[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 129 (Thursday, September 26, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6933-S6956]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MAKING CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014--Continued
Mr. REID. Madam President, I am trying to move this along as quickly
as possible. I am going to come here a little later and ask consent
that we move forward very quickly.
Each day that we don't complete the CR is a day closer to the
government shutting down. I want no excuses from anyone about time. I
don't want anyone to say that the majority controls the Senate and that
we are doing anything to slow down this bill. I think we should move as
quickly as we can. It is to everyone's advantage. If the House wants to
take a look at what we have done, let them do that and get back to us
as quickly as possible. We have to avoid this shutdown. The American
people are afraid of what could happen.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I know we have been involved in a very
intense debate, long speeches, time consuming, with an opportunity to
bring up issues that are very important, particularly as we see that
the executive branch of government has made decisions to delay so many
aspects of health care reform. It is very appropriate at this time that
we delve into the shortcomings of that great change in health care that
the health care reform bill exemplifies.
I was here yesterday, hoping to enter into the colloquies that were
going on at that time led by Senator Cruz and time ran out, so I am
here to state some points I wanted to make at that particular time. I
will start by quoting our second President, John Adams:
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes,
our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot
alter the state of facts and evidence.
The rhetoric surrounding this vote and the underlying issue has
become all too hysterical. I would like us all to step back a little
bit from the hysteria and focus on the facts.
We have all taken to calling this legislation ObamaCare. Sometimes
even the President does. For some people, attaching the President's
name to this issue prevents people from paying attention to the facts.
But personalizing this issue should not deter us from looking at those
facts.
I am not going to talk about shutting down the Government. So much
time and effort is being devoted to discussing a government shutdown
that people are not paying attention to the facts that we ought to be
looking at. Instead, I would like to set aside the hyperbolic rhetoric
for a few minutes and focus on those facts. Let's talk about the real-
world effects of this Affordable Care Act.
I will start with a few comments directly from my constituents in
Iowa. My colleagues yesterday referred to constituents in their
respective States. I am only going to refer to three constituent
letters.
The first one:
I just want to share with you another downside caused by
the Affordable Care Act. Besides teaching for my School
District I also work as an adjunct instructor for various
community colleges. Currently I am scheduled to teach four
online classes at a community college in the summer. I just
received notice that because of the Affordable Care Act I am
only allowed to teach two classes because more than that
would put me over the 75 percent load of a full-time
instructor. So because of ObamaCare I will lose $4,200 of
income this summer. It will also affect me at another school
I teach at during the regular school year. I know there is
not much you can do until the Republicans can regain control
of the Senate but I just wanted you to be aware of another
example of our current administration's lack of foresight of
the impact of this law on the average hard-working American.
The second letter:
As superintendent of schools, I would like to express to
you the impact of the Affordable Care Act on our local
schools. The increase in cost, due directly to the Affordable
Care Act will be approximately $180,000 to offer single
health insurance to our non-certified staff. We are a
combined school district of 750 students. The affected staff
members are essentially, part-time, hourly employees who work
6.5 hours each day, 180 days per year. The only other option
is to reduce hours for employees working directly with our
highest need students.
Additionally, we are planning on being required to pay an
additional $17,500 in additional fees and taxes associated
with the Affordable Care Act in the first year.
Schools in Iowa can't pass that increase cost on to
consumers, like private industry. We are budget restricted,
so any increase in employee cost means an equal dollar amount
reduction in staff, classroom materials/supplies, curriculum
materials, field trips, all areas that strike pretty close to
the child.
This cost increase associated with the Affordable Care Act
will most definitely result in reduced educational
opportunities and increased class size.
One final letter:
I am a para-educator. I am writing in regards to President
Obama's healthcare initiative.
I've been told by my employer that next year my hours will
be cut from full time to 29 hours a week because if I work
more than 30 hours a week, they will be required by the new
healthcare plan to provide me with insurance.
This bothers me a great deal for a number of reasons: it
causes stress, instability, and disruption to the special
needs students I work with, I get a smaller paycheck, and
it's very unfair. In addition, I'm bothered by the lack of
foresight that went into making this law. It seems grossly
unfair to me. I do my job well, I'm committed and invested in
it, and I want to work, but am now being told that I can't
work as much because of a law I didn't ask for and that won't
benefit me. I'm sure my employer is not the only one that is
cutting hours because of the insurance requirement. It seems
that the people that this law was intended to help are being
hurt instead.
Please consider any actions you can to stop this law.
My constituents are feeling the impact of this law. This is real. It
is not some made-up political stunt. It is happening all over this
great country of ours.
Let's start with the grocery store chain, Trader Joe's.
After extending health care coverage to many of its part-time
employees for years, Trader Joe's has told workers who log fewer than
30 hours a week that they will need to find insurance on the exchanges
next year.
Then there is Five Guys, the national restaurant chain that started
here in Washington, DC. The prices of burgers and hot dogs are going to
rise to cover
[[Page S6934]]
the President's mandated insurance coverage.
Earlier this year, the medical device manufacturer Smith and Nephew
announced they were laying off 100 employees. They cited a new Medical
Device Tax, a provision of the Affordable Care Act, as the primary
cause.
SeaWorld is reducing hours for thousands of part-time workers, a move
that would allow the theme-park owner to avoid offering those employees
medical insurance under the Federal Government's health-care overhaul.
The company operates 11 theme parks across the United States and has
about 22,000 employees--nearly 18,000 of whom are part-time or seasonal
workers.
It has more than 4,000 part-time and seasonal workers in Central
Florida. Under a new corporate policy, SeaWorld will schedule part-time
workers for no more than 28 hours a week, down from a previous limit of
32 hours a week. The new cap is expected to go into effect by November.
With the reduced hours, those employees would not be classified as
full-time workers under the Affordable Care Act.
Much has been said on the floor by different Members about the
Cleveland Clinic. The Cleveland Clinic said it would cut jobs and slash
five to six percent of its $6 billion annual budget to prepare for
health reform.
The clinic is Cleveland's largest employer and the second largest in
Ohio after Wal-Mart.
It is the largest provider in Ohio of Medicaid health coverage for
the poor, the program that will expand to cover uninsured Americans
under the Affordable Care Act. The cuts are necessitated by the lower
reimbursement they are anticipating.
There is no doubt; the Affordable Care Act is affecting the way
business look at their employees.
As one recent report notes, U.S. businesses are hiring at a robust
rate. The only problem is that three out of four of the nearly 1
million hires this year are part-time and many of the jobs are low-
paid.
Faltering economic growth at home and abroad and concern that the
Affordable Care Act will drive up business costs are behind the
wariness about taking on full-time staff, executives at staffing and
payroll firms say.
Employers say part-timers offer them flexibility. If the economy
picks up, they can quickly offer full-time work. If orders dry up, they
know costs are under control. It also helps them to curb costs they
might face under the Affordable Care Act.
It is not just employers. Let's look at the way major unions view the
Affordable Care Act.
Let me quote from a letter from the heads of the Teamsters, Food and
Commercial Workers, and UNITE-HERE. This letter was addressed to
Representative Pelosi and Senator Reid.
When you and the President sought our support for the
Affordable Care Act (ACA), you pledged that if we liked the
health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that
promise is under threat.
Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an
equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned
health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour
work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.
Like millions of other Americans, our members are front-
line workers in the American economy. We have been strong
supporters of the notion that all Americans should have
access to quality, affordable health care. We have also been
strong supporters of you. That means the President and the
Senator and the Congresswoman. In campaign after campaign we
have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out
the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this
vision.
Now this vision has come back to haunt us.
Time is running out: Congress wrote this law; we voted for
you. We have a problem; you need to fix it. The unintended
consequences of the ACA are severe. Perverse incentives are
already creating nightmare scenarios.
On behalf of the millions of working men and women we
represent and the families they support, we can no longer
stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care
Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our
members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.
We continue to stand behind real health care reform, but
the law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans
including the members of our respective unions. We are
looking to you to make sure that these changes are made.
That letter was sent to Senator Reid and Representative Pelosi to
explain why things very definitely need to be done to this legislation.
Those are not people with known conservative credentials. They are
known for their views of being progressives, liberals, and people
looking out for the middle class. They find much fault with this
Affordable Care Act, and then some wonder why there is so much concern
being expressed by Members of the Senate about why this should be
defunded. All of this adds up to what is being said by the people who
supported the passage of the health care reform act, which is
constituents, employers, and even unions.
Let's take this a step further. Let's look at the economic
researchers. In March the Federal Reserve said the 2010 health care law
is being cited as a reason for layoffs and slowdown in hiring.
Employers in several districts cited unknown effects of the
Affordable Care Act as reasons for planned layoffs and
reluctance to hire more staff.
Here is another one: A recent National Bureau of Economic Research
study examined the Affordable Care Act's taxes and its impact on labor.
Basically, if we want employment to go back to prerecession levels, we
must end the Affordable Care Act. The marginal rate increase due to the
phaseout of premium subsidy and other implicit taxes in the Affordable
Care Act result in a ``massive 17 percent reduction in the reward to
working--akin to erasing a decade of labor productivity growth without
the wealth effect--that would be expected to significantly depress the
amounts of labor and consumer spending in the economy even if the
elasticity of labor supply were small (but not literally zero). The
large tax increases are the primary reason why it is unlikely that the
labor market activity will return even near to its prerecession levels
as long as the ACA's work disincentives remain in place.''
Isn't it something to have an organization as respected as this
organization say that after all the work that went into the Affordable
Care Act, its very existence is a disincentive to productivity and
employment?
With all of these concerns from constituents, employers, unions, and
even the Federal Reserve, we would think that would cause people to
pause. But it is also a legitimate reason for all the discussion we
have had this week on what is wrong with the Affordable Care Act and
the defunding thereof.
On top of that, we keep hearing concerns about the readiness to move
forward with the law at all.
In August the Government Accountability Office noted that testing of
the government's ``data service hub'' to support new health insurance
market places was more than a month behind schedule. The report said:
Several critical tasks remain to be completed in a short
period of time, such as final independent testing of the
Hub's security controls, remediating security vulnerabilities
identified during testing, and obtaining the security
authorization decision for the Hub before opening the
exchanges. CMS's current schedule is to complete all of its
tasks by October 1, 2013, in time for the expected initial
open enrollment period.
It is unclear whether national health insurance plans, which were
supposed to give consumers choice and help drive down costs, will be
available next year.
Under the health care law, the Office of Personnel Management is
supposed to oversee the rates and contracts for at least two national
plans in every State. According to news reports, the White House says
there will be a national health plan in at least 31 States. Now, that
is 31 States, that is not 50 States.
Perhaps the most telling sign that the Affordable Care Act as enacted
isn't working is how much the administration has rewritten the law on
its own--a highly dubious proposition. The Congressional Research
Service recently noted that President Obama has already signed 14 laws
that amend, rescind, or otherwise change parts of his health care. He
has also taken five independent steps to delay, which he has been able
to do on his own. So the Congress has passed or the President has
signed into law 14 changes. I say that again for emphasis. Again, the
CRS report noted that President Obama--totally separate of Congress--
has delayed implementation of parts of the health care law five
separate times.
Congress should be focusing our efforts on creating jobs and
improving
[[Page S6935]]
the economy. Yet the Affordable Care Act is having the opposite effect.
Our economy cannot handle any more job-killing regulations from
Washington. It has been 4 years since the end of the recession. For a
lot of Americans, it is as if the recession never ended.
While the unemployment rate now stands at 7.3 percent, which is bad
enough, that only tells half the story. The fact is that this economy
is so sluggish that only 63.2 percent of working-age Americans remain
in the workforce. The labor force participation rate is at its lowest
in 35 years. The unemployment rate is dropping primarily because people
have simply given up finding work.
What we should be doing is supporting policies that lead to economic
growth and job creation. We should be supporting things like the
Keystone XL Pipeline. The initial permit for this job-creating energy
project was submitted over 5 years ago. Despite overwhelming support in
the Congress for the pipeline, the President has delayed the project
for years to appease the extreme left. We have similar job-killing
regulations coming out of the Environmental Protection Agency. We
should be working to create an efficient progrowth Tax Code, one that
rewards success rather than hinders it. We should be focusing on our
long-term fiscal problems. We all know we are on an unsustainable path.
Yet the longer we delay and kick the can down the road, the harder the
job will become. All of the tax, health care, and fiscal uncertainty is
acting like a headwind against our economy.
So I will support funding our government and avoiding a shutdown. I
will support any effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. I will
support any effort to defund the same act. I will support any effort to
delay implementation of that same act. I will support the Vitter
amendment and any other amendment that puts 8,000 executive branch
employees in the exchange. As I have said again and again, the people
responsible for this law should have the opportunity to experience it
just as the American people will. Perhaps then they, including this
Senator, will then finally pay attention to the facts surrounding the
implementation of the Affordable Care Act. I do so not out of personal
animus for the President. I do so not to tear down the so-called
signature achievement of the administration. I do so because I am
looking at the facts. I do so because I am looking at what is happening
in health care and with our economy.
Let's not stop thinking simply because someone uses the word
``ObamaCare.'' Let's not talk about shutting down the government. Let's
turn down the hysteria and look at what is really happening with the
health care and its impact upon the economy.
Just this week a Member of the Senate described our efforts to stop
ObamaCare as ``insanity.'' I disagree. A vote to barrel ahead as though
everything is just fine strikes me as far closer to the definition of
``insanity.'' A reasonable person can and should conclude that we
should stop moving forward on ObamaCare, and that is how I will be
voting this week.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I see Senator Sessions is on the floor.
It is my understanding Senator Grassley used some Democratic time that
was yielded to him for the beginning of his speech, and I ask that the
Parliamentarian recapture that time for the Democratic side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. If Senator Sessions is prepared to speak now, I will
wait.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank Senator Durbin and appreciate
his leadership and courtesy.
I want to speak for a few moments about the impact of the President's
health care law, the Affordable Care Act. Although the law hasn't been
fully implemented yet, this massive overhaul--Federal takeover,
really--of the health care system is already proving to be anything but
affordable.
My team on the Budget Committee, where I am the ranking member, did
some research on this issue, and we want to know what the real costs
would be and how it will play out in the end. So what I will share with
everyone now are some very important facts that all of us need to know.
The President has repeatedly said we have a health-spending problem,
but what he hasn't said is that this law will make that problem worse.
Last week actuaries from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services--those are our top Federal health care people, CMS--issued a
report, and its findings were unequivocal. This law will lead to higher
health care costs. By 2022 the law is projected to increase cumulative
health spending by $621 billion. That is the report from CMS. They
basically work for the President of the United States.
Next year growth in the private health insurance premiums--the
increases in our own private insurance premiums--is expected to
accelerate to 6 percent from 3.2 percent this year, 2013. So the
increase in premiums, CMS projects, will go up from 3.2 percent to 6
percent.
The Congressional Budget Office, CBO--they work for us here in the
Congress--also released its annual long-term budget outlook last week.
It concluded, 1, that Federal health care spending will ``grow
considerably in 2014 because of changes made by the Affordable Care Act
. . .'' They says the health care law is by far the single biggest
factor driving the growth in Federal health care spending over the next
decade--accounting for 53 percent of projected growth.
So our own government agencies are finding--which most Americans
knew, despite promises to the contrary that were repeatedly made when
it passed on Christmas Eve after it was rammed through this Senate--
that this bill can't be done without increased costs, and government
agencies are making that statement today. It is not my opinion, it is
what our own agencies say.
Democrats have repeatedly complained that the law would bend the cost
curve. The President said it would slow the growth of health care costs
for our families, our businesses, and our government. That is what he
promised. He said it would ``slow the growth of health care costs for
our families, our businesses, and our government.'' Democrats--pushing
the law, against the wishes of the American people, in 2009--claimed
the law would not add to our deficit and would improve our Federal
balance sheet, our budget situation. The President promised he would
not sign a plan that ``adds one dime to our deficits now or any time in
the future.'' That is an unequivocal promise. It sort of reminds me of
the promise ``read my lips, no new taxes.'' Surely a colossal
misrepresentation of the debt impact of a gargantuan government
takeover of health care is a serious matter.
The nonpartisan actuaries at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, CMS, project that this law will increase health care spending
as a share of our total economy. In other words, the law bends the cost
curve in the wrong direction. It bends it alright, but in the wrong
direction.
We need to understand how the Democrats were able to assert that
their plan was financially sound, which they insisted on repeatedly, as
we went through weeks of debate on this matter. This is how. This is
very important, I say to my colleagues. Senators do not understand this
fully and Congressmen do not understand this, and I don't think the
American people fully understand it. The Democrats' claims about the
fiscal impact of the health care law were based on monumental
accounting maneuvers and multiple other gimmicks.
Before the law passed, the Congressional Budget Office warned that
the law would ``maintain and put into effect a number of policies that
might be difficult to sustain over a long period of time.''
That is careful language from our accountants at the Congressional
Budget Office. I am sure they were pressured not to say that. At that
time, both Houses of Congress were controlled by our Democratic
colleagues, with 60 votes in the Senate. They warned us that the law
would ``maintain and put into effect a number of policies that might be
difficult to sustain over a long period of time.'' Isn't that true.
