make something they think that there are plenty of people that they can't vote against it.

So I find that, indeed, unfortunate and something that, when we talk about health care, preserving access to health care for all of our constituents, it is, indeed, unfortunate that that bargaining chip-type mentality, that let's make a deal with the hold on to your wallet Congress, is the way they want to operate and do business.

And I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank you so much for you comments. And I think the issues that you point out most recently there on the bargaining chips really speaks to the cynicism with which this leadership leads this Congress because it is, it's purchasing votes. It's purchasing numbers of votes in order to pass a bill. And then to have the, again, the all politics all the time, the bumper sticker politics that goes on by this leadership. And it is, frankly, what the American people are tired of. It's not what they voted for in November.

And they are clearly telling each other and telling any individual who will ask that that has decreased their opinion of Congress.

And I'm pleased to yield.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. You know, as you were saying that, I'm reminded of what we in Tennessee went through in 1994 and 1995 as we saw the advent of TenCare in our State, which was the test case for Hillary Clinton health care. And we know what has happened in our State of Tennessee, and the fact that TenCare now is consuming about two-thirds of our State's budgets. It is a very, very difficult program.

And somebody always is going to pay. Somebody always has to pay the bill. And what we are seeing with the American public is, they know that it is the taxpayer that is going to pay; that there are not things that are free. Someone pays for that, and they, the taxpayer, going to work every day, American families holding American jobs, earning a pay check that, unfortunately, the Federal Government has first right of refusal on that pay check, they take their share before you get your share. And it happens every single pay period.

And so many people are tired of it. They're tired of government not being accountable, and they are tired of Congress having an insatiable appetite for their hard-earned money. And it's what causes them to contact us when they hear about how these appropriations bills are being handled, when they hear about the increase in Federal programs, when they hear about the increase in spending. And, yes, indeed, as I've told my constituents this weekend, I'm not surprised that the numbers for Congress are as low as they are. People wanted things done differently. And this is not the kind of change they wanted. What they're saying, this is exactly what we didn't want. It's exactly what we didn't want.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source