[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 17954-17955]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       HEALTH CARE WK VI, DAY IV

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for the past several weeks I have come 
down to the Senate floor just about every day we have been in session, 
and I have brought a simple message: Americans want health care reform, 
and both parties want to deliver that reform. What Americans do not 
want is a government takeover masked as a reform that leaves them 
paying more for less. And they don't want us to rush something as 
important and as personal as health care reform just to have something 
to brag about at a parade or a press conference.
  So it was perplexing to hear the President say yesterday that the 
``status quo . . . is not an option.'' I cannot think of a single 
person in Washington who disagrees with that statement. No one is 
defending the status quo, no one. What we are defending is the right of 
the American people to know what they are getting into: the exact 
details and the cost.
  That leads me to another distressing aspect of the administration's 
approach to this debate, the artificial timeline for reform. The 
President has said he wants to see a health care reform bill out of the 
Senate in 3 weeks and on his desk in October. His rationale seems to be 
the same as it was during the debate over the stimulus. The economy's 
in bad shape, so health care reform has to happen right away.
  Certainly the two are connected. But the problem is that many of the 
Democrat proposals we have seen would not make the situation better, 
they would make it even worse. And due to our current financial 
situation, we need to be even more careful about how we spend our 
money, not less. We saw the consequences of carelessness on the 
stimulus bill. We rushed that, and Americans got burned. We must not 
make that mistake again.
  But we can start with a point of real agreement: Americans want 
reform, but they want us to be careful.
  An artificial deadline virtually guarantees a defective product--
virtually guarantees a defective product. Look no further than the 
drafts coming out of the House and Senate this very week. Both of them 
are shot through with weaknesses and deficiencies typical of a rush 
job. First, they cost way too much. According to early estimates, the 
House bill would cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years and 
yet--listen to this--it still wouldn't cover all the uninsured; $1 
trillion and it wouldn't cover all the uninsured. It includes a new tax 
on small business that could keep companies from hiring low-wage 
employees. It creates a new nationwide government-run health plan that 
could force millions off their current insurance. One of the worst 
parts is that advocates of the House bill want small businesses and 
seniors to pay for it; small businesses and seniors they want to pay 
for it. Businesses would pay through new taxes, seniors through cuts to 
Medicare, cuts that hospitals in my home State simply cannot sustain.
  I have talked to the hospitals in Kentucky that are worried about the 
impact these Medicare cuts would have on the services Kentucky 
hospitals currently provide to seniors. I encourage all of my 
colleagues to talk to the people who care for patients day in and day 
out at hospitals in their own States and see what they have to say 
about this proposal. It may be a lot different than what some of the 
interest groups here in Washington are saying.
  Small businesses are worried too. At a time when the unemployment 
rate is already approaching 10 percent, the new tax on small business 
will inevitably lead to even more job losses. Business groups across 
the country that have seen the details of the House bill are warning 
that it would certainly kill jobs. Under the House bill, taxes on some 
small businesses could rise as high as roughly 45 percent. Let me say 
that again: Taxes on small business up to 45 percent, meaning their tax 
rate would be about 30 percent higher than the rate for big 
corporations. So small businesses, which have created approximately two 
out of three new jobs over the past decade, get a bigger tax increase 
than big corporations. It is worth asking why small businesses, which 
created about two-thirds of the new jobs in this country over the last 
10 years, get hit so hard under the House bill. Is it because they 
can't fight back as hard as big businesses? Either way, the House bill 
would lead to some small businesses paying higher taxes than big 
businesses, even though the U.S. corporate rate for all of our 
corporations is already one of the highest in the world.
  The Senate bill is as bad. As currently written, the HELP Committee 
bill would increase the Federal deficit by at least $645 billion, at 
least that much. If we add all the Medicaid changes the HELP Committee 
anticipates, it increases the Federal deficit by more than $1 trillion 
at a time when we are already spending about $500 million a day on 
interest on the national debt so far this year--$500 million a day in 
interest on the national debt so far this year. It too would kill jobs 
by requiring businesses to either insure all of their employees or pay 
a tax if they do not. It would levy a tax on those Americans who don't 
have or cannot afford health insurance. It also fails to reform 
malpractice laws. It spends billions of dollars on projects unrelated 
to the crisis at hand. It forces millions of Americans off of their 
current plans--forces millions of Americans off of their current 
plans--despite repeated assurances from the administration that it does 
not. And like the House bill, it creates a nationwide government plan 
that could lead to the same kind of denial, delay, and rationing of 
care that we see in other countries.
  Health care reform is vital but it is not easy. If the House bill and 
the HELP bill are any indication, it is certainly not something that 
should be rushed. Both bills are too expensive, particularly for small 
businesses and seniors. They are too disruptive of the health care 
Americans currently have, and they are ineffective in addressing the 
health care problem in its entirety.
  Americans have a right to expect that we will take enough time on 
this legislation not to make the same mistake we made on the stimulus. 
The

[[Page 17955]]

House and Senate bills we have seen this week show we are not there 
yet, not even close. We need to slow down and let the American people 
see what they are getting into with these so-called reforms. We all 
want reform, but we want the right reform.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORKER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________