CBO and the CMS Actuary also highlighted that hundreds of billions of
dollars in Medicare savings were double counted.
[[Page S6936]]
We need to understand this. This is a key point we need to
understand. I made an inquiry to them. I made an inquiry to them late
in December 2009. I got the letter from them the night before the
Christmas Eve vote in the Senate to pass ObamaCare--on December 23--and
I wanted and insisted that we get a clear answer on the question
involving approximately $500 billion in Medicare savings, which I
contended was double counted.
They were claiming they were going to use this money to strengthen
Medicare and they were also claiming the money was available to fund
ObamaCare. Can we do both with the same money? If we are confused about
that issue, if we can't understand that issue, now we can begin to
understand why this country is in such disastrous financial shape.
This is what the CBO responded by saying on the night of December 23:
The key point is that savings to the HI trust fund--
that is Medicare--
under PPACA--
that is the Affordable Care Act--
would be received by the government only once, so that they
cannot be set aside for future Medicare spending and, at the
same time, pay for current spending on other parts of the
legislation or on other programs.''
How simple is that?
They go on:
To describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as
both improving the government's ability to pay future
Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of
Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of
those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the
government's fiscal position.
Right before the vote, they said, in effect, you are double-counting
this money and you can't use the money simultaneously to benefit
Medicare, which is where the money is, as well as use the money to fund
ObamaCare, or a new health care plan, or any other policy. This is so
basic.
The next spring, in March of 2010, CBO estimated that without this
double counting, the health care law increases the deficit over the
first 10 years and the subsequent decade. Under the conventions of
accounting, it would appear we could have this health care plan, at
least for 10 years, and it would appear that it reduces the Federal
deficit, but that is because of the conventions of a unified budget
accounting. The money that comes into Medicare--the money that is saved
by cutting Medicare providers--is Medicare money. It is not the
Treasury's money to spend on a new health care program. It is
Medicare's money.
So because it looks as though in the short run we have an advantage,
they were able to count it and say, Well, money coming in is equal to
the money going out, but they forget that all of the people paying into
Medicare off their FICA and off their checks each week are going to
draw that out in the long run from this trust fund. Everybody who is
paying in is going to draw out all of that money, and more, because it
is unsound actuarially.
If my colleagues want to see other gimmicks, look at the CLASS Act
Program which they counted on to produce $70 billion in premium revenue
over its first ten 10 years as enrollees began paying premiums into the
system. The program was so actuarially unsound that the Secretary of
HHS had to notify Congress, as she was required to do, that there was
``no viable path forward'' to implement the CLASS program. With that
decision, and a lot of pressure from some of us in Congress, nearly 60
percent of the Democrats claimed deficit reduction in the first 10
years disappeared. We had to eliminate that. So that amounted to 60
percent of the so-called surplus that would be produced by the
legislation. Those savings from the CLASS program were not real and
should never have been counted in the first place.
The Wall Street Journal called the CLASS Program ``a special act of
fiscal corruption.'' One of our Democratic Members--actually, the
chairman of the Budget Committee at the time, Kent Conrad--said it was
a Ponzi scheme. In the first 10 years, the numbers looked good, but
over a period of time the money drawn out was going to be far greater
than ever was put in. They claimed to produce $70 billion in assets for
America when over the lifetime of the program it was a devastating,
unsound program that if a private insurance company had tried to offer
it and promote it in that fashion, I am sure someone would have gone to
jail. Absolutely unsound financially.
Eventually, Congress had no choice but to repeal the CLASS Act, this
bankrupt entitlement program, as part of the fiscal cliff bill at the
end of last year. But the case of the CLASS program is but a sign of
what is to come under the rest of the health care law.
While the American people always knew this health care bill would
never pay for itself, they did not fully understand how the President
and his supporters could insist otherwise. I wish I had been able to
better explain at the time. I tried, but at the time I was not
successful in penetrating the media and the administration's view that
the bill would create a surplus for America. Maybe we could have
stopped the legislation from being rammed through Congress if we had
been more effective on that point. But the facts are crystal clear now.
A report issued by the Government Accountability Office--that is our
independent GAO--in February of this year, at my request, revealed that
under a realistic set of assumptions, the health care law is projected
to increase the Federal deficit by 0.7 of the entire GDP over the next
75 years, an amount that is equivalent to $6.2 trillion in today's
dollars. So it would add $6.2 trillion in unfunded liabilities to the
United States of America over the lifetime of the program, over the
next 75 years. This estimate excludes debt service or interest on the
debt caused by the shortfall.
This is an enormous sum, $6.2 trillion. Let's put it into context. We
all know Social Security is financially unsound. We are in a desperate
effort now to figure out ways to find the money to make Social Security
sound so retirees can know they are going to get their benefits in the
future. We all know it must be fixed. At the time this health care law
was enacted, the 75-year unfunded liability for Social Security was
$7.7 trillion. In passing this bill, we add almost as much unfunded
liabilities over the next 75 years to the U.S. Government as Social
Security. Instead of putting Social Security on a sound path, this bill
added another $6.2 trillion in unfunded liabilities to our debt that is
almost as large as Social Security's liabilities.
It is a monumental problem we have created for ourselves. We have dug
the hole deeper financially, which is the worst thing we could be
doing. The first thing we should do is stop digging.
This finding seems to strike a nerve with some supporters of the law,
so much so that they tried to attack me and argue with the GAO, but
attacking the messenger doesn't change the facts. The GAO report is
crucial. It clearly answers the question. It sank any validity to the
President's claim that his plan would not ``add one dime to our
deficits now or at any time in the future, period.''
Health care economist Christopher Conover at Duke University
explained that the Government Accountability Office's report did not
``cook the books'' or use ``wacky assumptions.'' According to Professor
Conover, GAO's assumptions in this more plausible scenario are a
``carbon copy of those used by the Congressional Budget Office, the
Medicare trustees, the Treasury Department, and the Medicare Actuary in
their own independently derived long-term budget projections.''
Independently derived long-term budget projections are the techniques
that were used in the GAO report, and they found $6 trillion added to
our debt.
So despite what we were told by the proponents of this law, the truth
is that the President's health care law will further increase the cost
of health care, it will add to our already unsustainable deficits and
debt, and, if fully implemented, would forever alter the relationships
not only between patients and their doctors but between the American
people and their government. Period.
It has been 3\1/2\ years since its passage, and every day we learn
more about how the law is harming Americans. Here are some of the
important facts: Jobs. Part-time is the new normal. Seventy-seven
percent of the jobs that have been created over the last year have been
part-time.
The Investor's Business Daily has kept a running list of employers
who
[[Page S6937]]
are cutting hours and staff levels because of ObamaCare. Currently, the
IBD tally of businesses, including large firms, affected by ObamaCare
is 313. This list includes the University of Alabama, which announced
it was capping the number of hours students could work for the
university because of ObamaCare.
Remember, I just indicated 77 percent of the jobs created this year,
since January--and it hasn't been that large a number--are part-time
jobs, and every economist tells us without any doubt that the
President's health care law is driving those decisions by businesses.
It is unprecedented. We have never seen this kind of trend.
The president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Joseph
Hansen, an original supporter of the law, recently said that ObamaCare
would have a ``tremendous impact as workers have their hours reduced
and their incomes reduced.''
ObamaCare penalizes hard work.
According to a new paper by Casey Mulligan, an economics professor at
the University of Chicago--a premier economics department--the marginal
tax hikes included in ObamaCare add up to a 17-percent reduction in the
reward for working for median income families. This penalty American
workers will take will essentially, he says, erase all gains in labor
productivity made over the last decade.
This health care law has also led to the loss of health insurance
coverage.
On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the largest
security guard provider in the United States--Securitas--will stop
offering health insurance because of ObamaCare.
We hear that over and over again. This report is in addition to other
major companies that employ millions of Americans. These companies
include Darden Restaurants--owner of Olive Garden and Red Lobster--Home
Depot, and Trader Joe's.
Small businesses and their workers will be penalized.
Democratic colleagues have claimed that most firms are not subject to
ObamaCare tax penalties because they have less than 50 workers and are
therefore not subject to the employer mandate penalty. But it is not an
accurate statement. ObamaCare includes a nondeductible fee on insurance
providers that the CBO has warned will get passed back to small
business owners who pay for the health insurance of their employees. It
is another tax on companies that provide health care to their
employees.
I recently received a letter from a small business owner in Wetumpka,
AL, Leesa Williams of Lee's Auto Repair, to let me know she is already
being subjected to this tax even though her business has only 11
employees. She wrote to warn me that if the fee continues, she will be
forced to reevaluate the offer of insurance to the small number of
people at her repair company.
Costs are increasing, premiums are rising, and millions of Americans
will lose the coverage they have today. Workers are having their
hours--and their paychecks--reduced. Its countless regulations are
stifling job creation and adding uncertainty to the already fragile
economy.
The State director of NFIB/Alabama--a small business group in
Alabama--says that Washington is doing a ``lousy job'' of keeping small
businesses informed about the law and it will do real damage to them.
So where will it end? When will we save ordinary Americans and the
American economy from this oncoming train wreck?
The administration has taken five steps already to delay the
implementation of important parts of this law pertaining particularly
to powerful interest groups that are pushing for delays and changes and
relief. Many of them are getting it--but not John Q. Citizen. Big
businesses unilaterally have been given a break from the law for at
least 1 year. The Administration is considering a carve-out for Big
Labor.
We need to be considering the overall impact of the law on our
economy, on jobs, on the length of hours that Americans are working. We
need to consider that.
The President's health care law will worsen, not improve, our fiscal
outlook. That is clear. It is hurting our economy right now. It is
clear. It is harming millions of Americans right now, and it is growing
the size and scope of government in a huge leap forward.
Congress must permanently repeal this unworkable law and start over
with health care reform that will actually reduce costs and not hurt
everyday Americans in a way that is in the classical American tradition
of responsibility and limited government.
I wish through this budget and continuing resolution process we could
have forced a real debate on this health care law. It is absolutely
clear that the leadership in this Senate is stonewalling and refusing
to even acknowledge these problems, will not allow amendments or
legislation to be brought up and voted on that would fix this law and
make it better and help the American economy.
So this has been an effort by Senator Cruz and others, and I think
everybody on our side is committed to engage in this and to force
changes because it will not be, it looks like, accepted voluntarily.
There is no consensus that we should even talk about it. Indeed, it is
the position of the majority that we will not allow a full and open
debate about the way to fix the problems with this law.
So the American people, I hope, will continue to relay their views to
the Members of this body, and as time goes by we are going to confront
this legislation. We are going to be able to force the ability of the
American people to have their voices heard in this body.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, as I have indicated for the entire week,
each day that goes by, each hour that goes by, each minute that goes
by, we are that much closer to a government shutdown. I have been told
that the House needs more time to work on this. They are saying that
maybe what we need is an extension of the CR.
The stock market, the financial community, the Business Roundtable,
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--all of America--80 percent of the
American people, including 75 percent of Republicans, think what is
going on, not taking care of the finances of this country, is
absolutely wrong. There is no reason to stall this.
So I ask unanimous consent that at 6:30 p.m. today there be 1 hour of
debate, with the first 40 minutes equally divided between proponents
and opponents of the motion to invoke cloture and the last 20 minutes
reserved for the two leaders, with my having the final 10 minutes, and
Senator McConnell would speak before me, if he so chooses; that upon
the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on the
motion to invoke cloture on H.J. Res. 59; that if cloture is invoked,
all postcloture time be yielded back; the pending Reid amendment No.
1975 be withdrawn; that no other amendments be in order; that the
majority leader be recognized to make a motion to waive applicable
budget points of order; that if a motion to waive is agreed to, the
Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Reid amendment No. 1974; that
upon disposition of the Reid amendment, the joint resolution be read a
third time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the joint
resolution, as amended, if amended; finally, that all after the first
vote in this sequence of votes be 10-minute votes and there be 2
minutes equally divided between the votes.
I will alert everyone, if we get this agreement, it means we would
have up to four votes starting around 7:30 this evening. The House
would get the bill probably tonight or in the morning, as soon as it
can be processed.
There would be a vote on cloture on H.J. Res. 59, a motion to waive
budget points of order, the Mikulski-Reid amendment No. 1974, and
passage of H.J. Res. 59, as amended, if amended.
That is my request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, if we were
to vote tomorrow, if we were to have these votes tomorrow, that would
represent the product of waiving two separate 30-hour periods--one in
connection with the motion to proceed, the other in connection with the
cloture vote on the bill.
The American people are paying attention to this. The American people
[[Page S6938]]
are watching this. A lot of them have expected this might occur Friday
or Saturday.
So I ask the question, would the majority leader be willing to modify
the request slightly, with the same provisions in place but with the
votes to occur during tomorrow's session of the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the majority leader so modify his
request?
Mr. REID. Madam President, I appreciate my friend's request to modify
my unanimous consent request. But my response to that--reserving the
right to see if I would accept that--is this: Everyone in America--
everyone--knows what the issues are before this body.
The Mikulski-Reid amendment we are going to be required to vote on is
pretty simple. It says there will be nothing dealing with ObamaCare. We
have changed the date to November 15 from December 15, and we have
gotten rid of the ``pay China first.'' That is it. These so-called
anomalies--I have met with the Republican leader. Staffs have gone over
that--no problems with that.
So this is an effort to stall, and I do not know why--an effort to
stall. It is absolutely unfortunate because, I repeat, every minute
that goes by is 1 minute closer to a government shutdown. Because when
we finish this, we then have to have the American people focus on
whether we are going to have a debt ceiling, whether we are going to
again crash the economy, as we did the last time that threat came.
Maybe someone thinks they can come with their great speaking ability
tomorrow and change people's minds. Everybody in this body knows how
the votes are going to go. This is going back to the House of
Representatives. The House of Representatives has said--they have said
publicly and they have said privately--they are going to send something
back to us.
I want to make sure, if they do that, we have time to process it.
Stalling until tomorrow means they are not going to get it until
Sunday. We would try our utmost to get it to them tonight, Friday,
rather than sometime late Saturday or even maybe--well, we could get it
to them sometime Saturday. They need time. Is this some kind of a
subterfuge to close the government, because that is what is going to
happen. We are not the House of Representatives. We have rules here
that take a while for us to get places. I understand my friend from
Utah says that we have two 30 hours and now we are moving this more
quickly than the rules require.
Madam President, what the American people see in the Senate--this new
Senate--is everything is a big stall: Never do your work now. Wait
until tomorrow. Maybe I will give this great speech that will turn the
world around.
This is senseless. How many times do we get the American people--80
percent of them--agreeing on anything? They think what is going on in
this big stall is bad for the country--and it is.
So I do not accept the modification. If there is an objection to
this, if there is an objection to my request, I will work it out with
the Republican leader as to what time we are going to do this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEE. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Madam President, we have been willing to compromise. The
offer that was made by my colleague, the junior Senator from Texas
yesterday, from the floor represented a significant compromise.
Significantly, I believe it was the Senator from Nevada, the majority
leader, who objected to a unanimous consent request made yesterday by
the Senator from Texas to proceed with having these votes tomorrow.
This still represents a significant compromise offer--a compromise
offer that consolidates, collapses two separate 30-hour periods
required by the rules. This is not an unreasonable request. Moreover, I
am not understanding what it is about having a vote tomorrow morning
instead of tonight that would make a difference between being able to
get something to them tomorrow, if we pushed it out, versus Sunday.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I am not going to dwell on this because I
want to yield to the Senator from Tennessee, but I do wish to say this.
It is as obvious to me--and it is as obvious to me as it is to a
kindergarten student--they did not want a vote yesterday. The big
speeches we heard about how if you voted for cloture, you would vote to
extend ObamaCare--they turned around and voted for it.
This is a big charade that is not getting them where they need to go.
They want to stop ObamaCare. They want to do everything again. They did
not even want a vote on cloture yesterday. Of course, they wanted to
skip that and just go a couple days so they could talk longer.
People are tired of talking. They want us to get something done. The
government is near the time that it will close. As I said this morning,
a woman who works for the U.S. Park Service came to an event I had. She
lives in Boulder City, NV. She and everybody who works there are afraid
they are going to lose their jobs. They know what happened last time.
They were laid off for 29 days and did not get paid for it.
So I yield to my friend from Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I wonder if it would be appropriate if I
were to ask the Senator from Utah a question, if he would take a
question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORKER. This has been a rather confusing week, I know. I do not
think ever in the history of the Senate have we had a 21-hour
filibuster and then the persons carrying out the filibuster voted for
the issue that they were filibustering.
I do not think that has happened in the history of our country. I
just want to make sure I understand. I was just over at the House. I
talked to Members of leadership there. They would like to get the piece
of legislation from the Senate over there as quickly as possible so
they could respond.
I think all of us on this side would like to see some changes to the
CR, changes that we believe to be good policy. Over on the House side,
we have a majority of Republicans. I know they would like to send back
to us some changes that I think many of us would support.
