Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act Of 2009 - Resumed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Medicare Advantage Program again. It is one that is facing nearly $120 billion in cuts under the Democratic health care bill.

Currently, there are nearly 11 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage, which is about one out of every four seniors in the United States. In my home State of Idaho, that is about 60,000 people or 27 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries in the State.

Medicare Advantage is an extremely popular program. In fact, it is probably the most popular and fastest growing part of Medicare. A 2007 study reported high overall satisfaction with the Medicare Advantage Program. Eighty-four percent of the respondents said they were happy with their coverage, and 75 percent would recommend Medicare Advantage to their friends or family members.

But despite the popularity of the program, the massive cuts in the Reid bill will result in most seniors losing benefits or coverage or both under Medicare Advantage.

I have a chart in the Chamber which I have shown before. You cannot see the individual States too well on it from this distance at this size, but you can see the coloring on the United States in this chart.

If you live in a State that is red, deep red, or the pinkish color--which is almost every State in the Union--then you are going to see your benefits cut under Medicare Advantage under this bill.

Why am I bringing it up again? We have already had a vote on it. In fact, we have had two votes on it. The majority has insisted on keeping these cuts in the bill. The reason I am bringing it up again is because, as we have combed through this 2,074-page bill, we have found out there is a provision in the Reid bill that would protect Medicare Advantage benefits for some people in the United States, for just a few in this country.

During the Finance Committee markup, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida advocated on behalf of Medicare Advantage and the beneficiaries in his home State of Florida. Subsequently, during closed-door negotiations, the legislative language was added to protect those beneficiaries.

This is interesting because one of the responses to us, as we have tried to stop the imposition of these cuts to Medicare, has been this bill will not cut any Medicare benefits. Well, if not, then why does Florida need a special exemption for its citizens? If not, why not support the McCain amendment that would give the same protection to all Medicare Advantage beneficiaries that the bill gives to primarily just a few in Florida?

Specifically, section 3201(g) of the Reid bill, very deep in the bill on page 894, has a $5 billion provision drafted to prevent the drastic cuts in the Medicare Advantage Program from impacting those enrollees who reside primarily in three counties in Florida: Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach. It seems unfair that taxpayers would foot a $5 billion provision that provides protection for only some of the Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. It certainly proves there are cuts to Medicare Advantage benefits in this bill; again, benefits that one out of four beneficiaries in America receives--one of the fastest, if not the fastest, growing parts of Medicare. Instead of preferential treatment for some, why not extend these same protections for Medicare Advantage to all beneficiaries under Medicare? I know the 60,000 Medicare beneficiaries on Medicare Advantage in Idaho, my home State, want and deserve that same level of protection.

That is why I am here to support the McCain motion to commit, and that is what his motion to commit would accomplish, very plain and very simple.

The McCain motion would extend this grandfathering provision to all beneficiaries in the Medicare Advantage Program so all seniors in this popular and successful program could maintain that same level of benefits that today they enjoy under the current law. Every senior in the Medicare Advantage Program deserves to keep these critical extra benefits, which include things such as dental protection, vision coverage, preventive and wellness services, flu shots, and much more.

In fact, most people who are not on Medicare Advantage in the Medicare Program have to buy supplemental insurance to get access to this coverage. Those in Medicare Advantage, which is one of the reasons it is such a popular program, have the opportunity to get it through their Medicaid services. Why is Medicare Advantage so opposed? Well, some say it is because of the extra costs, except that the extra costs in Medicare Advantage are returned to the government or shared with the beneficiaries. I think the reason might be because Medicare Advantage is one part of the Medicare Program that we have successfully been able to turn over to the private markets for operation. Interestingly, when the private sector gets involved in administering this part of the Medicare Program, the Medicare beneficiaries get more benefits, and it becomes the most popular program in Medicare.

I know my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Casey, has filed an amendment to protect the 864,000 Medicare Advantage beneficiaries in his home State, and I would expect strong bipartisan support for the McCain motion to commit, since I think every Senator representing their constituents in their State wants to see this kind of protection. At the end, the McCain motion to commit is simply an amendment that will protect nearly 11 million seniors today enrolled in the Medicare Advantage Program and help to keep the President's promise when he said if you like what you have, you can keep it. If this bill is not amended in the way it is being proposed to be amended by Senator McCain's amendment, 11 million Americans are not going to be able to keep what they have in the Medicare Program, and that is just a start on the impact of what people in America are going to see under this legislation in terms of a reduction of their benefits and the quality of services they have access to.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CRAPO. Thank you, Madam President.

As the motion which has just been read clearly states, this motion would be to commit this bill to the Finance Committee for the Finance Committee to do one simple thing, and that is to make the bill conform to President Barack Obama's pledge to the American people about health care reform and who would pay for health care reform.

In a speech he has given in a number of different places, President Obama has very clearly stated:

I can make a firm pledge ..... no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase ..... not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes. You will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime.

All this motion does is to commit this bill to the Finance Committee to have the Finance Committee assure that its provisions comply with this pledge.

Now, why would we want to do that? I think most Americans are very aware today that this bill comes at a huge price. There are $2.5 trillion of new Federal spending, $2.5 trillion of new Federal spending that is offset, if you will, by about $500 billion worth of cuts in Medicare and $493 billion worth of cuts in the first 10 years are tax increases, $1.2 trillion of tax increases in the first real 10 years of the full implementation of the bill. There is no question but that much of the tax increase that is included in this bill to pay for this massive increase in Federal spending will come squarely from people in the United States who make less than $250,000 as a family or less than $200,000 as individuals.

All we need to do is to go through this bill to see that by the analysis we have made so far, it appears that at least 42 million households in America will pay a portion of this $1.2 trillion in new taxes, people who are under these income levels to whom President Obama made the pledge.

I will have a greater opportunity tomorrow to discuss this motion in more detail. Tonight I just had a few minutes to make the introduction and to call up the motion, and we will then get into a fuller discussion on how this bill provides a heavy tax burden on the middle class of this country in direct violation of the President's pledge.

So as I conclude, I would simply say this is a very simple amendment. We can debate about whether the bill does or does not increase taxes--I think that is absolutely clear--on those in the middle class. But all the motion would do is to commit this bill to the Finance Committee to have the Finance Committee make the bill comport with the President's pledge.

I will conclude by just reading his pledge one more time. The President, in his words, said:

I can make a firm pledge ..... no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase ..... not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes. ..... you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime.

That is what this motion accomplishes.

With that, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source