Richard Burr

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. If I could add, it also adds some insight into how many people will choose not to have insurance and make themselves susceptible to the fine. The anticipation is the IRS is going to chase a lot of people to recover the fine.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I protect the remainder of the time.

Mr. BURR. As a member of the committee, and I side myself with the chair and the ranking member that I have no personal objection to continuing. There is objection on our side of the aisle. Therefore, I would have to object.

Mr. BURR. I thank the Chair. Then you could be exposed to a fine because a government bureaucrat has determined that the coverage, the health care coverage you bought, that you were given, is not sufficient enough to meet the minimal essential coverage this bill crafted. Well, very simply, there are veterans around the country who know they have been left out--their spouses, their family members, their kids with disease. Tonight we can assure them they are included by, in the health care fix bill, actually fixing that one piece and making sure that we extend the coverage the President promised and that we owe to these veterans and their families. When I introduce that bill, I hope all 100 Senators support it like the House has. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BURR. Because the Senator from New Hampshire remembers this body did pass a bill that partially paid for an extension of this through September of this year. The problem was, when they passed the health care bill, they used the pay-fors out of that extension bill to be included in this health care bill. Now they have gone to a point that they just seek the 30-day renewals and claim it is an emergency. One, I don't think that passes the threshold of emergency. I think it should be paid for. And there is a legitimate way to pay for it and extend it for 3 years, where this Congress can fully understand the implications of the current health care bill as it is implemented and put back the comfort of physicians around this country and their trust back in the system.

Mr. BURR. Let me add, if I may, to my good friend, Senator Gregg, even though some would choose not to have coverage and pay the fine, we have an emergency room system that is obligated to see those individuals when they have traumatic care. For those who claim we have sorted out the system where the high-cost delivery of care does not exist, no, we have again exacerbated the problem. I think Senator Coburn hit on the key. As you try to handle the health care of individuals by limiting the reimbursement, whether that is the way we are limited in the problem you are trying to fix, whether we do it by shoving them into Medicaid, you have now cost shifted more money to the side causing greater inflation for the health care in this country.

Mr. BURR. I have learned throughout this whole process to never try to figure out what promises have been made. But I know the promise we have made to physicians--to reimburse them fairly for the services they provide--and anything less than that jeopardizes the pool of health care professionals we have and eventually will affect the quality of care simply because if the pool is not big enough to handle the patients, the quality will suffer.

Mr. BURR. If I may add to Dr. Coburn's comments and say, when you double the size of the Medicaid population, you are already forcing more doctors to say: I am not going to see Medicaid patients. But you are changing the payer mix. Every provider, every practice, every hospital is going to see more patients whose reimbursement is less. That is automatically going to affect Medicare right there because people are going to have to try to bring in more private pay, private insurance.

Mr. BURR. You are absolutely right, it will be the first order of business when this bill is finished if we miss the opportunity to fix it in this bill and fix it for 3 years and actually fix it in a way that it is paid for.

Mr. BURR. Absolutely.

Mr. BURR. Madam President, how much time remains?