In talking earlier with the Senator from Texas, it is my
understanding that the reason he does not want to send the bill over to
the House, which could possibly put in place some very good policies
for us here, is that he wants the American people and the outside
groups that the Senator has been in contact with to be able to watch us
tomorrow.
I am just asking the question: Is it more important to the Senator
from Texas and the Senator from Utah that the people around the country
watch this vote or is it more important to us that we have a good
policy outcome from our standpoint and actually have a body that has a
majority of Republicans to be able to react and send back something of
good policy?
This is confusing to me because I know the leadership there wishes to
be able to respond as quickly as possible. But I am understanding the
reason we are waiting is the Senators have sent out press releases and
e-mails and they want everybody to be able to watch. It does not seem
to me that is in our Nation's interest, nor is it, candidly, in the
interests of those who want to see good policy on the conservative side
come out of the CR. I wondered if the Senator would respond to that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Since the Senator from Tennessee has made reference to me,
I ask unanimous consent that I might engage in a colloquy with the
Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Utah.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. We need a reasonable time. I would be happy to, but this is
not going to be another long performance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. How long do the Senators wish to engage in a
colloquy?
Mr. CRUZ. I cannot imagine it would extend beyond 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator
[[Page S6939]]
from Tennessee supporting the majority leader.
Mr. CORKER. I am supporting the House of Representatives.
Mr. CRUZ. I know the Senator from Tennessee is learned on Senate
procedures. I know he must have made a misstatement when he, moments
ago, suggested that those of us who participated in the filibuster the
other day somehow changed our position in voting for the motion to
proceed.
A reason I know the Senator from Tennessee is mistaken is because
during the course of that filibuster, I explicitly stated I support the
motion to proceed. I stated that 1 week before the filibuster,
repeatedly. I have always stated that the vote on the motion to
proceed, the vote on cloture to the motion to proceed was going to be
unanimous. Indeed, I would note I offered a unanimous consent request
during that filibuster that we vitiate the cloture and all agree to
proceed because everyone in this Chamber--I said I expect the vote to
be unanimous--everyone in this Chamber wants to proceed to this bill.
The Senator from Tennessee being learned in Senate procedure knows
that there is a big difference between that vote on Wednesday, which I
might note, when the vote tally was done there for Republicans, I put
my--not only did I vote yes early, but I put my recommendation for
every Republican to vote yes because, of course, we should get on the
bill.
The vote tomorrow on cloture on the bill is a very different bill. I
know the Senator from Tennessee is quite aware of that. The vote
tomorrow is a vote to cut off debate on the bill. So as I said during
the filibuster 2 days ago, as I have said for weeks, it is the vote
tomorrow, cloture on the bill, that matters because anyone voting
tomorrow in favor of cloture is voting in favor of granting the
majority leader the ability to fund ObamaCare.
I know my friend from Tennessee understands that. So I am sure his
statement suggesting that the vote on the motion to proceed meant
anything other than what it obviously meant, I know that was a
statement in error.
Mr. CORKER. Actually, I appreciate this opportunity. What we have
before us is a bill that defunds ObamaCare. It is the bill the House
has sent over. So the Senator is right. Tomorrow's vote is a vote to
end debate in support of exactly what the House of Representatives has
sent over. That is confusing to a lot of folks, but you are exactly
right. The House has sent over here policy that I actually support;
that is, defunding the health care bill because of the damage it is
creating to our country.
I wish the CR number was a little number. I wish it was at 967
instead of at 988. But that is exactly right. So we are going to be
cutting off debate on a bill that the House Republicans have sent over
to us. So the Senator is exactly right. That is an important vote. That
is a vote in support of the House. Something in addition. Supporting
the House would be getting whatever we are going to do back over to
them so they are not jammed. But it is my understanding again, relative
to this vote tonight happening tomorrow instead, is that my two
colleagues whom I respect have sent out e-mails around the world and
turned this into a show, possibly, and, therefore, they want people
around the world to watch maybe them and others on the Senate floor,
and that is taking priority over getting legislation back to the House
so they can take action before the country's government shuts down and,
by the way, causing them possibly to put in place again some other good
policy.
Mr. CRUZ. I appreciate the comments of my friend from Tennessee. I
would note that he suggested this is confusing. I guess I do not think
it is all that confusing. The Senator from Tennessee says a vote in
favor of cloture is a vote in favor of the House bill and in favor of
defunding ObamaCare. If that is the case, then the question I would
pose to my friend from Tennessee: Why is majority leader Harry Reid
going to vote the same way you are proposing to vote? Why is every
Democrat in this Chamber going to vote the way you are proposing to
vote? If this is a vote in favor of defunding ObamaCare, is it the
suggestion of the Senator from Tennessee that the majority leader and
the Senate Democrats are confused about this vote?
Mr. CORKER. I would respond that after a 21-hour filibuster
yesterday, the Senator voted in favor of the thing he is filibustering
and Senator Harry Reid joined the Senator in that too. So it seems to
me they are very similar.
Mr. CRUZ. Does the Senator from Tennessee dispute that the vote
Wednesday was a vote to take up the bill; whereas, the vote tomorrow
will be a vote that will do two things--if there are 60 votes. If
enough Republicans cross the aisle and join majority leader Harry Reid
and the Democrats, it will, No. 1, cut off all debate, and it will--No.
2, what makes the vote tomorrow so significant is the majority leader
has already filed an amendment.
That amendment guts the House continuing resolution and funds
ObamaCare in its entirety. Given that that amendment is pending, and if
cloture is invoked that amendment can be passed with 51 votes. Does the
Senator from Tennessee disagree that once cloture is invoked, Harry
Reid, the majority leader, will be able to fund ObamaCare with 51
votes?
Mr. CORKER. I agree the Senate rule that is in place allows
postcloture votes. That 51-vote majority has been there for decades and
generations. It is the same rule we have operated under for decades.
Let me just ask this question: We have a bill before us that I
support, I think the Senator from Texas supports, the Senator from Utah
supports, I think. So my question is: We have a bill that we support.
The rules of the Senate have been here for decades, for generations,
and for centuries, in many cases. Is the Senator thinking the House of
Representatives would like for us to vote against cloture on their
bill?
If you think that is what they wish for us to do, why is it that they
are already developing language and legislation to send back over? It
seems to me they have already indicated they view this strategy as a
box canyon because they understand the Senate rules. It looks to me as
if they are already developing language to send something back over
because even though we are in the Senate--I know all three of us are
relatively new--somehow or another they knew the Senate rules before
they sent it over.
So I am a little confused. Tell me what happens if the Senate were
not to invoke cloture on a bill that we support? What then happens? I
would like to understand.
Mr. CRUZ. I appreciate that question from my friend from Tennessee.
There are several pieces of it. One, he asked: Would the House
Republicans like for us not to invoke cloture? I can tell the Senator
this morning I spoke to over a dozen House Members who explicitly said:
It would be fantastic if Senate Republicans could show the same unity
we did and vote against cloture because Majority Leader Reid has filed
an amendment to gut our language.
I would also note the Senator from Tennessee keeps expressing
confusion. I have to admit, I do not think the American people are
confused. I would ask the Senator from Tennessee, you agreed a moment
ago, if I understood you correctly, that if 60 Senators vote in favor
of cloture, majority leader Harry Reid will be able to fund ObamaCare
in its entirety.
Let me ask the counterpart. If 41 Republicans stood together and
voted against cloture, because we said we do not support the amendment
that Majority Leader Reid has filed to fund ObamaCare--when we told our
constituents we opposed ObamaCare we meant it. So we are not going to
be complicit in giving Harry Reid the ability to fund ObamaCare.
Would majority leader Harry Reid be able to proceed and fund
ObamaCare if 41 Republicans stood together against cloture?
Mr. CORKER. The thing is, I think the Senator from Texas may be
confused. We are not going to be voting on the amendment. We have the
chance to vote on the amendment after the vote on cloture. The vote on
cloture tomorrow is a vote on ending debate on a bill we support. The
amendment that the Senator is talking about----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for the colloquy has expired.
Is there objection to the unanimous consent offered by the majority
leader?
Mr. LEE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I requested
to
[[Page S6940]]
modify the request made by the majority leader and he turned that down.
In light of the fact that he turned it down, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The assistant majority leader.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, what we just witnessed was an effort by
Senator Harry Reid to move the votes--the critical votes--on keeping
the government open to this evening. What we have just heard from the
Republican side of the aisle is they want to stall and delay this even
more.
It is not just a matter of losing a legislative day in the Senate----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is still under the control of the
Republicans.
Mr. DURBIN. How much time--I know there was time yielded by Senator
Reid to the Republican side for Senator Grassley. How much time is
remaining at this point on the Republican side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The alternating time occurs at 4:30 p.m.
Mr. DURBIN. At 4:30, then the Democrats are recognized?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. DURBIN. What time is it now? Would the Chair take notice?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is 4:29. Senators are reminded to address
each other in the third person, not by their first and last names.
The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Madam President, if I could, I would just like to say in
response to my good friend from Illinois, it is not the Republican side
asking to stall. We only have two Republican Senators who are wanting
to push this off.
So I do not want that to be mischaracterized. If I could, I wish to
say it is my understanding that the reason we are putting this off is
because they would like for people around the country whom they have
notified to be able to watch. So it is that process of making sure
everyone watches that I think is slowing this down. It is not the
entire Republican side. I think most Republicans--I know all
Republicans other than two would actually like to give the House the
opportunity to respond in an appropriate way.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next hour is controlled by the majority.
The assistant majority leader.
Mr. DURBIN. Let me start by acknowledging what the Senator from
Tennessee just said.
I have worked with Senator Corker on so many issues, bipartisan
issues, and I salute him for his efforts to try to find bipartisan
solutions. What he said is indicative of the problem we face now.
Two Senators--and it is their right under the Senate rules--the
Senator from Utah and the junior Senator from Texas, have decided that
they wish to delay this another day. They want to stall this another
day. It isn't only losing a legislative day; it is more.
Look how long it took us to bring up the House continuing resolution.
If I am not mistaken, they voted on it last Friday. We are thinking
about voting on it tomorrow, 7 days later.
It tells you that the Senate rules, even at their best, with one
Member objecting, can mean that measures take a long time. Ordinarily,
it means we waste time, but this time it is critically more important
because the government will not be funded.
Tuesday morning, all across America we will not fund the government
because of the actions just taken on the floor of the Senate by Senator
Cruz of Texas and Senator Lee of Utah. They are trying to slow this
down and create a political crisis.
They are playing high stakes poker with other people's money. The
victims of this political crisis will not be the Senators and House
Members. It will be a lot of innocent people, a lot of workers across
America, who only want to get up and do their work for the government
to make this the greatest nation on Earth.
Some of them are risking their lives in uniform. They will be paid,
but their paychecks will be delayed. What it means is they have to
contact their wives and spouses back home Tuesday--if this delay by
Senator Cruz and Senator Lee continues--they will have to contact them
and say: Honey, it may be a little difficult this pay period. It
doesn't look like we are going to get a paycheck because Congress has
shut down the government.
There are others too, all across America, thousands of them, doing
their work for this government at the FBI and at intelligence agencies
that will go dark. Why have we reached this point? Why do these two
Senators--two Senators--think this is in the best interests of the
United States of America?
We have heard reports from economists, this cannot help our Nation,
shutting down the government and failing to extend the debt ceiling. We
are going to find ourselves in a position where this economy is going
to start to stall.
People will start searching their savings accounts and notice their
investments are going down in value. Why? Because two Republican
Senators insisted that we couldn't speed up this vote and move this
process forward to solve this problem.
The best explanation they can give us is they have notified their
friends in the media and those on the e-mail to stay tuned for Friday.
Friday is going to be the big day, their big day in the Sun. So they
are delaying our actions here for a full day so that they can get
adequate publicity for what they are about to do.
This is not in the best interests of the Senate and it is surely not
in the best interests of the United States of America.
I listened to Senator Reid. He made an effort to come forward and
expedite this process. There are people outside this door who warned us
not to do that. They said: If you send this back to the House, it gives
them time to do something.
Senator Reid has said from the start: We will not be party to
delaying this critically important decision. There is too much at
stake. We are going to move this through as quickly as we can, and we
have.
At this point now, it is on the shoulders of those two Senators,
those two tea party Republican Senators, who have decided that they
want to close down the government or at least come closer to running
the risk of closing down this government.
That isn't in the best interests of dealing with the issues that face
America.
My job on the Senate Appropriations Committee is to be the chair of
one of the most important subcommittees, the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee. I never dreamed I would have this responsibility. But
with the passing of a genuine American hero, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii,
this mantel fell on my shoulders. Almost 60 percent of all domestic
discretionary funds spent by the Federal Government go through this one
subcommittee.
There is a lot of hard work involved in putting the appropriation
together. But when you consider the responsibility we have, it is even
more substantial. This appropriation supports our men and women in
uniform and the Nation's intelligence agencies that keep our country
safe.
I wish to state what a government shutdown is going to mean to them.
A government shutdown is going to mean a lot of hardship. I mentioned
earlier uniformed troops calling their spouses to say: We are not going
to get our paychecks on time this month. Try to make do if you need it.
This is something totally necessary and something brought on by an
action on the floor of the Senate just minutes ago by Republican
Senators.
There are more than 700,000 civilian employees in the Department of
Defense, and half of them will be sent home immediately Tuesday
morning--sent home.
Men and women who work at military installations and in the Pentagon
will be sent home from work. Over 80 percent of Department of Defense
civilians work outside of the Pentagon, including 12,000 of them who
work in my State. They will be given notice on Tuesday morning: You
have to go home. Why? Because there was a promise made for some
publicity on Friday by a couple of Senators.
That is unacceptable.
A substantial number of these hard-working men and women are going to
be furloughed. They already face furlough because of a sequester. If we
allow this government to shut down, once again, they will have to
figure out
[[Page S6941]]
how to make ends meet. Men and women who were trying to keep us safe in
this country, many of them risking their lives, are now going to be
pawns in this political game. It is an unconscionable breach of faith.
The risk to national security imposed by a shutdown is not confined
to the military. It will cripple our intelligence community. These men
and women serve as our country's first line of defense. We rely on
these agencies to warn us of threats, to prevent terrorist attacks, and
inform leaders making critical, national security decisions.
The intelligence community workforce, overwhelmingly made up of
civilians, the greatest portion of them will be furloughed because of a
government shutdown, a government shutdown that is totally unnecessary
brought on by the House Republicans and two Senate Republicans. This
shutdown will be quick, and the principal agencies will largely go dark
within 4 to 8 hours of a shutdown order.
In America, these intelligence agencies that keep us safe are going
to go dark because of this political strategy. If the government shuts
down, all DOD work will stop on weapons and equipment maintenance not
directly related to war. Bases will not be maintained, but you will see
a degradation of facilities. We will see massive disruptions all across
the country.
The Rock Island Arsenal in my State is a critical arsenal that
supports more than 54,000 Active, Reserve, and retired military. The
arsenal is the largest employer in the Illinois-Iowa region with more
than 7,500 employees and more than 70 Federal and commercial tenants.
The facility adds $1 billion to the local economy, supporting 14,000
jobs in the region.
A government shutdown will throw production schedules at Rock Island
into chaos as orders get cut back and civilians sit at home under
furlough. I cannot imagine going to these men and women and saying: The
reason you have had this furlough and can't come to work is because two
Senators decided they needed some publicity on Friday. Putting the
arsenal's capabilities at risk degrades the defense industrial base. It
jeopardizes our national and local economy.
The same thing is true at Scott Air Force Base. In a shutdown, its
5,000 civilian employees would experience the same loss of pay as
everybody else. Scott's 5,500 active duty military personnel and their
families would have to get by on savings and reserves while they wait
for reimbursement with later paychecks.
When we go through these lists--and the lists are long--one thinks
how totally unnecessary it is. Senator Reid has come to the floor
repeatedly to tell you what the American people think. Eighty percent
of the American people think this is foolish and wasteful. Seventy-five
percent of Republicans have given up on this strategy.
Yet a handful of willful Members of the House and Senate decided they
are going to keep going down this road. I hope they will have some
revelations in the next few minutes or hours, maybe overnight. I hope
they will reconsider what they have done, the risk they are putting
this country in.
It is not appropriate, it is not fair. I have listened to them try to
explain how they can have a filibuster for 21 hours and then turn
around and unanimously vote for the next item up on business. It may be
an argument that the Senator from Texas thinks he understands clearly.
Most Americans don't understand what he was saying for 21 hours and
then turning around and voting overwhelmingly to move forward on the
bill.
I wish to make one thing clear before we go any further. ObamaCare as
we know it is already funded. Senator Harry Reid is not going to be
funding ObamaCare; it is already funded, and it will be. It will be
under appropriations bills that we pass in CRs. This notion that he is
going to somehow do something sinister--let me remind critics that we
brought this to a vote in the Senate, one of the most historic votes,
painful votes.
