Senate Proceeding on Oct 29th, 2009 :: 2:27:00 to 2:45:00
Total video length: 6 hours 41 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Views:22 Duration: 0:18:00 Discussion

Previous speech:

Next speech:

2:26:56 to 2:27:16( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: stop the cap-and-trade bill. thank yield the floor. a senator: mr. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mr. gregg: i ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in mo minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. gregg: i rise to speak

2:27:00 to 2:45:00( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Judd Gregg

2:27:39 to 2:27:59( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: unveiled their plan 2,000 pages long. 2,000 pages long. and made the representation that in some way it wasn't going to increase the deficit. now, this is a bill which is going to cost between between $1 trillion and

2:28:00 to 2:28:21( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: and $2 trillion over ten years. the idea that it's not going to increase the defic is so is unbelievable just on its face that it's -- that it doesn't even pass the laugh test. i mean, if you believe that, then maybe the speaker of the house should sell you a bridge in brooklyn, or maybe en

2:28:22 to 2:28:44( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: bridge in oakland, for that matter. that one doesn't work, by the way. the simple fact is that when you increase the size of government by $1 trillion or $2 trillion, as this bill proposes to do, by massively creating -- by creating a massive new entitlement called a

2:28:45 to 2:29:06( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: government-forced insurance plan, there's no way you're going to be able to cut medicare enough, as is proposed in this bill, or raise taxes enough as is proposed in this bill, to meet the costs of that program. no way it's going to happen. and so to claim that this won't

2:29:07 to 2:29:28( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: add one dime to the the president claimed he would not do when he spoke to the congress, is just not believable. we have seen administtion a massive pansion in the debt of this nation. now, they represent constantly well, they jt inherited this from the bush administration.

2:29:29 to 2:29:50( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: yes, a fair am of it did come over from the administration, but the budget that they sent here which has a trillion dlar deficit every year for the next ten years isn't the bush budget, it's their budget. and the budget that they sent here which raises the debt in this country from 40% of g.d.p.

2:29:51 to 2:30:11( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: to 80% of the g.p. isn't bush budget. it's the obama and democratic budget. the representation was that we would go out and trillion dollars, $800 billion, on a stimulus package and that

2:30:12 to 2:30:32( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: that would create jobs. well, what it reatd wa created was debt for our children. the numbers are starting to come in now. it was represented in new hampshire specifically that there would be -- this administration said there would be 16,000 jobs created in new hampshire by the stimulus package.

2:30:33 to 2:30:53( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: well, since t stimulus package has passed, we have lost 12,000 jobs in $400 million has been spent in new hampshire. the administration that $400 million created 3,000 jobs. you have to useome pretty creative accounting to get to those 3,000 jobs.

2:30:54 to 2:31:15( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: but even if you give them the benefit of the doubt, that's over $130,000 that it's cost americans per job. and did weave that money to spend? no. we spent the bill near package to our children. we put it on their backs.

2:31:16 to 2:31:37( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: and, in fact, almost 50% of that stimulus package is going to be spent a long over. it's going to be spent after the year 2011. and chairman bernanke, head of the federal reserve, said that the recession was over. he said that aut two weeks ago. now, granted, the pain and suffering and the difcult economic times certainly isn't

2:31:38 to 2:32:00( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: over and we do need to be concerned about that, but in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, mean in 2010, mean 2019 there, will still be money spent under that stimulus package and all it was will have been borrowed. borrow it from our children and they'll have to pay it back.

2:32:01 to 2:32:22( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: and then we had the cash for clunker program which was allegedly going to be this stimulus addition. well, that's been looked at by an entirely independent group edmonds, edmonds.com, which is an automobile site on the web where you go and they tell what you a car's value is and they give you an independent

2:32:23 to 2:32:43( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: assessment of its qualities, its pluses and its minuses. they take a look at that program program. they said there were 690,000 vehicles that were seld during that were sold during the cash for clunker period. and they concluded -- and moderate, they're just a professional group of people looking at what happens in the

2:32:44 to 2:33:04( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: area of automobiles -- they concluded that only 125,0 those cars would not have actually been purchased or sold by the dealer were the cash for clunker program not in place. in other words, the vast majority of the cars would have been sold, they would have been

2:33:05 to 2:33:27( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: bought under edmonds' estimates. and so we spent about $3 billion to buy 125,000 cars. that works out to $24,000 per car. and who did that bill go to? that's going to our kids, too.

