[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 28, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4766-S4769]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                               The Budget

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, we are in the midst of a nomination 
discussion, and that takes place in the midst of a health care 
discussion. Last night, the House and Senate conferees struck an 
agreement on the budget resolution that will clear the way for final 
votes later this week, but it includes reconciliation instructions for 
health care and student loan forms which are quite controversial. We 
are told the reconciliation would not be used until after October 15, 
and some might find that reassuring. I am not one of those who does 
because if we are going to deal with the health care problem, we must 
recognize that it is enormously complex.
  Health care spending is projected to be 17.6 percent of our GDP, 
which is nearly one-fifth of our economy, and a bill dealing with that 
is going to have to be scored by the CBO before any committee can 
report it out. At the moment, there is only one bill with respect to 
health care that has received a CBO score. It is the bill offered by 
Senator Wyden and myself, along with 12 cosponsors, known as the 
Healthy Americans Act. It has been scored by the CBO as revenue-neutral 
during its first 2 years and then saving money for the Federal 
Government thereafter. With 12 cosponsors--a mixture of both 
Republicans and Democrats--it would seem to me that this would be the 
bill from which we begin our discussions in a truly bipartisan manner, 
and it would not require the straitjacket of reconciliation to make it 
possible for the majority to move ahead. We have a score. We have a 
framework. We have language. It is not perfect. Even some of the 
cosponsors have indicated that in its present form they might vote 
against it, but at least it is a place to

[[Page S4769]]

begin. It is a place to start the conversation. We do not need the kind 
of enforcement of majority rights that reconciliation would give us.
  To start over again fresh with a proposal from the administration 
would mean that a bill has to be drafted--something we have already 
done; the bill would have to be referred to CBO--something we have 
already done; CBO would have to go through the difficulties of scoring 
it--an enormous challenge. I don't believe they would be able to get 
all that done in a timely fashion. Then we would be told on the floor: 
Well, we have run out of time. We have to deal with health care so we 
are going to move to reconciliation as the way to jam the thing through 
in a hurry. Let's understand right here in the beginning that that kind 
of activity is not required.
  Let's turn to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and her role with respect to the 
health care debate. My normal pattern has always been to say that the 
President has the right to whomever he wants, and I have not voted 
against Presidential nominees unless I felt they were completely 
inappropriate or incapable of carrying out their duties.
  I have respect for Governor Sebelius. I think she is a valuable and 
potentially productive appointment for the President, but I have 
reluctantly come to the conclusion that she is the wrong appointee for 
this particular assignment. She has backed a partisan process for 
health care reform. She refuses to support patient safeguards and 
comparative effectiveness research, and, perhaps most strongly for me, 
she has already endorsed a Government-run public health care plan, 
something I would have to vote against. I think most of my colleagues--
if not all of my colleagues on the Republican side--would vote against 
it, not for partisan reasons but for the flat fact that it doesn't 
work. We have seen examples of that throughout the world, and we 
understand it doesn't work.
  I have constituents who have relatives and friends in Canada who come 
to me and say: Based on our experience with our relatives and friends 
in Canada, we absolutely do not want a Canadian system. This is just an 
anecdote, but it is illustrative of the kind of thing that goes on in 
the Canadian system where they ration care by delay. They don't ration 
it by regulation, they simply ration it by delaying the ability of 
people to get access. As has been reported to me, if you can 
demonstrate as you go into the Canadian system that there is some 
problem related to heart disease, you get moved to the head of the 
line. So some of my constituents have told me that their relatives in 
Canada have discovered that if they go to see a doctor with a cold or 
with the flu or with some other problem, they always say, ``And this 
threatens my potential for heart disease'' in an effort to get ahead of 
the line and move forward in the Canadian system that would otherwise 
delay their access to a doctor. If you haven't learned that trick, you 
wait for 3 months, 6 months, whatever. This is the kind of Government-
run public health plan Governor Sebelius has indicated that she would 
support.
  There is also the troubling problem that she failed to disclose 
relevant information to the Finance Committee with respect to her 
taxes. We have had that happen with other Cabinet nominations, and it 
has become something of a cause celebre with many Americans who are 
following this. It has become the butt of jokes on the late-night talk 
shows. It is unfortunate that she has fallen a victim to that as well.
  She has also been less than forthcoming with respect to her 
relationships with some of her political donors. She had a political 
relationship with a doctor who was involved in partial-birth abortions 
and was obviously anxious to see to it that he had access to public 
officials who would support him in that. That is an issue which carries 
a great deal of influence with my constituents, and it is another one 
that troubles me.
  So while I think Governor Sebelius might be well qualified for some 
other position, I do not intend to support her for this position. As we 
deal with health care problems, the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services is a key player in helping us solve this problem, and I 
believe she carries a little bit too much baggage for this particular 
assignment.
  So once again we have the framework for a bipartisan solution. It can 
be the beginning point of the discussion. A bill has been written 
around it, and it has been scored by the CBO. Why don't we start with 
that instead of threatening reconciliation for a whole new program that 
might start with the administration?
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from New York 
wishes to be recognized for 5 minutes, so I ask unanimous consent that 
I be recognized for 10 minutes following the Senator from New York.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as 
in morning business for 5 minutes and that Senator Gregg be recognized 
following my remarks.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.