Senator Reid may remember when our colleague Senator Ted Kennedy was
brought here on the floor of the Senate to vote for the Affordable Care
Act. The man was literally dying of cancer, but this meant so much to
him that he came down here for the vote at great personal risk and
sacrifice. It was great to see his smiling face come through that door
again, but we knew we would never see him again and we didn't.
That is the kind of sacrifice that was made. The votes were taken.
Then in the next presidential election there was a referendum for
ObamaCare. The American people were clear. They reelected President
Obama. They rejected Governor Romney's promise to repeal ObamaCare.
These Members, at least two of them, can't accept the verdict of
history. They continue to want to fight this battle. As I have said,
they are fighting it at the expense of a lot of innocent people across
America, at the expense of some of the best workers in the world. Those
in military uniform and those in the civilian capacity do a great job
for us every single day.
Picking on them, deciding to make them the object of this political
exercise, is beneath us as a great institution.
Let me close by saying this. I will give credit to Senator Cruz when
he was doing his 21 hours. I asked him point blank: So you want to
eliminate the protection in ObamaCare that says that health insurance
companies can't discriminate against children and families that have
preexisting conditions?
He said: Yes, I do. I want to eliminate all of them.
I said: You want to eliminate the provision that says you can't limit
the coverage in health insurance policies so people will have enough
money for serious illness, cancer therapy and surgery?
I want to eliminate it all, he said.
You want to eliminate that protection for families to keep their kids
on their own health insurance policies up to age 26--young people
looking for jobs who may not have health insurance--you want to
eliminate that too?
I want to eliminate every bit of it.
He was consistent--consistently wrong--because he fails to understand
what working families across America face every single day, what 50
million uninsured Americans face with no protection, no peace of mind.
God forbid he ever spends a moment as the parent of a sick child
without health insurance. I have been there. You never want that
experience in your life for yourself or anybody else.
I asked Senator Cruz to tell us about his own personal health
insurance since he decided he is going to be the arbiter on health
insurance for the rest of America and for Congress. He won't give me a
straight answer on how he has his own health insurance for his family.
I think he owes that to us. He has told us a lot about his great
family--and there are some wonderful stories--but when it comes to this
issue, he ought to tell us.
Where does he get his health insurance? Who pays for it? What is the
employer's contribution? What is the tax deduction taken by your
employer, if any, for your health insurance? These are legitimate
questions.
He has raised these questions about millions of families across
America. He said: They are just fine. We can do without ObamaCare.
Let us hear his explanation of how he protects his family when it
comes to health insurance. I don't think that is an unreasonable
question. After all, he is the one who raised the issue.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. COONS. I wish to speak for a moment about manufacturing. As you
know, I am passionate about manufacturing, about the good-quality jobs
manufacturing brings to our communities.
What I am also passionate about is that this body needs to stop
manufacturing crisis.
What we just heard in the last few minutes was an exchange between my
friend, the Senator from Tennessee, and two of his colleagues, the
Senators from Texas and Utah, that summarized that what has happened in
this Chamber today is the extension of a manufactured crisis, a purely
artificial extension that is continuing, as the Senator from Illinois
said in great detail and with great insight, to put at risk our
recovering economy, our men- and women-at-arms, and our Nation's
standing in the world. This is a wholly manufactured crisis without
purpose.
It seems to me in the 3 years I have been here in the Senate--it
feels an awful lot like Groundhog Day. I was
[[Page S6942]]
sitting in that very chair presiding over this body as we were closing
in on a government shutdown when I had only been here for a few months.
I have never forgotten getting a message from a constituent at home.
Her husband was at that very moment serving our Nation flying Medevac
missions in Afghanistan. I got a simple note:
Is it possible that because you all can't do your jobs that
my husband and I won't be getting a paycheck next week while
he does his job for our Nation overseas?
We have, in the 3 years I have been here, seen needless fights, a
near default on our Nation's debt, a near defunding of our Federal
Government's operation. Today we see not a difference of meaning but a
difference purely of substance and style--purely of superficial style.
As the Senator from Tennessee pointed out, the objection to the
majority leader's request that we proceed now to a vote was purely for
the convenience of two Senators who have sent out a lot of press
releases and who want more attention. We can't continue to play chicken
with the American people, the American economy, and continuing the
services of the Federal Government.
I know my colleague, the Senator from Louisiana, who is one of the
leaders from the Appropriations Committee, is here to offer some
insight and comments about the value of appropriations, about the great
work our chair Senator Mikulski has led us in this year.
There are so many other ways that this manufactured crisis is just
the latest in a series of disappointing failures to lead by a few of
our colleagues. The chair has allowed us to go through subcommittee
markups and full committee markups on 11 appropriations subcommittee
bills. If those bills could be taken up and passed on this floor, we
could fix a lot of the things that challenge our Nation.
I yield the floor to the Senator from Louisiana so she might inform
this body about some of the important work that she, in her
subcommittee on the Appropriations Committee, on which I am honored to
serve, has been able to do this year.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator for yielding for a question. I
appreciate his leadership as an appropriator.
Senator Mikulski was on the floor earlier today, the leader of our
committee and the debate about how much to spend and what we should
spend our money on. Does the Senator understand that that could be done
and it is done in the appropriations process? And if we could just get
past this manufactured crisis we could actually accomplish what many
Senators want to do, which is to discuss the level of spending? We
can't even get there because we are stuck in a manufactured crisis by
the Senator from Texas.
Is that the sense of my colleague as to where we are?
Mr. COONS. That is absolutely my understanding. My friend the Senator
from Louisiana knows better than anyone that the role of the
Appropriations Committee and its subcommittees is to perform oversight,
to weed through programs in the Federal Government, and to strengthen
and support those that are effective and making a difference, but to
narrow or shut down or trim those that aren't. If we continue to lurch
from crisis to crisis, from short-term continuing resolution to
continuing resolution, we will never get that good work done.
Madam President, I welcome any further comments my colleague would
like to make about what the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the
Appropriations Committee has made possible, and why that matters, what
difference that makes to the people of Louisiana and of our country.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator, and let me, if I could, Madam
President, say a few words about the bill I have the privilege and the
responsibility of chairing--the Homeland Security bill. This is a $42
billion appropriations bill. I am very proud to say I have worked with
my Republican colleague, the Senator from Indiana Dan Coats over the
last 6 months to draft and fashion a bill.
In many public meetings, in public forums at the appropriations
subcommittee level and at the appropriations full committee level, our
bill was negotiated in good faith--Republicans and Democrats
compromising over important issues such as: How many border agents
should we have, how many security agents should we have on our border,
how many detention beds can taxpayers afford, how many do the
Republicans want, how many do the Democrats want, what are some of the
important aspects of immigration reform and how do we build a
technologically superior border that allows trade and commerce but
keeps out terrorists and people who are undocumented and who do not
have the proper certification to come into the country.
That is what we, who ran for public office, wanted to get here to
work on, not to sit in an empty Chamber with people who, because they
can't get their way 100 percent of the time, all the time, want to shut
down the process.
So as chair of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, I most
certainly can add my voice to the appropriators and to Members who say:
It is time to move on. So let us do so.
But before I get into the specifics, I wanted to say a word about an
issue that is critical to Louisiana and to States such as Texas--
Senator Cruz's home State. You would never know this, because I don't
think he said a word about this issue in the 22 hours he was on the
floor, but I know a little something about Texas, my neighboring State.
I know a lot about Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, from the gulf
coast. I have represented my State for now almost 18 years in the
Senate and grew up along the gulf coast.
I want to make sure everybody understands that in 14 days there are
going to be over 1 million people in the United States--many in Texas,
many in Louisiana, many in Florida, some in Massachusetts, et cetera,
et cetera, et cetera--who are going to basically see the value of their
home, the equity in their home, go poof--poof. Whether their equity
might have been $200,000 this week or $400,000 or $600,000 or $2
million, this is an equal opportunity destroyer.
This is because last year Congress passed the Biggert-Waters bill,
which was supposed to fix the National Flood Insurance Program. It was
supposed to fix it--make it sustainable, make it go from the red to the
black, make the deficit go away, help the program to be more
sustainable. I understand that. The problem is the way the bill was
passed it is going to, in a few days, literally go poof for people who
thought they had equity in their home because of a provision in the
Biggert-Waters flood insurance bill.
That provision basically says this: When you put your home up for
sale--when you sell your home--the grandfathered rate that was attached
to your home for flood insurance is immediately dispensed with. So
anyone selling their home who happens to have a subsidized flood
insurance rate, which is lower than the private market, for good
reason--which I will explain in a minute--their house becomes
valueless.
Let me repeat this. This is not about flood insurance going up, this
is not about losing your job, it is not about not being able to show up
for work because the government shuts down, which is a big problem. But
this is a real big problem for 1 million families because the house
they have paid for, that they have lived in and thought they had some
equity in so they could retire on that equity or send their kids to
college is, poof, gone.
I would like to focus on fixing that problem. I know there are many
people in Texas who would like it fixed as well, because when I go over
there, I hear from them. When I go to Louisiana, and Mississippi, and
Florida, I hear from people. But we can't even get to a flood insurance
bill because we are on the floor talking about an issue that is
completely manufactured.
This is not manufactured, ladies and gentlemen. The flood insurance
issue is real. The flood insurance bill is a bill that actually passed
and we have only 14 days to fix a part of it.
At 5 o'clock, in 5 minutes, I am going to a meeting in Senator
Merkley's office, who is chair of a subcommittee, and we are going to
try and work on this. But to do this we need cooperation. We need
cooperation from all of our Members to say: Well, that might not be a
problem in my State, but I can understand what Senator Landrieu is
[[Page S6943]]
saying and I can understand what some of the Republicans are saying.
Let's see what we can do to fix this so people's equity does not vanish
into thin air and cause lots of pain and suffering.
But as I say, we can't even talk about real issues because we have to
talk about a manufactured crisis.
I see some of my colleagues on the floor, and I know they understand
the chairman asked us to come and talk for a few minutes about our
appropriations bills, so I will try to do this in 4 minutes, because
when Senator Mikulski asks you to do something, you need to go ahead
and do it. So I need to put this in the Record for my Homeland Security
bill.
As I understand it, this government shutdown could happen because, as
has been explained, we have two or three or four or five--not many--
Senators who have decided to manufacture a crisis about the continuing
resolution and paying our bills, which we owe.
Every responsible, nondeadbeat person in the world pays their bills,
and I don't know why we can't. But anyway, because of that, the
Homeland Security bill we have worked on, which has been negotiated,
may I say, without disagreement--I mean, this is kind of unheard of.
Let me say, we had disagreements, but we worked them out. There were
different views but we worked them out. We had big things to work out,
such as this big new project being built in Kansas. I was not very
supportive of it, but I had to listen a lot, I had to think, I had to
negotiate, and I ended up putting a big project in this bill that I
didn't 100 percent go along with, but I was convinced by colleagues for
different reasons--and the White House weighed in, and others--to
compromise.
The bottom line is I have a $42 billion bill that supports our
borders, that keeps commerce going, and that keeps FEMA going. We have
a terrible flood to deal with in Colorado, and I see the Senator from
Colorado and the Senator from Minnesota are both here, and they
absolutely know what floods are all about. FEMA is trying to operate
there. What do we tell people there on Monday? Sorry, we can't come
help you get back into your home, get your children in school, get this
hospital built again?
We have phones to answer, we have people to serve, we have borders to
secure, we have trade to move next week, and shutting down the
government is simply not what we should be doing. We should be fixing
it, making it more efficient, saving money where we can, and serving
the 350 million people in this country and around the world who depend
on the American government to function.
In conclusion, let me say this. I had Marriott Corporation tell me
today--Marriott, an excellent company, but conservative leaning from
their top--Senator, would you please say, when you can, that the
government is our biggest customer? When people think of government,
they think only of government jobs. The Federal Government is the
largest customer of Marriott Corporation, one of the largest
corporations in the country. We buy a lot of goods and services from
them. When we shut down, when we hesitate, when we don't operate with
confidence, it affects every business in the world. If Marriott is
going to take a big hit, imagine the hit smaller companies take, that
can't take that hit or that break?
So on behalf of Marriott and on behalf of other companies that are
going to get hit, please realize the government has a lot of impact on
the private sector, and it is not fair to hurt our economy or any
business--large, small, conservative, liberal, or moderate.
Last week, Mark Zandi of Moody's testified that a 3-4 week shutdown
would reduce real GDP by 1.4 percent. This would be a devastating step
backwards. In the second quarter of 2013, our GDP grew by 2.5 percent,
more than doubling the 1.1 percent growth in GDP in the first quarter
of 2013. And numerous studies have reported that, based on past
experience, ``turning out the Federal government's lights'' would cost
us $100 million each day. The hostage-taking approach of the House
majority threatens such a shutdown and puts our economic viability at
risk. We must do better.
A government shutdown would have devastating consequences on hundreds
of thousands of people in Louisiana. Of the 31,000 Federal employees in
my State, 18,000 would be temporarily furloughed by a shutdown. That is
58% of the Federal employees in my State that would be out of the job.
More than 24,000 active Louisiana military and civilian personnel and
320,000 Louisiana veterans could see much needed paychecks and benefits
delayed.
Social Security services would also be significantly disrupted, which
would have major implications for the 860,000 social security
beneficiaries in Louisiana. New claims wouldn't be processed and the
social security help line, which many of our seniors rely on, would not
be able to take calls.
In just 4 days during the 1995 shutdown, 112,000 claims for Social
Security retirement and disability benefits were not taken and 800,000
callers were denied service on the Social Security Administration's 800
number. Constituents of mine, like Susan Crandall, rely heavily on the
Social Security Offices in Louisiana. Ms. Crandall uses the Social
Security Office in Alexandria as a lifeline. A government shutdown
would force her to search for help elsewhere. For her and others living
in my State, this just isn't feasible.
A shutdown would also harm Louisiana students. More than 7,800
Louisiana students rely on work-study programs and 4,600 receive
Federal loans to help pay for school. If there is a government
shutdown, colleges and universities across Louisiana would not be able
to disburse these funds to students.
The Small Business Administration would stop processing new loans,
preventing nearly 420,000 small businesses in Louisiana from getting
the credit they need.
The Federal Housing Administration has helped almost 10,000 mortgage
holders in Louisiana thus far this year. If we allow a shutdown to
happen, the FHA would not be able to process new loans, leaving
aspiring homeowners out in the cold. Many potential homeowners in
Louisiana are already hesitant to purchase because of the fear of flood
insurance going up, and this will only add to their stress.
One of the core missions of the Appropriations Committee--and of
Congress at large--is to make sure our Federal government continues to
operate soundly. By adopting the continuing resolution that the House
passed last week, with its poison pills that defund the Affordable Care
Act and play favorites with which bills we pay, we would be failing the
American people. We need to do our work to make sure the Federal
government remains open and continue to fund implementation of the
Affordable Care Act. It is the law of the land. Anything less is ill
conceived.
And let me just say this. Operating the government on continuing
resolutions is a failure in itself. I am disappointed, as I know
Senator Mikulski is too, that we find ourselves in this position. When
we pass CRs, we put the Nation on autopilot and fly blindly. Instead of
passing the 12 appropriation bills that set priorities and invest in
America's future, we fund yesterday's priorities instead.
As the chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee,
I hear every day * * * firsthand how important it is to keep our
country safe and secure are at stake. Within the past year, our Nation
has experienced a substantial rise in diverse attacks. If DHS continues
to be funded at the 2013 post sequester level, we would not be able to
adequately address or respond to these events. For example:
While we were all horrified by how simple, homemade explosives could
wreak such havoc at the Boston marathon this year, we saw how critical
it was that law enforcement and first responders have the proper
training and equipment to respond to these incidents.
Years of robust grant funding for our first responders paid off in
this instance. However, under sequester, grant funding would be at the
lowest level since DHS was formed 10 years ago. If a government
shutdown were to occur, all activity intended to help build State and
local resiliency would cease.
Our cyber networks are under constant attack. There are 6 million
probes or attacks on U.S. government networks each day, and among the
attackers are 140 foreign spy organizations. Let me share some recent
examples. Earlier this month the Syrian
[[Page S6944]]
Electronic Army defaced the Marine Corps website and hacked into
numerous print media websites. We also heard news reports of large-
scale espionage acts perpetrated by a group of highly sophisticated
hackers for hire operating in China. Cyber attacks breach our
government, military, and private networks to steal information,
including valuable corporate secrets. All of our combined Federal
resources are needed to strengthen safeguards on our data and detect
these malicious efforts before they can disrupt critical government and
financial networks. Without the $108 million increase requested in
fiscal year 2014 for cybersecurity, DHS would defer implementation of
the intrusion detection system for civilian Federal programs, known as
Einstein, by 1 year; and delay expansion of cyber-attack information-
sharing with States, leaving 19 without access to timely data. A
shutdown or continued sequester will threaten progress in this area.
In the wake of serious chemical plant incidents in West, TX and in
Ascension Parish, LA, this summer, we are reminded that chemical safety
and security is imperative, for citizens and first responders. In the
hands of terrorists, chemical attacks could cause widespread
devastation and loss of life. The DHS inspection program to prevent
wrongdoers from gaining access to harmful chemicals has reduced risk by
40 percent. But there are still 4,300 facilities for which DHS has the
responsibility to ensure a security program is completed and
maintained. We cannot afford to delay this important work by
underinvesting in it, but that is exactly what would happen under a
sequester level.