2:33:28 to 2:33:49( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: and now just in the last two weeks -- well, almost every week around here, we hear proposals to spend money and not pay for it. a week ago, somebody suggested from the administration we should spend $13 billion by sending $250 to every social security recipient. why did that come about? that came about because people were starting to realize that

2:33:50 to 2:34:11( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: senior citizens little ups under the health care proposals that have been coming forward from the finance committee, from the labor committee, now from the house, that under these proposals, medicare was going to be significantly reduced, seniors were going to lose their

2:34:12 to 2:34:32( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: medicare benefits so that a new, brand-new entitlement could be created which had nothing to do with s paid for with these reductions in medicare payments. and, in fact, if you're on medicare advantage, under the finance committee bill, you can forget it, that program's gone. now, there are a lot of seniors in this country who have medicare advantage. they like it.

2:34:33 to 2:34:55( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: they think it's a good way to get health care. but that program, the majority of the medicare cuts come out of medicare advantage. so that -- basically they're wiping out that insurance benefit. you talk about losing your insurance. you know, the president says nobody's going to lose their insurance today that has it, nobody's going to well, right on the face of it, when medicare advantage gets wiped out, every sphwhor has

2:34:56 to 2:35:17( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: that that is going to lose that and they're going to be moved over to standard medicare. and for what? to pay for a new program, a new entitlement program that has nothing to do with seniors and has nothing to do with making the medicare system more solvent. i mean, if you're going to reduce medicare payments -- and there are adjustments we need to

2:35:18 to 2:35:39( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: ache in the medicare it should go towards making that system solvent. why is that? because the system's insolvent. so it's inconceivable that we would -- that the white house would suggest that we should add

2:35:40 to 2:36:00( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: $13 billion of new spending to the social security program, which is also going to be insolvent in a few because they to each social recipient, because they were upset about what people were rbles -- seniors were rbles was goinrealizingwas going to happen to them under med case, and they wan to sort of give

2:36:01 to 2:36:23( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: walk-around money. you know, it's the old chicago way, walking-around money. you give people money, maybe they won't be upset by things. but i think most seniors understand that, sure, they'd love $250, but how does that work? you're going to -- when you total that all $13 billion of debt which is going to be given to their children and their grandchildren

2:36:24 to 2:36:44( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: to pay when they already -- those grandchildren and children already are getting a massive debt, a massive debt, almost $50 trillion of unfunded liability just in social securi and medicare alone. and you -- and you've got to ask yourself, should we put another $13 billion on their backs simply to make a political statement today?

2:36:45 to 2:37:05( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: of course not. but that was proposed. and then a week proposed that we should do a $250 billion doctors fairly. now, doctors aren't reimbursed fairly under medicare. they aren't. and that's sort of an

2:37:06 to 2:37:28( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: interesting fact. because if you look at all these proposals that are being talked about from the other side of the aisle, they're saying oh, we'll just -- everybody in america will have medicare. well, that's a great idea. the fact is, medicare doe't reimburse doctors for what their real costs are, so a lot of doctors don't want to do medicare.

2:37:29 to 2:37:50( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: and the ref is that they propose the $250 billion doctor fix. well, they didn't want to pay for it. i mean, that's a quarter of a trillion dollars. that's a lot of money. that -- all that debtoes on our children's back. our children have to pay for that. that was the proposal that came from the other side of the aisle.

2:37:51 to 2:38:11( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: now, fortunately some folks on the other side of the aisle -- and i members on the other side of the aisle in the democratic party and one independent said no, no, wait a minute. wait a minute. we're going to join the i mean, you can't do this. this isn't right. you can't spend $250 billion on fixing the doctors' fix -- which should be fixed -- and then take that bill and just give it to

2:38:12 to 2:38:33( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: your kids and your grandkids. you've g to be more responsible. over the years, every year that we fix the doctors fix -- and we've fixed it now for probably ten years -- we have always paid for it. but this was not going to be paid for 78. so these ideas of spending money and not paying for t be here, but the biggest item of this is clearly going to be this

2:38:34 to 2:38:54( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: health care bill, this health care bill which is a brand-new entitlement representing $1 trillion to $2 trillion in new spending. and w be used for? it's going to be used basically to create a new governme program to compete with the

2:38:55 to 2:39:16( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: private ctor in the area supplying health care. well, that would be okay except for the fact that, as the speaker of the house has said, that government plan is going to be used to save well a government insurance plan can

