Rebuild America Jobs Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAIN. I say to my colleague I do not quite understand it either.
In response to the comments of the Senator from West Virginia about the importance of long-term care, I think all of us understand that. I think all of us who meet and have interface with our constituents recognize that the issue of long-term care is one of transcendent importance. The Senator from West Virginia said he would be glad to make some changes or tweaks to the program. We would be eager to hear of those. We would be eager to hear how we could change the program, the CLASS Act, so it is not, as Senator Conrad, the chairman of the Budget Committee, said of the CLASS Act, ``a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of.''
I think it is pretty clear if we accept Senator Conrad's and other objective assessments of the CLASS Act that we have to go back to square one. We are not going to be able to fix a program about which, the Congressional Budget Office said:
..... the programs would add to budget deficits in the third decade--and in succeeding decades--by amounts on the order of tens of billions of dollars for each 10-year period.
The CLASS program would add to budget deficits in future decades even though the proposals require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to set premiums to ensure the program's solvency for 75 years.
I would like to interject. I know my colleagues share my view. When Senators leave we kind of forget them. Maybe we do not mention them anymore. But we owe a debt of gratitude to Senator Gregg, former Senator from New Hampshire, who put in this provision that required solvency over a period of 75 years before it could be implemented. If it had not been for that provision, we would now be moving forward with a program that, according to the CBO, would add tens of billions of dollars to the deficit in each 10-year period.
Wherever you are, Senator Gregg, and I know you are happier than if you were here, I offer my appreciation and my thanks.
I note the presence of Dr. Barrasso. I think there is something we ought to understand about the CLASS Act. It did have a short-term impact according to the way the Congressional Budget Office ``scores'' things, tells us how much things will add or detract from the deficit, either plus or minus. The fact is, the CLASS Act, in the first 10 years, because younger people would be paying in premiums and would not have gotten to the point where they are eligible for the benefits, it disguised the cost of what we know now as--what we call ObamaCare.
Because of the way they are restricted on scoring, the CLASS Act, at least for 10 years, contributed $70 billion and helped them estimate that the Health Care Reform Act, known as ObamaCare, would have $122 billion in savings, when in reality after the first 10-year period it was tens of billions of dollars in added deficit and burdens on average Americans.
I ask my colleague, Senator Barrasso, Isn't there a way we could address the long-term care problem in America? Isn't there a way we could address this issue without piling on, as the CBO judged the CLASS Act, an increase of tens of billions of dollars to the deficit, which we all know right now is $44,000, I believe, for every man, woman, and child in America?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAIN. I say to my colleague, what is a little hard to understand--maybe Dr. Barrasso understands it--the Secretary of Health and Human Services said they can find no way to implement it, after nearly 2 years. So why would there be an objection to Senator Thune having just moved to repeal the CLASS Act?
If they tried for all of these months since the passage of the bill to figure out a way they can meet the Judd Gregg proviso that required the 75-year sustainability, then one would wonder why--one would wonder why we would not just go ahead and repeal it. If there is a better proposal, as we have all agreed, to address the long-term care issue in America, then why don't we sit down at the drawing board and find a way to care for people who, in their most vulnerable years, need government assistance?
I know of no one in this body who is opposed to a viable, reasonable, fiscally sound long-term care program. This is not it.
This is not it. It is not even close. So I wondered why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would refuse to repeal it unless it is some distorted pride in authorship.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source