The existence of thousands of poorly secured commercial radioactive
sources globally poses an ongoing challenge to our national security.
We continue to face the threat of a weapon of mass destruction or dirty
bomb being detonated in one of our cities or ports. A radiological
attack would incite mass panic, shut down our major transportation
systems, and cause severe economic damage. We cannot afford to stand
meekly by. The Department of Homeland Security program called Securing
the Cities, which is a partnership with State and local governments, is
designed to detect and prevent a nuclear attack in our highest risk
cities. New York has been the test bed for this program over the past
few years; but it is now expanding to other major cities--Los Angeles
being the next location. We need to ensure that this expansion is
funded, not suspended.
For 4 years in a row, the Department of Homeland Security has had to
tighten its belt and operate with reduced funding. The impacts
of sequestration have made it worse. Let me highlight just a few
examples of why sequestration has been harmful and why it will be
particularly damaging to DHS under a long-term continuing resolution:
The Coast Guard has operated its surface and air assets 25 percent
below planned levels under sequestration. This has resulted in 35
percent reduction in drug seizures and a 22 percent reduction in
interdiction of undocumented migrants.
Customs and Border Protection would not be able to hire any of the
new officers for our air, land, and sea ports of entry requested in the
fiscal year 2014 budget. This is bad for travel and trade. Travel
volume to the U.S. is up 12 percent since 2009, and is expected to grow
4-5 percent in each of the next 5 years. In 2011, international
travelers to the U.S. generated a trade surplus of $43 billion--that
set a U.S. travel and tourism record. Without these new officers, we
could once again see spikes in wait times during the spring at gateway
airports such as New York, Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago, Dallas, and
Miami. In fiscal year 2013 under sequester, wait times for arriving
passengers at these airports rose over 4 hours on multiple occasions.
We must ensure the United States is open for business, or else
travelers will take their business elsewhere.
Similarly, CBP would not be able to sustain current operations in
fiscal year 2014 because the agency will not have access to $110
million in fees collected under the Colombia Free Trade agreement.
Without these funds, CBP would have to, No. 1, rely on furloughs of up
to 16 days per employee to close the gap; No. 2, likely be forced to
commence an agency-wide hiring pause for front-line personnel; and No.
3, fall below the Congressionally mandated staffing levels for CBP
officers and Border Patrol agents. This will have the negative impact
of longer lines at our ports, slower processing and inspection of food
and other products entering our country, and fewer illegal aliens being
apprehended and removed at our borders.
DHS would not be able to implement safeguards to prevent unauthorized
release of classified information. Vulnerabilities in the existing
system were highlighted in the Wikileaks releases and the more recent
disclosures by Edward Snowden. There was no funding in fiscal year 2013
for this type of activity so DHS's classified data will not be
adequately protected without fiscal year 2014 funding.
Critical infrastructure protection efforts would be hindered. For
example, without the $34 million above the fiscal year 2013 sequester
level, inspections of chemical plants to prevent weaponization by
terrorists will be delayed. Funding to better coordinate Federal
chemical programs--in the wake of the West, Texas facility explosion--
will not be provided. Increases to prevent catastrophic impacts to
critical infrastructure during manmade or natural disasters will be
eliminated.
And lastly, on the administrative side, just last week DHS
Undersecretary for Management, Rafael Borras, testified in front of the
House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight and Management about
the difficulties of managing multiyear acquisition programs under a
never-ending string of continuing resolutions. While I agree that is
challenging, what is worse than a short-term spending bill at sequester
levels, would be a government shutdown. Even a short lapse in funding
has the potential to drive up costs across the entire DHS acquisition
portfolio.
Because of these impacts, it is critical that we conference our
fiscal year 2014 Senate bills with our House counterparts that we can
address the weaknesses that continuing to operate at sequestration
levels would entail. A conference would also ensure a necessary delay
to flood insurance rate increases since the House and Senate Homeland
Security bills contain identical language on this issue. Time and time
again, Senators have heard from their constituents about the
skyrocketing increases in flood insurance rates. Many homeowners
throughout the United States will see their rates rise to unaffordable
levels. For example, up to 2.9 million policies nationwide could see
their previously grandfathered rates become absolutely unaffordable.
While data for each homeowner is still incomplete, one resident in my
State of Louisiana could see rates increase from $633 to over $20,000
per year. That makes homeownership unachievable for many Americans and
traps others in houses that they cannot sell.
Exacerbating the damage caused by irresponsible funding levels under
the sequester is the looming threat of a politically-motivated Federal
government shutdown. While most--about 84 percent--Department of
Homeland Security employees are deemed mission-essential during a
shutdown, because they are military or law enforcement personnel or
deal with critical safety or security issues, DHS like all other
Federal agencies would be operating at a greatly reduced capacity. For
example:
The Department of Homeland Security would not be able to maintain and
operate E-Verify, the Internet-based system that allows employers to
voluntarily determine the eligibility of prospective employees to work
legally in the United States.
Vital research and development would be delayed. For example, funding
to develop next generation screening technology for TSA would dry up.
This means funding for the development of technologies to improve
detection, lower false alarms, and decrease wait times at airports
would end. Funding would also end for the development of
countermeasures to biological and nuclear threats.
Preventative measures and pre-emptive planning efforts with State and
local governments for natural and man-made events with FEMA and
critical infrastructure experts will cease. This leaves communities
less able to respond to catastrophic events in the middle of hurricane
season, not to mention for no-notice events like
[[Page S6945]]
earthquakes or bombings such as those at the Boston marathon. A lack of
preparedness will cost the Federal government more money in recovery
efforts and lead to unacceptable and unnecessary loss of life.
Under a shutdown, law enforcement training would cease, including
training conducted through the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
and the Secret Service's J. Rowley Training Center. This would impact
CBP, ICE, Secret Service, the Federal Air Marshal Service, and would
delay their ability to bring new officers and agents into operational
service.
And as I noted earlier, while the majority of the frontline law
enforcement personnel such as CBP's Border Patrol, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement's investigative and detention officers,
Transportation Security Administration aviation passenger screeners,
FEMA disaster response personnel, and the U.S. Coast Guard will
continue working under a shutdown, many of these employees live
paycheck-to-paycheck. Since their biweekly paychecks would be stopped
during a Federal funding hiatus, these women and men may not be able to
pay their rent or mortgage or may have to reduce purchases of food or
medicine for their families. An unnecessary government shutdown breaks
faith with our heroes on the front lines, adversely impacting their
morale and distracting them from their important and often dangerous
duties. No one wants that.
We need to get our work done. We need to pass a clean continuing
resolution that keeps the Federal government open and fully funds the
Affordable Care Act. After that is done, we need to move to the harder
task at hand--agreeing on a budget for fiscal year 2014 and finalizing
bills so that our agencies have the appropriate funding for their
critical missions--instead of lurching from one funding crisis to the
next.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. COONS. Madam President, I want to thank the Senator from
Louisiana for her leadership of the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Homeland Security.
We just heard a detailed description of how the Senator has worked in
a bipartisan, thoughtful, and in a detailed and decent way--in a way
that crafted a bill where there was compromise, where there was give
and take, and where ultimately the bill that has moved through that
subcommittee and full committee and should be ready for action on this
floor meets the real needs of our Nation, of our homeland.
That bill provides resources and support whether for the State of
Colorado, the State of Minnesota, the State of Delaware, or all over
this country. And shutting the government down over a needless
manufactured crisis between now and Monday is the height of
irresponsibility.
Madam President, if I might, I will now yield for the Senator from
Colorado.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BENNET. Madam President, I will be brief. I want to thank the
Senator from Louisiana while she is here, not just for her words and
for reminding us this isn't about who can scream the loudest on cable
television, it is about the work that actually needs to get done in the
Senate on behalf of the American people, but I also want to thank her
for all the work she has done over the years with FEMA. It has made a
big difference in my State already. They are working well with our
local and State officials. We have a long way to go, and the last thing
we need to worry about is whether the government is going to shut down.
Fortunately, because of the work the Senator and others did around
here, the emergency part of this is going to continue to carry through,
even if there is a shutdown. But there is a lot of uncertainty that is
related to that. So while Senator Landrieu was here, I wanted to thank
her for that.
I am sorry the Senator from Delaware has left the floor for a moment,
because he has been holding it down and I wanted to ask him a question
about his previous work. He was a county executive in Delaware before
he was here. I was a superintendent of schools. I worked for the mayor.
Senator Klobuchar, who is here from Minnesota, was a district attorney.
I think every one of us is completely perplexed by the hostage taking
that is going on around this place.
I ask the Senator from Delaware, he was the county executive of a
county in Delaware?
Mr. COONS. I was.
Mr. BENNET. I say through the Chair, does the Senator think that any
county executive or mayor or local official in the Senator's State
wouldn't be run out of town if they threatened the credit rating of
their community for politics?
Mr. COONS. Absolutely. I might say to my friend from Colorado, I had
direct experience with this. In the State of Delaware, folks expect us
to balance our budgets and pass them on time, to deliver good services,
but also to defend our credit ratings. The city and county and State in
which I lived and served all enjoyed triple-A credit ratings. The folks
in my communities understood that meant we could borrow money for
building sewers, building roads, and building schools less expensively
and sustain the quality of our community. Our business leaders and
civic leaders understood that to put that at risk was reckless and
irresponsible.
Yet for a manufactured crisis by a few Senators, we are facing the
shutdown of this Federal Government a few days from now--and, I am
afraid, just a few weeks later the possible default on the sovereign
debt of the United States. No responsible elected official where I am
from would do that.
Mr. BENNET. That is my point. I think we are dealing with something
that is so far outside of the mainstream of what political actors, at
least in my State who are elected who are Republicans or Democrats,
would support. I think it is important for us to call attention to that
because that is what we are dealing with.
I see the Senator from Minnesota is here, so my last observation. If
one of us represented a State government that opened and closed its
doors or threatened to open and close its doors every single year, I
can assure you that businesses would look to do business in some other
State, not in the State in which we work.
That is what we are doing to the United States of America right now.
We have so much going for us. The innovators are out in the economy
innovating. Natural gas is cheaper than it has ever been. We could
build this economy if only a few actors in Washington would get out of
the way.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I would first like to acknowledge
Senator Coons of Delaware for his leadership, and Senator Mikulski, the
powerful head of the Appropriations Committee, who has put together a
group this hour to talk about public safety and infrastructure, and
what a government shutdown would mean and what sequestration means when
it comes to the progress of this country.
We heard from Senators from different parts of the country. Senator
Landrieu from the great State of Louisiana talked about the importance
of FEMA. No one knows better than she does after Katrina what a
government shutdown would mean for Louisiana.
Senator Bennet of Colorado was here, where right now they are
experiencing the horrible aftermath of these floods.
Then we look at what happened in the State of Massachusetts with the
Boston Marathon. What would have happened there if we were in the
middle of a government shutdown and didn't have the resources we
needed?
Do we want the head of the FBI worried about who he can lay off and
who he can't? Or the head of the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms that
investigated that bombing in Boston--do we want them off looking at
what are we going to do if we have a shutdown in the middle of that
bombing? That is not what we want happening. That is not how this
country runs.
I sat and watched the last hour of this debate, and I saw Senator
Corker come to the floor and do a fine job of explaining that it is not
every Republican in this Chamber who is trying to slow this vote down
so we don't even have it today. He focused on two Republicans who were
doing that, and I think it is very important for the
[[Page S6946]]
American people to know that the Senate has tended to work in a
bipartisan way. We want to move forward, we want to get this bill voted
on, and we want to give a chance for the House to come back. No more
delays. We need to get this done.
Much of the focus has oftentimes been: I want to shut down
Washington. But my job today is to talk about what it means in our
States. As someone who spent 8 years as the chief prosecutor for
Minnesota's largest county, I know the pain of this shutdown would be
felt by State and local officials, by State and local people, right
down the line, and, not least of all, by the first responders and law
enforcement officers who rely on Federal funding for everything from
crime prevention to community corrections programs to drug courts, and
to simply keeping cops on the beat.
There are some who are willing to hold these first responders
hostage, there are some who are willing to hold our country hostage, to
score political points. The fact is a government shutdown would be
painful and it would be expensive. These men and women go to work every
day protecting the people. While most people may run away from
disasters, calamities, and tragedies, they bravely run toward them, and
they do it selflessly--not because they are looking for fame or glory
but because they are simply doing their jobs.
We in Washington have a responsibility to do our jobs. We have a
responsibility to ensure that our cops and firefighters and EMTs have
the tools to protect the public safely and effectively. We have a
responsibility to pass a resolution that prevents the government from
shutting down.
We simply can't afford another self-inflicted wound to our economy,
as Senator Bennet was pointing out, especially not at a time when
things are finally turning around. At 7.3 percent, our national
unemployment rate is at its lowest point since December of 2008. In my
State, it is at 5.1 percent. The housing market is bouncing back.
Retail sales are up. So far this year we have added 1.5 million private
sector jobs. We are not where we need to be, but we are headed in the
right direction and we need to keep moving forward and not move
backward. Yet here we are again, facing another manufactured crisis
that threatens to shut down the government.
Last week, House Republicans sent us a continuing resolution they
knew had zero chance of passing the Senate. When House Republicans
passed a budget tied to defunding the Affordable Care Act, they decided
they were willing to risk shutting down the government just to
relitigate a law that both the House and Senate passed, the President
signed, and the Supreme Court upheld.
Will there be changes to that law going forward? I am sure there
will. There always are with large bills. But the answer is not to
defund it on a must-pass bill.
Even Members of their own party agree this is the wrong thing to do.
Senator McCain has called defunding the health care law as part of the
CR the height of foolishness and not rational. Even a poll conducted by
the conservative Crossroads GPS, headed by Karl Rove, found that
Independents overwhelmingly oppose shutting the government down to
defund ObamaCare on a margin of 58 percent in opposition to 30 percent.
That is Independent voters in a poll conducted by Karl Rove's group.
In the short term, a government shutdown lasting more than 1 week
would have an immediate effect on economic growth, as the Federal
Government would suspend all nonessential spending. Shutting down the
government for 3 or 4 weeks would reduce real GDP by 1.4 percentage
points in the fourth quarter. And a shutdown longer than 2 months would
likely precipitate another recession.
My colleagues in the House like to talk a big game about reducing the
deficit and doing what is fiscally responsible. Yet they are willing to
mortgage our economy on a political gamble? Pardon me, but that is not
how we define fiscal responsibility in my State.
Here is something else Minnesotans don't call fiscally responsible:
closing our national parks, which generate billions of dollars in
tourism revenues every year. If the government shuts down, so will all
368 National Park Service sites.
And how about the visa processing centers? During the 1996 government
shutdown, more than 500,000 visa applications and 200,000 passport
applications were put on hold. We might say, why would that affect me?
It does. It affects jobs in the United States of America. In a State
such as Minnesota where tourism is our fifth largest industry and the
source of 11 percent of our private sector jobs, we simply can't afford
to let that happen. We simply can't afford for this critical industry
to be hamstrung by political posturing on the other side of the aisle
in Washington.
In addition to the impact on our tourism sector, a government
shutdown would also have serious repercussions for industries such as
medical technology, something that Minnesota and Massachusetts share.
Without funding to keep the lights on at the Food and Drug
Administration, the process for approving medical devices and other
biotech products would grind to a standstill.
These are just a few examples of the industries that would be hurt by
a government shutdown.
If we use the 1996 impasse as a guide, we can also expect to see
delays in the Small Business Administration financing, a suspension of
Federal Housing Administration insurance for people buying new homes,
new patients denied access into clinical research trials at the
National Institutes of Health. You heard correctly. If we can't reach a
compromise, we will all feel the negative results.
Now I want to get back to the focus of my earlier remarks, and that
is law enforcement programs. We must be willing to do the right thing
for the safety of our people. When it comes to homeland security,
counterterrorism, and Federal law enforcement, rest assured those
protections will continue. But in the event of a shutdown, the Federal
officers who continue going to work protecting the public from violent
crimes, gangs, and terrorists won't be getting a paycheck. Instead,
they will be getting an IOU. Basically what we will be saying to these
people is: Thanks for putting your lives on the line. We can't pay you
right now. And if you are lucky, maybe you will get backpay when
Congress sorts this all out. Is that what we want to say to the people
who showed up first at that Boston Marathon bombing, We have an IOU for
you? I don't think so.
The strain on a shutdown on law enforcement would come at a time when
agencies are already struggling to make ends meet in the wake of
sequestration.
The new head of the FBI just talked about how sequestration would put
him in a position to lay off 3,000 FBI agents. I don't think that is
where we want to be in this country. These are cuts to some of the most
successful crime prevention and crime-fighting programs out there.
Even more frustrating is that Chairman Mikulski and the Senate
Appropriations Committee worked across party lines to draft spending
bills for 2014 that would provide additional resources for grant
programs important to law enforcement.