2:39:17 to 2:39:39( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: save money. it has to underprice the private sector well, how does it do that? it uses the authority of the government to set price controls controls. it uses the authority of the government to control procedures that you're able to it uses the authority of the

2:39:40 to 2:40:00( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: government to limit innovation because innovation is costly. and inevitably becau of that -- price controls, controlling the access to doctors and hospitals and procedures you can get, and controlling innovation -- you inevitably deteriorate the quality of health care generally

2:40:01 to 2:40:21( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: for the public. equally important, of course, under the scheme that's been developed that we've seen so far, although we haven't seen the specifics they're being developed behind closed doors here on the senate side -- now we've seen the house, although we haven't had a chance to read 29,000-page bill -- but the scheme as it came out of the finance committee, equally important, the practical effect

2:40:22 to 2:40:42( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: would have been would have been encouraged to basically drop employees from their private insurance plan and cause those employees to migrate over to the public plan. intentionally, of course, through a whole series of activities which made it much

2:40:43 to 2:41:04( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: more practical for an employer simply to not insure people but to pay a penalty put employees on the public plan. and so there would be a natural contraction i the private insurance community because you would have a price-conolled government plan and a natural movement of people over to the

2:41:05 to 2:41:28( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: government plan because employers -- the penalty for not insuring people was significantly less, at least in the "help" comttee bill, significantly less than the cost of insance and, therefore, an employer looks at it and says well, it's cheemp for notice pay -- cheaper for me to pay the penalty than insure the folks, so i'll just pay the penalty and people can go over and get a public plan. well, so they lose their insurance.

2:41:29 to 2:41:49( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: you know, 180 million, 190 millio country have private insurance, they're fairly happy with their doctor and their heah care. they may not be entirely happy with their insurance company -- most of us aren't -- but they're happy with the health care and the doctor they have. but if they're forced on to a public plan, that's going to put this burea your doctor. it's going to mean, when you've got a government plan, well, you

2:41:50 to 2:42:10( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: may have to call washington to get your appointment, to see a doctor. and it also means, as i said earlier, that in order for the public plan to work and to be cost-effective in the sense of saving money, as the speaker of the house has says that's how she's going to save money, it has to have price control, it has to have control over access, it has to have control over innovation, all of which leads

2:42:11 to 2:42:31( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: to delay and inevitably leads to a lesser quality health care system. and, of course, the goal for in the other side the aisle, we all understand that, because they've been very public about this -- there's no subtlety about it -- is to move to a a single-payer system essentially th?"e is only one

2:42:53 to 2:43:14( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: all we have to do is look at what's happening in the swine flu program to recognize that the government may not necessarily in all instances do such a great job of delivering you health care. for example, today you can't get your swine flu vaccination in most places in this country because it isn't available.

2:43:15 to 2:43:36( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: and yet that's the system which a large percentage of members of the other party steam desire, a single-payer system where government supplies it, much along the lines of what we see in places like canada and england. i don't think it's healthy for you. i don't think it's healthy patients. it's not -- certainly not healthy for our children. because it means they're not

2:43:37 to 2:43:57( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: only going to get a lesser of a health care system. they're going to get this huge bill, this massive bill which is going to come out of this $1 trillion to $2 trillion increase in the cost of government. you know, it's just hard to understand.

2:43:58 to 2:44:19( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: i mean, i'm -- it has to be intuitive to people, and i know it is to most americans, that if you increase the size of government by $1 trillion to $2 trillion, you inevitably end up passing -- the presiding officer: senator, i just want to let you know that you ha mr. gregg: thank you, mr. president. i would ask for an additional one minute. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. gregg: as i said, it has to

2:44:20 to 2:44:40( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: be intuitive, and i know it's intuitive to most americans, that if you increase spending of the government by $1 trillion to $2 trillion -- and our estimates is that this program costs $2.2 trillion, in fact -- and you increase -- and you cut medicare to try to pay for that or you try to raise taxes to pay for that, you're like a dog chasing his tail, it's never going to happen.

2:44:41 to 2:45:04( Edit History Discussion )

Judd Gregg: the two ends don't meet, they just don't meet. anwhat happens to the part that doesn't meet? that's called debt, and it goes to our children. and it's not appropriate to do this after we've already spout much debt on their backs. especially in the last few months. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer:ed sawblgd