Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act Of 2009

Floor Speech

SERVICE MEMBERS HOME OWNERSHIP TAX ACT OF 2009 -- (Senate - December 23, 2009)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the last few days, as we have dug into this bill and the process by which it was written behind closed doors, we have discovered the bill is chock-full of sweetheart deals.

When Americans voted to change Washington last year, they did not think it would be politics as usual here, but unfortunately it has sunk to a whole new level.

It is painful for me to read the editorials in hometown newspapers back in Texas and elsewhere around the country to see what editorial opinion and other opinion leaders are saying about the process by which this bill was written, but let me read a couple of lines from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

The tawdry use of earmarks to bury the doubts of recalcitrant moderate Democrats was a cynical display of ends-justifies-the-means horse-trading that President Barack Obama campaigned against as a Senator and a candidate.

This was an administration that was elected on the campaign slogan: ``Change You Can Believe In.''

But when David Axelrod, one of the masterminds of the campaign, one of the advisers to the President, was asked about that, he said:

Well, this is just the way it is. This is the way Washington works.

I, for one, want to stand up and say this is not the way it should work. I know Presidents campaign for office saying they are going to change Washington, but the truth is the hardest fight is to keep Washington from changing you. Unfortunately, it seems as though that is what has happened here.

Rather than listening to the American people, the creators of this health care bill started with the special interests first. That is where the meetings behind closed doors started--with the pharmaceutical industry, to cut a deal with them; with the insurance industry, to cut a deal with them. The insurance industry will get $476 billion worth of tax credits from this bill alone, and the hospital industry, and the list goes on and on.

Colleagues will stand up and tout the endorsement of organizations such as AARP that has backed nearly $ 1/2 trillion in cuts out of Medicare because, as it turns out, they are in the insurance business and they can sell more Medigap policies when they cut Medicare Advantage, as this bill does.

In order to get the 60 votes for cloture on the motion to proceed, we didn't hear high-minded and idealistic debates about what is the right policy for this country when it comes to reforming our health care system. If this bill could have passed or mustered 60 votes because it was such great policy and the American people were embracing it, you wouldn't need to make all the sweetheart deals that were made behind closed doors to induce recalcitrant Senators to vote for cloture, not because they think it is the right policy but because their State got a special deal.

We know well about what happened in Louisiana and now in Nebraska, but of course there were special deals for Vermont that included $600 million in the managers' package. We know that in California, the so-called ``Botax'' has been replaced now by another tax on tanning beds at the insistence of one of the businesses named Allergan out in California which led the lobbying campaign to defeat the cosmetic surgery tax.

We have heard this is all about keeping insurance companies honest, but the fact is there were special deals here for insurance companies in Nebraska--what has been coined the ``Omaha Prime Cuts,'' the carve-out from new fees for Mutual of Omaha and other insurance companies doing business in Nebraska that no other insurance company in the Nation is going to benefit from.

Then there is the so-called ``Gator Aid'' special deal for insurance companies in Florida.

There is a $100 million hospital deal in Connecticut--something called ``U Con.''

And, of course, there were deals for Montana that were slipped in the bill. Although, you know what, no one actually had the courage to mention the name of the State. You had to start to dig into it, like the Louisiana deal. At
least the Senator from Nebraska was brazen enough to actually have Nebraska listed by name. The rest of them you have to dig out by trying to figure out: Who benefits from this deal and who doesn't?

I want to ask: What about the other States? My State, under this unfunded mandate in this legislation, will have to pay the State taxpayers $21 billion in unfunded Medicaid liabilities over the next 10 years. We didn't make a sweetheart deal to vote for bad policy because my State could get some extra money, because I think that is unprincipled. I wouldn't do it. But what about the other States that voted for the bill without getting the sweetheart money, such as Arkansas, which faces an unfunded Medicaid mandate of $335 million; Colorado, $624 million; California, $3.5 billion--a State that is already nearly bankrupt. This is going to make their situation enormously worse, as Governor Schwarzenegger has acknowledged.

I am not saying other States should somehow get the sweetheart deals that were negotiated for these other votes, but I am saying this entire bill is a bad deal and we need to kill it and start over, strip out all the earmarks, and bring the kind of transparency the President campaigned on and that I think the American people have a right to expect.

These sweetheart deals are egregious in and of themselves. What is worse--and I have been on the telephone talking to constituents back in Texas--there are some people who paint with such a broad brush, they say, Well, we think all of you are corrupt, because this verifies some of the most cynical suspicions that people have about government. I, for one, resent it. We have many honest and honorable people who serve in public life, and this taints us all with a broad brush and, simply stated, makes me furious. I resent it. I resent those who brought us to this position, because I think it sullies the reputation of the Senate.

In a moment I am going to offer a point of order, but let me first note that one of Senator Reid's first acts as majority leader was to pass the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. Let me tell my colleagues the name of that again. It is called the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act.

In 2007, President Obama, then Senator, said:

To earn back the trust to show people that we are working for them and looking out for their interests, we have to start acting like it.

Unfortunately, for the American people, Washington has not yet started to act like it.

This landmark ethics reform legislation required Senators to publicly disclose earmarks and who requested them. Senator Grassley and I have both made parliamentary inquiries about whether this provision has been complied with, which is now contained in rule LXIV of the Senate Standing Rules, and we found that the majority leader has so far not complied with these public disclosure rules that he himself championed. Since my friends on the other side of the aisle don't seem to care a lot about this, we have to insist that this provision be complied with. In a moment I will raise a point of order about this violation of the Senate rules. We need to force the Members of this body to be honest about who has required special favors and earmarks, tax treatments and benefits in this bill.

I have a parliamentary inquiry.

According to rule LXIV, paragraph 4(a) of the Standing Rules of the Senate states:

If during the consideration of a bill or joint resolution, a Senator proposes an amendment containing a congressionally directed spending item, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit which was not included in the bill or joint resolution as placed on the calendar or as reported by any committee, in a committee report on such bill or joint resolution, or a committee report of the Senate on a companion measure, then as soon as practicable, the Senator shall ensure that a list of such items (and the name of any Senator who submitted a request to the Senate for each respective item included in the list) is printed in the Congressional Record.

I would simply inquire of the Chair: Is the Chair aware whether this list of congressionally directed spending items and their Senate sponsors has been printed in the Congressional Record?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is not aware if such a disclosure has been made.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, under those circumstances, I raise a point of order that the amendment is not in order since it violates the provisions of Senate rule LXIV, paragraph 4(a).

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Paragraph 4(a) of rule LXIV requires that the Senator who proposes an amendment containing any congressionally directed spending item ensure as soon as practicable that the list of such items be printed in the Congressional Record. The provision is not enforceable and no point of order lies.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair and I ask for the yeas and nays.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, upon passage of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, the majority leader said:

I believe last November Americans ..... asked us to make Government honest. We have done that ..... This is the toughest reform bill in the history of this body as it relates to ethics and lawmaking.

This is an appeal to the ruling of the Chair that that provision of rule XLIV is unenforceable. Why would anybody who voted overwhelmingly to make this the toughest reform bill in the history of the body render this rule toothless by agreeing with the attempt to set this aside and to waive its effect?

I ask my colleagues to make sure we vote for transparency, for honesty, for open government. Vote no on this motion to waive.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source