Under sequestration, the COPS Program has been reduced by $22 million
compared to the funding level the Senate approved. Funding for drug
courts has also been slashed, despite the fact that drug courts
actually save money to the tune of $6,000 per person. For every $1
spent on drug courts, more than $3 is saved on criminal justice costs
alone. And when you factor in other things such as costs to victims and
health care, they can save up to $27 per person.
Local law enforcement also relies on Byrne grants, which have been
cut by $20 million due to sequestration.
As a former prosecutor, I have always believed that the No. 1 job of
government is to protect people. It is to keep people safe. It is to
have safe roads and bridges. If we continue to cut, to delay, and deny
critical funding for programs such as COPS and Byrne grants, we will be
failing in this most basic duty, and I refuse to let that happen.
Instead of threatening critical services and our economy with poison
pill partisanship, we need to focus on real solutions. This means
agreeing to go to conference committee on the budget. For many months
Senator Patty Murray, the head of the Budget Committee, has been asking
permission to
[[Page S6947]]
simply bring our Senate-passed budget to conference committee, where it
can meet up with the House budget and where we can at least try to work
out a long-term solution. Senator McCain and Senator Collins have
joined us in this call to be allowed to bring a long-term budget to a
conference committee, but we have been met every step of the way with
opposition from the other side. That is where we should be working
these things out. Instead, we are on the floor today to try to end the
brinkmanship on simply keeping the government going.
Secondly, we have another problem, and that is that our country will
hit its legal borrowing limit as soon as mid-October. When this
happens, we will be asked to do what Congress has routinely done 70
times over the past 50 years, and that is to pay our country's bills.
Let me be clear. This is about making good on commitments we have
already made. This is about doing what regular Americans do every month
when they pay their credit card bills.
As vice chair of the Joint Economic Committee and the chair on the
Senate side, last week I held a hearing and released a report examining
the economic impact of this brinkmanship. The results aren't pretty and
they are based on history. Let's remember what happened the last time
when we had a showdown on the debt ceiling in the summer of 2011: The
United States experienced the cost of protracted brinkmanship on the
debt ceiling. As Congress struggled with this issue, the Dow Jones
dropped more than 2,000 points, and Standard & Poors downgraded the
U.S. credit rating. Consumer confidence fell, and we were out over $1
billion in borrowing costs. That is on the backs of the taxpayers of
this country. That is what happened in 2011.
If we face another impasse this year, there could be very real
ramifications for businesses and for people. Interest rates could rise
on everything from credit cards and home mortgages to borrowing costs
for businesses, putting a real strain on families and small business
owners, and stalling the economy just as we are at a time when we can
expand it, just when we are at a time when we are starting to see that
stability grow to real growth.
Our country cannot afford to keep lurching from crisis to crisis. It
is time for both parties to come together and focus on real solutions.
Do you know what I learned the last 24 hours, the last 2 days,
watching what was going on on this floor? That there are a few of my
colleagues who see this place as a battleground. I see it as a place to
look for common ground, and that is what we are supposed to be doing on
behalf of the American people. The battleground has to give way. We
need to do the work for the American people, find that common ground,
work together. We are going to pass a good, clean bill so that we can
continue the U.S. Government and move on to work out the details of the
budget. That is what we need to do for our first responders, for our
police, for our firefighters, for those people who put their lives at
risk every day. That is what we need to do for the American people.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, any discussion of the
national security impacts of a long-term continuing resolution or a
potential government shutdown would be incomplete without including the
potential impact on America's 22.3 million veterans.
The good news is that under any scenario, veterans would still be
able to receive health care thanks to advance funding for 2014. The bad
news is that most other VA programs would be shortchanged under a CR
and crippled by a government shutdown. The VA budget would be impacted
by the funding shortfalls or stoppages, but America's veterans would be
the victims.
VA advance funding does not extend to such important programs as
disability claims processing, hospital and clinic construction, or VA
cemetery operations, to name but a few examples. Given the gravity of
backlogs in the VA claims processing program, the Senate CR includes a
provision funding claims processing at the 2014 budget request level.
But it does not include a package of reforms and initiatives in the
2014 Senate MilCon/VA bill intended to improve productivity, accuracy,
and accountability. For claims processing, a CR is less than optimal. A
government shutdown could be catastrophic.
The current backlog of VA disability claims stands at 435,000, an
improvement over the high water mark of 632,000 just 6 months ago.
But the strides VA has made in addressing the backlog problem would
suffer a severe setback under a government shutdown. Currently, the VA
processes 5,500 to 6,000 claims a day, a massive improvement in
productivity that would be stopped in its tracks by a government
shutdown. The longer the shutdown, the more severe the impact.
Think of a fender-bender in the middle of a busy freeway. Traffic
behind the accident backs up quickly, and the backup extends farther
and farther as cars pile up behind it. Once the cars are towed away,
the backup does not magically disappear. It takes time for traffic to
return to normal.
The same holds true for an interruption in VA claims processing. The
VA estimates that for every week that claims processing would be halted
under a government shutdown, it would lose a month of progress in
processing claims. Our Nation--our veterans--cannot afford this delay.
Claims processing would not be the only VA program imperiled by a
government shutdown. If the government shuts down, funding for payment
of mandatory VA compensation, pension, and education benefits would run
out by the end of October, denying a lifeline of support to thousands
of veterans.
For anyone who cares about America's veterans, the notion of forcing
a government shutdown is unthinkable.
Passage of a clean CR through November 15 is imperative to give
Congress time to negotiate a way forward to fund government operations,
agency by agency, through 2014.
My subcommittee also funds the Defense Department's military
construction program. A government shutdown would have serious
consequences in this area. The furloughing of civilian personnel
overseeing construction contracts could not only disrupt and delay
ongoing projects, but could provoke contract interruption and increase
project costs. A CR prevents new starts so regardless of the level of
funding, no new MilCon projects could be undertaken in 2014 under a CR.
A CR and government shutdown would bring DOD's MilCon program to a
screeching halt.
The CR before the Senate today buys time, without any extraneous
riders or political histrionics. There is a time and a place for
everything. The place for political statements is elsewhere. The time
for keeping the government operating until a comprehensive
appropriations bill can be crafted is here. I urge my colleagues to
support the clean CR pending before the Senate.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am sorry that we are going to have to vote
tomorrow and not today. The House is waiting for us to do something, to
finish this, but we have two Senators who will not allow us to do that.
We established that an hour or two ago. That is unfortunate.
I ask unanimous consent that following leader remarks on Friday,
September 27, the time until 12:10 p.m. be equally divided between the
proponents and opponents of the motion to invoke cloture on H.J. Res.
59; that the time from 12:10 p.m. until 12:30 p.m. be reserved for the
two leaders, with the final 10 minutes under the control of the
majority leader; that at 12:30 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote on the
motion to invoke closure on H.J. Res. 59; that if cloture is invoked,
all time postcloture be yielded back; that the pending Reid amendment,
No. 1975, be withdrawn; that no other amendments be in order; that the
majority leader be recognized to make a motion to waive applicable
budget points of order; that if a motion to waive is agreed to, the
[[Page S6948]]
Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Reid amendment, No. 1974;
that upon disposition of the Reid amendment, the joint resolution be
read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the
joint resolution, as amended, if amended; finally, that all after the
first vote in this sequence be 10-minute votes and there be 2 minutes
equal divided between the votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. REID. This agreement means we will have four votes tomorrow
beginning about 12:30: cloture on H.J. Res 59; motion to waive budget
points of order; amendment No. 1974; and passage of H.J. Res. 59, as
amended, if amended. I think we will come in tomorrow about 9:30, and
the time will be allocated from that time until 12:10.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mrs. FISCHER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, so ordered.
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of the millions of
middle-class families across America who feel they have been left
behind. Too many of these people are decent, hard-working folks who are
unemployed or underemployed. Too many have adult children stuck living
at home because, despite graduating from college, they are struggling
to find work. And now, because of ObamaCare, these same young adults--
many of whom are older than 26--will be forced to pay more taxes or
purchase costly government-defined health insurance.
In spite of the administration's best salesmanship, the law remains
extremely unpopular. A poll conducted by the Omaha World-Herald last
fall showed 55 percent of registered voters still favored the full
repeal of ObamaCare. Recent national polls indicate a similar
disapproval rating for the law all across the country. Part of the
reason for the public's continued opposition is the harm that ObamaCare
is causing our economy.
Let me share a story of one woman, a small business owner named
Eileen Marrison. I had the pleasure of meeting Eileen in August when I
was traveling my State, and I visited with her in Papillion, NE. The
Marrison family owns and operates Two Men and a Truck. Those are
franchises in Omaha and Lincoln, NE. They have 30 employees in Lincoln
and 76 in Omaha. The Marrisons provide paychecks for local families,
and they have earned the respect of their communities.
Eileen Marrison, the matriarch of the family, presently offers health
insurance to full-time employees--36 individuals working 35 to 45 hours
per week. She foots more than half the cost of that coverage. Since
ObamaCare changes the definition of a full-time employee, lowering the
threshold to 30 hours per week from 40 hours, Eileen now employs 76
full-time equivalents, triggering the employer mandate. Now she must
offer affordable coverage as defined by ObamaCare. She has to offer
that to all of her employees working 30 hours or more.
Eileen has been taking care of her employees for years, and she wants
to continue to do so. However, ObamaCare's mandate is now placing
additional burdens on this family business which will require Eileen to
make tough decisions or incur those harmful costs.
I received thousands of phone calls, e-mails, and letters echoing
Eileen's concerns and urging me to repeal all or pieces of the law.
Another constituent, a 61-year-old retired schoolteacher from
Beatrice, NE, recently wrote me to share that he had just received a
letter from his insurance carrier. The news was that premiums were set
to spike 60 percent, to $939 a month. That is half of his monthly
pension check. He says, ``We are dismayed and disappointed.''
Another Nebraskan, Roger from Hartington, NE, wrote:
I just wanted to let you know I got my letter from Blue
Cross of Nebraska. My premium went up $160 per month and my
total out-of-pocket risk increased from $5,000 to $12,700.
Roger continued:
On the positive side, my menopausal wife and I now have
maternity, drug, alcohol, pediatric, dental, and vision care!
President Obama promised our costs would go down and we
could keep our insurance if we liked it. I liked my old plan.
I want it back!
We no longer have to rely on these testimonials to prove that
ObamaCare is driving up the price of insurance premiums.
Yesterday, the Federal Department of Health and Human Services
released its long-awaited report on ObamaCare premium prices offered on
the exchanges. The numbers for Nebraska proved that premiums will rise
dramatically. In its analysis of the data, Forbes magazine published an
article noting there was a 279-percent increase when comparing the
cheapest plans offered to Nebraska men. For Nebraska women, there was a
227-percent increase when comparing the cheapest plans. That is more
than triple the current rate. Those numbers are absolutely staggering.
The average premium for a 27-year-old for the most basic plan, the
bronze plan, is $159 before tax credits. Currently, that same 27-year-
old can find a premium for $68 in Nebraska. So we are looking at a
significant increase in costs.
Based on a Manhattan Institute analysis of the report:
ObamaCare will increase underlying insurance rates for
younger men by an average of 97 to 99 percent, and for
younger women by an average of 55 to 62 percent. Despite
these rates, the plan includes fewer in network doctors and
hospitals than current plans. And many of the lowest-cost
plans will likely carry high deductibles.
One insurer found that ``for the cheapest bronze plans, the average
deductible was $5,000.'' How is that possibly affordable?
In August the administration announced another major delay, this time
to the part of the health care law limiting patients' out-of-pocket
expenses. Rather than capping costs for individuals and families, as
required by the law, the delay of this key provision guarantees
ObamaCare will be anything but affordable.
Of course, there are many other problems with the law beyond the
increases in premiums, which is why I have been promoting the complete
repeal of the law, and I support defunding it.
For example, there are serious concerns about possible identity theft
for those participating in the new health exchanges. Why? Because the
administration failed to independently test the security for its
Federal Data Services Hub, which will store huge amounts of people's
private, personal information.
The report released by the Department of Health and Human Services
inspector general stated:
Several critical tasks remain to be completed in a short
period of time, such as the final independent testing of the
hub's security controls, remediating security vulnerabilities
identified during testing, and obtaining the security
authorization decision for the hub before opening the
exchanges.
The administration has until this Tuesday to complete these critical
tasks. I, for one, remain skeptical that these tasks will be completed
in time, opening up security risks for individuals who do participate
in the exchanges.
Today the administration tacitly admitted once again that ObamaCare
is not ready for prime time when it announced another delay. This time
they are postponing online enrollment in some of the small business
exchanges scheduled to open on Tuesday.
The irony, of course, is that news of this latest delay broke as the
President was delivering a speech criticizing Republicans for their
effort to defund or delay the law altogether. It seems reasonable to
ask: Where is the delay for the American people? Where is the delay for
middle-class citizens such as the 61-year-old retired teacher from
Beatrice, NE? Is that an extreme position? I certainly don't think so.
In short, this law remains fatally flawed. The American people
deserve better than selective delays, unfair treatment, and broken
promises.
For me, the fight over ObamaCare has nothing to do with politics or
with ideology. It has to do with standing for small business owners
such as Eileen Marrison. It is about standing for middle-class families
who aren't asking government for a hand up, they are just asking that
the government stop holding them down.
[[Page S6949]]
We are a country that looks to build a brighter future for our
people. We are a country that looks to help and lift up people. That is
what America is all about. It is about giving voice to millions of
Americans--those middle-class families who are feeling left behind--who
would rather have the Federal Government focusing on ways to create
jobs so they can bring home a decent paycheck.
Let me be perfectly clear: I have no intention of standing down in
this fight. It is why I was sent here, and it is what Nebraskans expect
from me. It is the only way we will ever be able to turn our economy
around and build that brighter future for all Americans.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I come here this evening with no notes, so
hopefully I will be able to communicate my feelings and concerns from
the heart and from the brain about the tasks we are about. We have been
focused so much on the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, and
rightfully so. I consider it one of the most damaging pieces of
legislation ever to pass a Congress and be signed by a President.
I want to start by pointing out something that is receiving, in my
view, inadequate attention. We are back on the Senate floor with a
continuing resolution. It is almost as if passing a continuing
resolution has become the norm, and has almost become a way of life.
I have the privilege of serving on the Appropriations Committee. Our
task--and what I would consider a very basic task--is to pass a budget.
This is the first time the Senate in 3--almost 4 years--has passed a
budget. The House passed a budget. Yet there is no reconciliation and
no success in the effort to conference that bill, and so we have no
budget framework to go by. The other requirement--again, one that ought
to be so basic--is to pass appropriations bills within that budgetary
framework.
We are here--almost on September 30--and I would remind my colleagues
that not 1 appropriations bill out of the 13 appropriations bills that
should be passed by September 30 has passed the Senate. It seems to me
that it is important to highlight the fact that this place, once again,
is failing to do its job. There has not been 1 appropriations bill out
of 13.
Why is passing a continuing resolution important? Without it--or if
we just do it at will--the Appropriations Committee and the Senate, on
behalf of the American people, are never required to prioritize our
spending. Does anyone not think the priorities of this Congress should
have changed from last year to this year? Have things not changed in
our country, in which, if we were doing our work, we would decide how
much money each program should receive based upon its effectiveness,
its efficiency, whether it is a proper role for the Federal Government,
the changing nature, the economic environment of our country? Yet, no,
one more time we are here to pass a continuing resolution.
The thing that troubles me perhaps the most about this topic is that
it is just a given. We are not complaining about the passage of a
continuing resolution; we are focused on a very significant provision
in that continuing resolution that very well may be removed tomorrow
when the Senate acts.
The Appropriations Committee needs to work. Just as we always raise
the debt ceiling every time the debt ceiling is met, if we always agree
to raise the debt ceiling, what is the effect of a debt ceiling? If we
always, every year, pass a continuing resolution, why have an
appropriations process in which we are to establish priorities on
behalf of the American people as far as how their tax dollars are
spent? We are failing miserably, once again, the American people, and
it is just happening as if it is of no consequence.
I want the appropriations process to work. I want to eliminate
funding for some programs that aren't our business, that the Federal
Government should never have been involved in in the first place. I
want us to establish the amount of money we can afford to spend on
programs within the Federal agencies and departments. It may be true
that there are some things on which we might want to spend more money.
I would remind our colleagues that, in my view, the primary
responsibility of the Federal Government is to defend our country, and
what we do in regard to defense spending has a huge consequence upon
our ability to fill that vital mission, that constitutional
responsibility. We take on too much to deal with.
I have always believed the view that if the 10th Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution had ever been enforced in the way I or most Kansans
would consider its words to mean, our Federal Government and our
lives--more importantly, our lives--would be so much different in the
United States. The 10th Amendment says that all those powers not
specifically granted to the Federal Government are hereby reserved to
the States and people. Yet government continues to grow, and we have an
appropriations process that has failed to do anything about curbing
that spending.