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, my amendment is quite simple. In the rush to finish this bill, there were some errors. One of the errors was clarifying the status of some veterans programs, specifically the TRICARE program, the VA spina bifida program--that is the children of Agent Orange exposure from Vietnam--and the last one is the CHAMPVA program. What this amendment simply does is set the minimum essential coverage as met on these programs, so the veterans' families, the children of veterans, are not at risk of determining that their insurance does not meet the minimum essential coverage, therefore, exposing them to fines. Some might suggest it does not need to be fixed. The House went back very quickly and fixed TRICARE but not CHAMPVA or spina bifida. It is my belief we should act on that on the appropriate mechanism, which is this fix-it bill.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Madam President, at 2 o'clock, I believe we are going to have a series of votes, roughly somewhere around 2 o'clock. One of them is going to be on amendment No. 3389, an amendment that I offered yesterday but chose not to speak on yesterday. I would like to take about 5 minutes just to share with my colleagues what the content of this amendment is. In simple terms, it is a sales tax holiday amendment. I think we all agree, there is no partisan difference, that our economy is shut down; that we are in a period of anemic growth; and that with anemic growth there is no hope of reinflating employment. We are almost at a point where we need a shock and awe in our economy, something that gives confidence back to consumers, and, more importantly, to manufacturers of goods. We have experienced, over the last several months, a replenishment of inventory of purchases that were made in the fourth quarter, predominantly because of the holidays. What we have seen since then is a decline in, or a stagnation of, retail sales. Once we get past this replenishment period, we are going to see manufacturers who look at their workforce, not with the intention of growing it but potentially of possibly shrinking it if things do not grow with the outlook. I think we are at a point that there is not one silver bullet. I think it takes things such as tax credits to employers that help provide an avenue to bring on somebody new, but it requires something to go out the door. So I think we have neglected in many ways two areas: one, the access to credit--and there are some bright minds in a bipartisan way working on that here--but also what do we do to stimulate economic activity. Practically every State in the country, one time a year, at back-to- school time, announces they are going to have a sales tax holiday for the weekend limited to those items that are back-to-school items. Forget the fact that the week before there were probably 50 percent off signs, and nobody went to the store and took advantage of the 50 percent off for backpacks and pencils and paper. All of a sudden, the no sales tax sign goes up for 2 days, and it is a mass consumer frenzy to try to buy those products while there is no sales tax. I cannot explain why. I can tell you it works. In 2001, when we were in an economic downturn, we introduced something similar. So what does my amendment No. 3389 do? It establishes a national tax holiday to provide a needed economic boost for small businesses and for consumers. The legislation would allow States to voluntarily choose to participate and suspend collection of sales taxes for a 10-day period to encourage greater sales. The Federal Government, unlike in 2001, would share with States the economic cost that would be incurred in lost tax revenue during the tax suspension. The Federal share would be 75 percent of the taxes lost at the State and local level. This is cost sharing. We are going to ask the States to share at 25 percent in hopes that the increase in sales will more than make up for the 25-percent cost that States have incurred in the program. This sales tax holiday would run for 10 days beginning the first Friday 30 days past enactment of the legislation. Now, why is that important? It is important because starting on the first Friday we get two weekend cycles in the 10-day sales tax holiday. In my household it does not matter what day of the week it is, we will buy regardless. But there are many Americans who, because of their work schedules, because of their family schedules, the weekend is the only time they have access to do it. This legislation, I believe, would provide increased consumer confidence but, more importantly, stimulate economic activity, stimulate economic activity with tax credits for employers that begin to hire back, and match that with the capital that is needed by small businesses in the way of loans. I think all of a sudden we have a formula that we can turn this economy in the right direction. It may not be a plan to sustain it, but I think what we have to overcome is the lack of confidence of the American consumer right now. The legislation would require the States to notify the Secretary of the Treasury within 30 days of enactment. Let me say for States, no later than 45 days after the end of the holiday, the Secretary of the Treasury would pay the participating States their 75 percent. Actually in the law it would say: You have 45 days to pay back. Hopefully, it would not be another Cash for Clunkers disaster that we had where the dealers were not reimbursed for the money they had out. Again, let me just say, tax holidays have a successful track record at the State level. They have provoked strong retail consumer reaction. While they are still somewhat of a new phenomena, surveys and case studies are showing, and have shown, most shoppers view the sales tax holiday favorably. It is an important motivation to them to shop. What do I have to go on to offer this legislation? I have actually talked to retailers. I have listened to them. I have asked them what would change this overnight. Without exception, they all point to one thing: Do a tax holiday and you will drastically change the number of people coming in our stores. You will drastically change how much they purchase. This is not a tool where I am trying to create grotesque purchasing in this country. But I am trying to say to the American people, if we want to turn the economy around, if we want to start reinflating employment, it all starts with creating retail activity. We have an opportunity through this legislation to begin to create the retail activity that puts on a path to recovery. I hope my colleagues in the next hour or so will consider this piece of legislation. I pay for it with unobligated stimulus money. Therefore, I readily expect a point of order on the Budget Act. So the likelihood is, we will not vote on this amendment, but we will vote on waiving the Budget Act. If we waive the Budget Act, that will tell you that we would then agree to this language, and then it would be up to the House to determine whether we have come up with a successful way to stimulate retail activities. I thank my colleagues for their consideration. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 4(G)(3) of the statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of those acts and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I will be very brief, and we can get on with this. My amendment is very simple. In the spirit of trying to restart this economy, get Americans back to work, what this amendment does is create a 10-day tax holiday. It is voluntary for any State that wants to participate. It would start 30 days after enactment on the first Friday so that we incorporate two weekends of sales. We introduced this in 2001 to handle the economic downturn. States do it every year for back-to-school time. It is proven to generate retail activity. Right now we need a shock and awe to this economy if we want to get Americans back to work. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3390.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I will take my minute to simply say my amendment does exactly what the Sanders amendment does. It provides a $250 stipend to seniors, veterans, the disabled who did not receive a cost-of-living increase because the inflation formula did not provide one this year. The difference between mine and Sanders is novel--I actually pay for the $14 billion we are paying out to seniors, veterans, and the disabled. I am saying to every recipient of a check, we are not going to bill this to your children and grandchildren, we are going to pay for it now with money that is unobligated but already appropriated by the Congress. I think this is a reasonable approach. I think every Member should support it. We should be pleased we are doing a stipend to seniors, but we should sleep well tonight because we paid for it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR. I move to waive the appropriate provisions in the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, there is an amendment pending by Senator Sanders to offer a $250 stipend to seniors, veterans, and those disabled to replace the lack of a cost-of-living increase, a COLA increase. As we are all aware, the formulas that drive the cost-of- living increase are predominantly affected by inflation. With the lack of inflation, seniors, veterans, and the disabled did not receive a cost-of-living increase for this year. Senator Sanders' amendment is very clear. He wants to provide a $250 stipend. That has broad-based support within the Senate body, but I think it is responsible to say that to do this, we should pay for it. To do this, we should not print more money, borrow that money just to provide a $250 check. I think most of our Nation's seniors, veterans, and disabled would agree with that statement. To ignore the fact that we are not paying for it would be to say that we are going to pass this stipend on to our children and our grandchildren; that we are going to take the money we are going to borrow and the debt and the obligation for that debt and we are going to pass it generationally down. As a parent of a 25-year-old and a 24- year-old, I do not think they deserve it. At some point, I hope they are both going to have children, and I do not think their children deserve for me to shove this down. And I think most Members of the Senate probably agree that it is time we start paying for it. How does this get back? Senator Sanders makes this an emergency declaration to spend. We have a lot of priorities, and there is probably not a priority that does not deserve us to pay for it, to find somewhere where we have prioritized and decided, here is how we are going to pay for it, versus to continue to go out and borrow. Let me remind my colleagues, we have the largest debt we have ever had. It continues to climb every day. Of every dollar we spend, we borrow 43 cents. Over the next 10 years, right now our country is obligated at $5 trillion in interest payments. That is trillion with a ``t.'' I am reminded that the most popular bumper sticker in Washington today is ``Don't tell Congress what comes after a trillion.'' I am not sure we know yet. At the rate we are going, we are going to find out. Do you know who is going to be saddled with that debt? It is going to be our children and our grandchildren. Nobody wants to leave our seniors, our veterans, and the disabled without the means they need to live. But I think even the people who are the recipients of these checks would look at us and say: Pay for it; don't put it on my grandchildren or my great grandchildren. My amendment No. 3390 is very simple. It says this: Pay for the $250 stipend and use the unobligated stimulus money, the money we have already appropriated. We cannot borrow it twice; we can only borrow it once. Use the unobligated stimulus money, a little over $14 billion--I think it is about $14.4 billion--to pay for the stipend. Let's do the COLA, but let's, in fact, make sure that COLA is paid for. The amendment is almost identical to Senator Sanders' amendment which provides the emergency benefit; it just pays for it. I don't think there is anything unreasonable on that. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost of the Sanders amendment to be at 12.7 billion. I understand the Sanders amendment was modified, so that might be slightly higher. Millions of seniors and veterans are struggling on fixed incomes in this troubled economy. This amendment also provides them the ability to get through those tough times but it also gives them the comfort of looking at their grandchildren and their great- grandchildren and saying: I am not a burden on you because this was paid for. We accounted for it. Senator Bunning came to the floor yesterday--I think we were talking about $10 billion yesterday--and he said: How can a country this great not find a way to pay for $10 billion? Well, we didn't. And as that makes its way through, we are going to borrow that $10 billion, and that $10 billion is going to equate to $10 billion of interest payments over the next 10 years. Let me say that again. What we did yesterday is going to compute to $10 billion worth of interest payments over the next 10 years. No payment down of principal, just an obligation of interest on the debt. Maybe some are smart enough here to tell me exactly what the interest rates are going to be in the open marketplace as we finance our debt 3 years, 5 years, 10 years down the road. I don't think it is going to be where it is today. There is every indication it is going higher. So when I state the number $5 trillion over the next 10 years, you have to understand that is a static interest rate that we have applied to it. It is 3.45, is the projection of the Congressional Budget Office. And they have said if it averages at this point, then we are going to, as a nation, owe $5 trillion, if we didn't borrow another dime. Well, not only do we continue to borrow money, but the likelihood is, with the economic conditions and with the fragile nature of the international economy, anybody who buys our debt, anybody who loans us their money is probably going to want to require more than 3.45 percent to take the risk. When countries such as Greece are on the precipice of default, it drives the international market up. It drives the cost of risk up. It will drive the cost of our risk up. What is $5 trillion today--we might not borrow another dime--may end up being next week, next month, next year $10 trillion over 5 years, just with the change in interest rate; just with what it costs us to go out and attract somebody to loan us this money. I think I have given us a best-case scenario of saying we owe $5 trillion in the next 10 years. Excuse me, $5 trillion plus 10 more billion that we spent last night. The question is: Today, are we going to add another $14 billion to it? That is the decision in front of the Congress. My amendment, No. 3390, provides a $250 stipend. What it does that the Sanders amendment doesn't do, is it pays for it. It assures every recipient--senior, veteran, disabled person--that they are not putting the obligation of their check on their grandchildren and their great grandchildren; that we are taking the responsibility now to fund that. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside and to call up amendment No. 3389.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.