The issue that is front and center is the President's health care
reform measure that passed 3 years ago and is being implemented on
October 1, when many of its provisions will kick in, become viable, and
the American people will begin to feel the consequences even more so
than they have to date. There is no question the Affordable Care Act,
as I said earlier, is the most damaging piece of legislation passed,
certainly in my time in Congress. Not a surprise: I voted against it.
Perhaps not a surprise: I offered the first legislation to repeal the
Affordable Care Act after it was passed.
The House is often criticized for time and time again passing
legislation to repeal or to defund the Affordable Care Act. Yet, if one
believes it is so damaging to the country, isn't it our responsibility
to do everything within our power to change the policies of Washington,
DC?
We have before us tomorrow the opportunity to defund the Affordable
Care Act. Those who count votes around here say that is not going to
happen, that it is a lost cause. But it is important for us to do
everything we can to make certain the consequences that are so damaging
to America and to Americans are avoided.
For most of my time in the House of Representatives and now the U.S.
Senate, I have chaired the Rural Health Care Coalition. I care about
the access to health care by citizens across our country who happen to
live in rural areas and core centers of cities and urban centers of our
country--high Medicare populations, high Medicaid populations. Yet I
have no doubt that with the passage and implementation of the
Affordable Care Act, hospitals who serve rural communities will be
greatly damaged and we will lose many hospitals. When we lose a
hospital, we lose the doctor, the pharmacy; we may lose the nursing
home or the assisted living center--huge consequences to people who
have paid taxes all of their lives through their employment to support
Social Security and Medicare. Yet, because they choose to live in a
rural community, the chances of them being able to access the health
care that to a large degree they pay for disappears.
It seems to me that the stories being told on the Senate floor--and I
listened to the Senator from Nebraska moments ago talk about examples
within her State and her constituents, describing the problems created
by the Affordable Care Act. We all have those examples. I have no doubt
that Democrats hear the same stories Republicans hear. Yet we can't
seem to be responsible enough to make the changes. We will have the
opportunity to repeal--to defund, I guess is the better way of saying
it--the Affordable Care Act, and we ought to do it.
The focus today and yesterday and the day before has been on
Republicans and the strategy of how to defund the Affordable Care Act.
It is pretty irrelevant in the overall scheme of things how we do it;
it is whether we get it done. And we ought to be expecting Democratic
Senators, my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, to be just as
helpful in trying to change, defund, repeal, alter the Affordable Care
Act on behalf of our country.
The focus ought not to just be on how we do it among Republicans; it
ought to be on questioning my colleagues about whether they are willing
to step forward and admit there are problems with legislation they
supported. It is
[[Page S6950]]
not just a Democratic problem. I remember legislation that I voted
against that was supported by Republicans overwhelmingly--in fact,
broadly supported. After it passed--I was on the losing side, a very
small minority--I spent my next few years trying to get it amended. No
one likes to admit it when they vote for a bill and then it is a
problem. But who would be surprised? What American would not think--
Americans have great common sense and judgment. What American wouldn't
think that the passage of a bill with thousands of pages late at night
by the slimmest of margins, with no bipartisan support, wouldn't have
some problems that need to be addressed?
I talked about how our process here is dysfunctional when it comes to
the appropriations process. I heard colleagues earlier this afternoon
saying we ought to work together and come to the floor and offer
amendments. Here is the problem: There will be no opportunity for any
amendment to be offered other than the amendment offered by the
majority leader. So we are saying that we could maybe cooperate to find
some solutions to the problems that come from the Affordable Care Act,
but, oh, by the way, the only amendment that is really going to be made
in order is changing the expiration date of the continuing resolution
and removing the provision that provides for no funding for ObamaCare.
This is one of the most important votes I will ever face--or one of
the most important issues, is probably a better way of saying it, I
will ever deal with as a Member of the Senate. How we deal with the
health care of millions of Americans has a huge consequence--economic,
their health, their well-being, their family, their ability to get a
job. Yet we are going to dispense with this issue in a matter of
minutes tomorrow with one vote on an amendment to remove the defunding
of the Affordable Care Act.
Wouldn't the Senate and wouldn't America be better served if we were
given the opportunity--again, if there are Senators on the Democratic
side who agree there are problems, aren't there issues we could raise
that would allow us to have a debate and a vote and determine where we
could find some way to get rid of the ominous, threatening nature of
the Affordable Care Act?
The Senator from Nebraska talked about her examples. Time and time
again we hear about the amount of money the Affordable Care Act is
going to cost, about the premiums going up. We have seen the numbers
that have just been released. For my State of Kansas, there will be
significant increases in the premiums for anyone who is participating
in the exchange.
I have talked to business folks. I am certainly a rural Kansan, and I
care a lot about rural America. I have always tried to explain to my
colleagues that where I come from, whether or not there is a grocery
store in town determines in many ways the future of the community. Many
of my urban colleagues have their issues and don't necessarily
understand what happens in a rural community if we lose a grocery
store. But the conversation with the grocer just within the last month
or so was this: The neighboring town is losing its grocery store. They
have asked me to come in and buy it. I have looked at it. I could make
money. It would work. I could save the grocery store in the neighboring
town, but I am not going to do that because that would put me over 50
employees and the Affordable Care Act would kick in.
A competitor who is across the street decided to in a sense quit
competing--at least in one aspect of their business--and share
employees so that people now work part-time at one business and work
for the competitor the other half of the day to avoid the consequences
of the Affordable Care Act.
Educators, our teachers, our school superintendents, our enterprises
that come together and create co-ops for our schools to provide special
education to our students, funding is very difficult in education
across our country. State legislatures struggle with their budgets. Yet
the amount of money necessary to comply with the Affordable Care Act
means there are going to be fewer paraprofessionals in the classroom
assisting students with disabilities because they no longer can afford
to have an employee considered a full-time employee and provide their
health care.
This legislation is damaging to the country. It is damaging to our
country's future. It is damaging to the American people. It reduces the
opportunity that I believe Americans always have had to get the best
health care among countries in the world.
The Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, needs to be defunded. I would say
to my Republican colleagues, we then have a responsibility to have a
solution, a plan. Our health care system is not perfect. We have the
opportunity to present better ideas, but that can't happen in a Senate
that doesn't allow an amendment to a bill that deals with health care
because of the House amendment. We won't have the opportunity to
present our ideas or offer amendments that will make a difference.
One could say: Well, this isn't the place. The continuing resolution
is not the place to have a debate about health care and how to replace
the Affordable Care Act.
OK. I ask my colleagues, the leaders of the Senate, when is? When is
the last time we have had a bill on the floor that would give us the
opportunity to offer an amendment, to have a debate, to offer ideas
about how to fix health care? It hasn't happened. I predict, based upon
the Senate's schedule in the time I have been here, we are not going to
have that opportunity. We ought to as Republicans. We ought to as
Senators. It doesn't have to be partisan. There ought to be commonsense
solutions. There are. It is not that there ought to be; there are. We
all have ideas about how to fix our health care system as it was before
the passage of the Affordable Care Act, and we need to defund the
Affordable Care Act to give us a chance to go back and do it right, do
it better.
Again, I would encourage my colleagues, the next time we have the
opportunity, and perhaps that will--I hope this is not true, but
perhaps it is only true if we have Senators who are different from the
Senators we have now. One would think that regardless of one's party
affiliation, a U.S. Senator ought to be willing to deal with this most
significant, important issue--the lives of Americans. It doesn't matter
about one's party affiliation. If one cares about people--well, in this
Senate, apparently, if the vote counters are right and no Democrat will
vote to defund ObamaCare, then there will be no opportunity for us in
the future to put our ideas, their ideas, all of our ideas on the floor
for consideration by Senators and by the American people.
Common sense tells us that we would fix the health care system a
piece at a time and do it with commonsense, free market principles that
would create a greater opportunity for more Americans to be able to
afford health care. Health care is expensive. Health care insurance is
expensive in this country, no doubt about it. The issue of preexisting
conditions needs to be addressed. It affects people in their lives and
in their jobs on a daily basis. But, no, we are going to cast one vote
that gives us no opportunity to solve, to address, to deal with piece
by piece the broken system that now the Affordable Care Act provides
us.
The implementation of this act has been a disaster. No one can
objectively look at what has transpired and think this is the way it
should be done. No one could look at the consequences of the Affordable
Care Act and say: This is a great thing. It is perfect. We don't want
to make any changes.
Every Republican will vote tomorrow to defund--at least if the
prognosticators are true; I expect it to be the case--every Republican
will vote to defund the Affordable Care Act. We are united in that. We
need colleagues from the other side of the aisle to join us in the
effort to make sure Americans have access to affordable health care and
the Federal Government operates within the limits of the Constitution
in providing the environment in which that occurs. These are serious
issues. The Affordable Care Act needs to be defunded. And the Senate
needs to operate in a way that then allows all of us to come together
in a manner that allows us to help Americans better afford health care
for themselves and their families.
This system is broken. The Senate does not function right. Mostly
what I
[[Page S6951]]
knew about the Senate before I came here was what I read in history.
This place does not work the way it has for centuries during the life
of our country.
The issues we face are serious. It is not about politics. It is not
about posturing. It is about whether every American is going to have
the ability with the Affordable Care Act to take care of themselves and
their families in the way they want to.
Promises that were made--easily forgotten, apparently; certainly not
kept. You will be able to keep your health care insurance if you want.
I have seen so much evidence to the contrary. Your premiums will not go
up. We know that is not true. Time and time again, the promises that
were made about the Affordable Care Act are broken. Yet there is no
will on the part of the U.S. Senate to change course.
It is time to admit it was a mistake. It is time to admit the bill is
significantly flawed. It is time to admit the Federal Government is
involved in issues that are not well-handled by the Federal Government
in one broad sweep. It is time to admit that not one sized solution
fits all problems, that not everyone in the United States is the same,
that my colleagues who come from other places are different and their
constituents are different and their health care delivery system is
different than it is in my home State of Kansas.
I would make the appeal on behalf of most Kansans to give us the
chance to set the record straight, to do it right, to begin again. I
ask my colleagues tomorrow to vote to defund the Affordable Care Act.
It is time for ObamaCare to come to a conclusion.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. President, I rise to speak to an
amendment I filed on H.J. Res. 59, the continuing resolution. It is a
pretty simple amendment. It simply prohibits that funds be used for a
government contribution for the health insurance of Members of Congress
and their staffs under ObamaCare.
Now, you might ask, well, why would I, as a former employer, want to
prevent an employer from contributing to health plans for Members of
Congress and their staffs?
Well, the simple reason is, because of the passage of ObamaCare, it
expressly prohibited funds from being contributed by the Federal
Government to Members of Congress and their staff's health care plans.
I do not believe the President has any legal authority and I
certainly do not believe the Office of Personnel Management has the
authority to circumvent the Affordable Care Act.
I am exactly on board with Senator Moran in certainly wishing that we
could repeal the health care law in its entirety, that we could defund
it, that we could do anything we could to limit the damage. But the
fact is, it is the law of the land, and we need to respect the law of
the land.
I have looked through the legislative history of the passage of the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It seems very clear what
the intent of Congress was.
Back on September 29, 2009, as this was being debated by the Senate
Finance Committee, Senator Grassley offered an amendment that was
adopted without objection that would require Members of Congress and
their staff to ``use their employer contribution . . . to purchase
coverage through a state-based exchange, rather than using the
traditional selection of plans offered through the Federal Employees
Health Benefits Plan.''
Again, that amendment was adopted without objection. Apparently,
Members of Congress at that point in time thought that the State-based
exchanges were going to offer such fabulous health care that they
wanted to make sure that Members of Congress and their staff could
avail themselves of that opportunity.
So on October 19, 2009, that Grassley provision was incorporated into
the Finance Committee's America's Healthy Future Act. But there was an
addition to that amendment made that basically provided for an employer
contribution. Section (B)(ii) says:
the employer contributions may be made directly to an
exchange for payment to an offerer.
So at that point in time it was the express will of Congress that the
employer--the Federal Government--could actually contribute to the
health care plan purchased through the exchange.
The problem arises, however, that when Senator Reid actually offered
the language for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on
November 18, 2009, it specifically said:
the only health plans that the Federal Government may make
available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with
respect to their service as a Member of Congress or
congressional staff shall be health plans that are one--
(l) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this
Act); or
(ll) offered through an Exchange established under this Act
(or an amendment made by this Act).
There was absolutely no provision made whatsoever for an employer
contribution to those health care plans.
On December 24, 2009, Christmas Eve, the Senate passed that bill
making no provision for an employer contribution to those plans
purchased through an exchange. It was passed on pure party lines, 60 to
40.
On March 21, 2010, the House passed the exact same legislation. But
then there was a debate in terms of reconciliation, and Senator
Grassley once again offered an amendment that would have provided an
employer contribution to those plans purchased through the exchange. It
was explicitly stated that employer contribution could be made. But
that amendment was voted down. It was voted down. The vote was 43 to
56. All but three Democratic Senators voted no. In the end, the health
care law was passed. That reconciliation was passed on March 25, 2010.
Now, it happened recently--on July 31, 2013--that President Obama
came over here to the Hill and met with Democratic Senators because, as
Nancy Pelosi famously stated, we have to pass this health care law
before we can figure out what is in it, before we know what is in it.
Well, once Senators found out what was in it--that they were going to
have to purchase their health care through an exchange and the Federal
Government could not make any payment for those health care plans--they
panicked and they asked President Obama to please correct that. So
President Obama heard their plea and directed his Office of Personnel
Management to propose a rule that would allow the Federal Government to
pay or make a contribution to those State-based exchange plans.
Now, I would argue that the OPM--President Obama--has no legal
authority whatsoever to make those contributions, which is the purpose
of my amendment. There will be millions of Americans who will lose
their employer-sponsored health insurance for various reasons but
because of the passage of the health care law. Once they have lost that
coverage, they--every other American--will have to purchase insurance
either in the open market or through a State-based or Federal exchange.
Their employers will be barred. They will not have the opportunity to
make an employer-contribution to help pay for those health care plans.
The only way a normal American gets to have any subsidy in those
exchanges is if their income qualifies them for a subsidy under the
Affordable Care Act. The only Americans who now--because of this OPM
ruling--will actually have their employer be able to make a
contribution are Members of Congress and their staffs. That is simply
wrong. That is special treatment. It really should not stand.
So my amendment basically acknowledges that this is the law of land;
that President Obama--the Office of Personnel Management--has no legal
authority to have that contribution take place. So it simply prohibits
funds to be used for a government contribution for the health insurance
of Members of Congress and their staffs under ObamaCare.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the House-
passed continuing resolution now pending before the Senate.
Once again the Senate is considering a last-minute continuing
resolution rather than regular-order appropriations bills. Handling the
annual appropriations process in this way is a bad
[[Page S6952]]
deal for the American people, and it is a deal we have gone through for
the last 4 years now without passing appropriations bills and having to
deal with a continuing resolution or an omnibus, which is simply a
terrible way to run this government.
Congress should be passing appropriations bills in regular order
instead of waiting until the eleventh hour. I know the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee and the ranking member are very much in favor
of doing that and are ready to come to the floor to do that. But yet
once again we are seeing the majority leader not let them come to the
floor with those bills. This only creates uncertainty in the financial
market and hampers America's economic recovery.
Unless we come to an agreement, the government is going to shut down
Monday night because Congress failed to pass a bill that would fund the
government for only a few months. And to what end? We will find
ourselves back in this position in either November or December, when we
will have to pass yet another continuing resolution. This is a foolish
way to run the U.S. Government.
I was here in 1995 during the last government shutdown. It cast a
pall on the American people, seeded distrust of government, and
unnecessarily harmed our economy. It was not a pretty sight from either
a political standpoint on either side of the aisle or from the
standpoint of the American people or the government employees. No one
wins when the government is shut down, least of all the American
people.
We are all aware of the issues that have thus far slowed down the
progress of this bill. While there may be differences of opinion on our
side of the aisle about tactics, let me tell you--let there be no
doubt--we are all unified in believing that ObamaCare should be stopped
and should be defunded.
I was here on this floor a few years back when we fought tooth and
nail to stop passage of ObamaCare. I believed it to be the worst piece
of legislation I had seen in my now going on 19 years of serving in the
U.S. Congress. And it still is the worst piece of legislation and the
most damaging piece of legislation to the American people that I have
seen in those 19 years.
As the October 1 enrollment date nears, President Obama's signature
law continues to face several significant problems. Employers are
cutting jobs and slashing employees' hours; businesses and labor unions
are unhappy and want to be exempted from the law; families are
confused, and insurance premiums for people who cannot afford them in
the first place are now skyrocketing. In my home State of Georgia
alone, our insurance commissioner has warned us that we could see
premium increases as high as 198 percent on middle-income families.
Other States have reported similar increases. So it is no surprise that
a majority of Americans believe ObamaCare should be repealed and should
be replaced.
I remain as committed as ever to dismantle and defund this law before
it has a chance to further damage our economy and to replace it with a
meaningful reform of our health care system.
The continuing resolution delivered by the House of Representatives
to the Senate funds the government while defunding ObamaCare. It is
what the American people want, and it is a bill I support. I will
oppose any attempt by Majority Leader Reid to strip defunding language
from this bill.
However, while I believe ObamaCare is a serious threat to the future
of our Nation's economy, allowing a prolonged government shutdown would
be counterproductive. My priority has always been the well-being of
Georgians, as well as the American people, and I cannot support a
strategy that could cause Americans to suffer unnecessarily. Further
harm to our already fragile economy is not a course we should pursue,
nor should it be a price our friends on the other side of the aisle are
willing to pay just to uphold the President's signature law.
This fight is long from over. It is something Republicans have been
fighting since 2009, since we first tried to stop ObamaCare from
becoming law. I am grateful that this debate has brought the problems
with this law back into the spotlight and look forward to repealing and
replacing this law at the end of the day.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PRYOR). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, a lot has been said in the last few days. I
guess the issue is not everybody has said it. I am not sure that two
people have been closer to the progress and the process of the
Affordable Care Act than Dr. Tom Coburn and myself. We were in it in
committee along with other Members.
The fact that I am not embracing a strategy to close down the
government is real important. It is because at the end of the day and
we open the government, the way the statute is, there is the Affordable
Care Act. It is still there. I did not come to Washington to embrace
strategies that do not achieve solutions. I came to find solutions to
big issues so the next generation can benefit from them.
Do not misunderstand me. There is no bigger critic in Washington, DC,
than the Senator from North Carolina. As a matter of fact, in the
committee, I counted 58 votes on 58 amendments where we voted to kill
the health care bill. I think my record stands for being opposed to
this legislation.
Senator Coburn and I have introduced more health care proposals than
the rest of the Congress combined--options, replacements. We have stood
on this floor hour after hour on the Affordable Care Act and shared
with the American people why this was a bad move. We have quoted
individuals who lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Their Chief Actuary told us, before we passed this bill in this body,
that this will close community hospitals, it would increase premiums,
it would deprive people of health care. But the Congress of the United
States and the President of the United States signed this law into
statute.
There is only one way to kill a law once a law is in statute; that
is, to pass a bill that is signed by a President that reverses that. To
some degree, this is civics 101. It is an understanding of the
legislative process. It was not the first time I disagreed with
something this body had done. Let me assure you, it will not be the
last time. But I also understand the way that we change this. It is not
the way we are attempting to do it right now.
So what have we seen in the short period that we have gone through
this? As we move up to October 1 and these new exchanges are rolled
out, we have seen premiums go up. We have seen doctors retire. We have
seen health care professionals move from rural America to urban areas.
We have seen the health care infrastructure scared to death of what is
around the corner. We have seen premiums rise.
If there is anything that is wrong, it is the title of the bill, the
Affordable Care Act. We have made health care less affordable for more
Americans. Let me say that again. This act has made health care less
affordable for more Americans. It has tripled, at a minimum, the cost
of a health care premium for somebody 30 years or under--tripled, at a
minimum.
This is a group who is targeted for enrollment. They would not enroll
when the premium was one-third of the cost it is today. We have heard
people say that Members of Congress are trying to protect their own
subsidy. Members of Congress are not going to take the subsidy. We
passed legislation, but at the end of the day, the public pressure will
be such that no one up here will take the subsidy.
But if we are going to treat Federal workers one way, then treat all
of them the same way. Do not pick and choose who--the ones who work on
the Hill, the ones who work in our offices, not ones who are in
committees, not ones who work at the FDA, the EPA or whatever. Let's
include everybody.
If we want an exchange to work, then we have to enroll as many people
and we have to have robust competition. The way this is set up we are
going to have low enrollment. The way insurers have responded to the
exchanges--in my State, we have one insurer that has
[[Page S6953]]
entered the exchange to insure the entire State and one insurer that is
representing 10 counties out of 100. That is not competition. That is
almost a monopoly. I do not blame the one that is in all by themselves.
I blame what we designed, where we did not empower States to actually
design things that fit their health care infrastructure and their
State, where individuals could buy insurance based upon their age and
their income and their health condition.
We said, no, if you do not buy this plan, then you are going to pay a
penalty. We have heard a lot of debate about the process, but we have
not heard as much debate about the specifics of this legislation. It is
bad for the American people. Regardless of the outcome of tomorrow's
votes, this legislation is still going to be in statute. It is still
going to be implemented on October 1.
I hope all of the thousands and hundreds of thousands of people who
have responded to the request to call--and they don't always know why,
except they do not like this health care plan--when tomorrow's vote is
over, do not go away. The pressure has to be on this institution to
make the changes.
Most Americans do not know that we are going to start taxing--or we
are already taxing the manufacturers of medical devices 1.5 percent.
They pay a surcharge to fund ObamaCare. We are going to charge, in the
exchanges, at 2.3 percent, I believe, a health insurance premium tax
for every person who purchases health insurance.
We have to ask ourselves: If we are going to tax devices and we are
going to tax the insurance premiums, how in the world can the price of
health care go down? It cannot. This is common sense and math matched
up. It has to force health care costs up. That is, in fact, what every
American sees.
Even your employer's insurance, if you are lucky enough to still have
an employer that is providing it, your health care premium is going up
next year. If you are in an exchange, your premium cost is going up
next year. Who does it benefit? It benefited maybe people who had
preexisting conditions and they could not purchase insurance. You know
what the first act of the Affordable Care Act was? It was to create a
national pool of individuals with preexisting conditions and they would
all be offered insurance.
What happened? When about 20-some-percent of them got enrolled, the
fund ran out of money and the one population that this bill was sold to
protect, almost 80 percent of them, were left out in the cold with no
options. It has failed since the first step.
What I hope is that American people will not leave this debate and
say we have done our best. We have not done our best. The Nation is
betting on us to continue on this. Our children deserve whatever it
takes for us to accomplish it.
But as I started, let me say to the body, our strategy to get here
was flawed. I know it sounded good, but it does not work. The only way
to eliminate a bill that is in statute is to pass a bill and have it
signed by a President that reverses that statute.
I am glad we have had this debate. I am glad the American people are
now engaged in it. I do not think this will be the last discussion we
have on the Affordable Care Act. I will assure you that as I have been
before, I will be again on this floor debating my colleagues as
aggressively and fairly as I can about what is wrong with this bill and
why it should be reversed and why it should be replaced.
I thank my colleague from Alaska.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. BEGICH. To my colleague from North Carolina, thank you for the
part about explaining the process. Some people think by tomorrow if
there is a vote on defunding, suddenly something happens. Thank you for
pointing out the issue of the statute. We may not agree on the total
picture, but I have presented lots of ideas on how to fix the health
care act. I would be anxious to work on that as we pass by tomorrow. I
thank the Senator for his comments.
I know in the last 48 hours or longer we have been talking about a
lot of issues. We have been talking about health care, and I can read
all kinds of stories about people who called me, such as the 50-year-
old male from rural Alaska who was self-employed. He had lung cancer.
Today, because of ACHIA and the ability to get into that high-risk
pool, he now is living a good life, healthier, and running his
business.
I can go through all kinds of stories, but I don't want us to forget
the big issue that is facing us Tuesday; that is, the risk of a
government shutdown and what that means. We can talk about health care
for a long time. We will for generations, and they have done it for
generations before I even got here. We need to focus on the big issue
that faces us; that is, this shutdown that is potentially in front of
us.
The inability of Congress to pass a budget, pass annual
appropriations bills, address these harmful automatic budget cuts known
around here as sequester, because of true political brinksmanship, is
honestly shameful and not why I came to Congress. When the budget
passed, I didn't vote for it, but it passed.
The House has a budget, it passed. Now for some reason we can't get
people from the minority to sit down and let us move to a conference
committee to figure this out. To me, it is amazing. It is a simple
thing.
For the time I have been here, 3 years at minimum, we have been
hearing there is no budget passed. There is one passed. I didn't vote
for the one that passed--it had too many taxes--but it did pass.
Let's get on with the conference committee and figure it out. The
Presiding Officer, my colleague from Montana, and I are on the
Appropriations Committee. We passed bills out of the Appropriations
Committee and most of them passed in some form of bipartisanship--not
100 percent but in some form. Bringing those forward would be helpful.
It would help us to do the job we were sent to do on an annual basis;
that is, to get our budget moving forward.
I came to get the job done. I came to Washington to represent Alaska.
I didn't come to participate in this back-and-forth showmanship that
has to go on in order for someone to get some highlight on TV or be
able to get some byline on TV or whatever it might be. These games that
are being played and played on the Senate floor are affecting our
national homeland security.
Think about it. What is it like for a Federal employee today as they
watch these shenanigans that go on. If you are one of the 5,000
dedicated Department of Defense employees in Alaska, you didn't get
paid for 6 days already this year because of sequestration. Now you are
wondering if you are going to get a paycheck on time or face more
furloughs because this institution may not be able to pass a clean
continuing resolution.
For those who are watching, the continuing resolution says the budget
we have is going to continue for a short time while we try to get our
appropriations bills to the floor so we can move those forward. It is
not complicated. It keeps the government running, and it is the way we
move this system forward, but it is not the right approach. We need to
have regular order for our appropriations bills and get rid of the
sequestration issue once and for all. Don't be confused about the
issue. I know people like to complain about the Federal Government. We
are the largest service provider in the country. We provide services.
We don't make widgets. We produce service. We build roads. We are out
there taking care of forest fires when they are happening. We are
taking care of our veterans. We are making sure we are protected in the
homeland as well as across the world with our national defense. The
list goes on and on. We are a service company.
As I stand here, I am honestly stunned we are on the verge again. I
don't know how many times we have been on the edge, just hanging over
the edge of what might happen. Will we close down the government?
I am not here to do that. As painful as these days are in going
through the process, we need to move forward. We cannot delay military
members' paychecks, leaving them wondering if they are going to get
paid again or if they can pay their bills on time, knowing we will face
the same situation again and again in a few months. We need to finish
this so we can move on to the annual Department of Defense bill to
continue to fund this Federal Government.
Many of our military members are also wondering if they will be
training,
[[Page S6954]]
waiting for the missions we call them out to do. Commanders can't plan
a training exercise now, such as the Red Flag-Alaska, which is a
critical training program, not only for our military but our allies.
They don't know how much money they will have in the next fiscal year
to plan. They can't just decide on a Thursday, Friday, and the next
week we are doing a massive military mission. It takes months of
planning, but they can't plan if they don't have the resources.
Military leaders are not only losing sleep over the rogue nations
such as Iran and North Korea, they are losing sleep over not having the
funds to pay their workforce and breaking faith with their troops as we
ask them to do so much. We are asking the one organization we rely on
to be ready 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, and to stay
ready amidst uncertainty and potential shutdowns.
We are asking its members to carry on without expecting pay or money
to train. It is unrealistic, it is unreasonable, and it is risky for
our national security.
Our Nation's veterans--and we have 77,000 veterans in Alaska--are
wondering what the shutdown means for the claims they are waiting for.
They are wondering if the process will create even lengthier delays in
an already unacceptably slow process. I know the Presiding Officer and
I have worked to try to streamline this process to get these claims
resolved after hundreds of days of delay.
Our Nation's homeless veterans are wondering if they will be able to
get their housing vouchers or lose them in budget cuts or if they will
have to sleep on the streets after serving our country because we can't
pass a continuing resolution and a budget.
In Alaska, let me tell you what that is like in October, moving into
November and into December. Sleeping on the streets is not a
comfortable situation. Sleeping on the streets, period, is not a
comfortable situation. But when you are in those cold situations, it is
even worse.
We are hurting local economies and stifling potential job growth. We
have $202 million of military construction that will be delayed in
Alaska because we haven't passed an annual Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs bill. We passed it in appropriations, we are ready,
and we want to do it, but this back-and-forth of 1 week, 1 month, 2
months, continuing resolution again delays the regular order so we can
create certainty--certainty with our ability to provide for businesses
in this country but also for the business community, construction
companies. In Alaska you cannot just start a project in December and
say, well, we are going to start doing the foundation work. It is a
little cold. The ground is a little frozen. You have to be doing this
in the summer. You have to be planning for this in the winter and late
spring.
For us to delay these projects, all we do is hurt the private sector
jobs related to it, the families who depend on this, the veterans, and
the military that depend on these important construction projects.
When the funding comes too late, the project is delayed, costs go up.
It is not complicated.
For the Senate, I have learned over time it is almost irrelevant.
Some people don't care about it. They don't care what it costs. They
don't even want to know, because they know when they hear it, it will
be an unbelievable cost that we have to bear because of this delay and
these tactics.
I get it. We are not going to always agree on everything, but we have
to compromise and solve these problems.
As an appropriator, that is what we do in appropriations. It is not
always easy. Some things I want to have happen, we can't have. It is
the same thing on the other side, but at the end of the day we find
common ground.
Sequestration also has hurt the Coast Guard. In Alaska, the Coast
Guard is the lifeblood of our oceans for the fishing industry, oil and
gas industry, our recreational industry, our cruise ship industry. I
can go through the list. They have lost $200 million from their
operating expenses because of sequestration and an inability for some
people to come to the table to solve this problem. That means about 30
percent fewer cutters and aircraft doing things such as enforcing
fishing laws.
We have a reduced presence in the Arctic. They had to cut back on
patrols to stop drugs coming from South America into this country.
When you think about it, the impact is significant. It spreads
throughout this whole country. As the drugs come in and the jobs in the
country go out, millions of Americans are watching to see what Congress
does. We have created a situation where not only are we unable to
budget for this country, but Americans can't budget for their future.
They can't even budget for the holiday season. It is unbelievable.
We need to complete this work on this short-term continuing
resolution, move right into our annual appropriations bills, address
sequestration once and for all, and finish the budget. We owe it to the
American people. We owe it to them to ensure they have certainty, and
we owe to it our business community to make sure they know. Look at
last week in the market. It wasn't a deep slide, but it was a slide.
If you read the Wall Street Journal today or last night, there is a
commentary and some articles because they weren't sure what the House
was doing. The House was playing these games back and forth: Let's tie
this to it; let's tie that to it. They are playing with an economy that
has come back from the depths of a great recession.
Is it a perfect economy? No. Is it better? Absolutely. Do we have a
fragile moment that we need to continue to build on this? Yes.
I am not sure if those folks on the other side care about making sure
our economy is strong. In some ways, I think they want it to falter so
they can go into an election and say: See those guys, they caused the
economy to go bad so vote them out. That is all this seems to be.
I was presiding earlier and one of my colleagues on the other side
mentioned a story about Alaska. I was appreciative that he recognized
Alaska and understood we had some issues in Alaska. Then he mentioned
three other Senators and their States--all the ones, to be frank with
you, who are being targeted by groups as the ones most at risk this
election cycle.
I get it, but that is not what people are here to do. If you want to
have that conversation, let's go outside this building. Run those ads.
Do everything you need to do. Do whatever you want on the campaign
trail. Do whatever you need to do.
To play these games and try to pretend you are doing the government's
business is very irresponsible. That is not what is going on. What is
going on is picking people and trying to pigeon hole them so they can
run commercials against them in campaigns. I get that. I think the
American people are fed up with it. They are outraged by it. I hear it
every time I go back to Alaska. I hear it when I talk to people around
the country.
We have to do the work we were sent to do. The work here is to get
our business done. Setting policy is part of it and passing
appropriations bills. We should be doing these on an annual basis,
doing a budget. Again, we passed one out of the Senate. I didn't
support it because it had too many taxes, but we passed it. The House
passed it. Let's get on with doing the work.
Every day I know some sit around and they say: Well, we have to do it
this way. This is the only way it works.
You don't understand. The Senate is complicated.
Hey, life is complicated, get on with it. The public expects us to do
our job. Quit using process, rules, and gobbledygook to try to get away
from your responsibility in the Senate. It is time we sit down and deal
with it.
There will be some in my party, and there will be some in their party
who--guess what--aren't going to get what they want. That is the way it
works. Compromise, find your balance, and move forward.
I would love 100 percent of everything. I will try it every day, but
that is not how it ends up all the time. Compromise and try to find a
middle ground, that is what we should be doing.
As an appropriator, that is what I want to do. This is what I tried
to do as a member of the Appropriations Committee, and that is what we
should be doing on this floor.
I get it. There are a couple on each side. It happens. We saw one who
stood out here for 21 hours or whatever the
[[Page S6955]]
heck it was. I get it. He is passionate. It is important to him to make
his point, but I also see what else is going on.
Focus on your job. We are Senators. We are not candidates for some
other office. We are Senators. We are here to do the job. It is time to
get busy and do the job. The American people want it. Alaskans tell us
every day they want us to do this.
Let's figure this out and get on with the show.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, as we inch closer and closer to
potentially shutting down this government, I rise to remind my
colleagues what a shutdown would mean for our constituents. I also want
to remind my colleagues it doesn't have to be this way.
Budget battles and debt ceiling debates are the norm in Congress
right now, but there was a time--there was a time--when both parties
worked together and the American people benefited.
It hasn't always been rosy. The budget battles of the mid-1990s shut
our government down for nearly 1 month. Personal insults here in the
world's greatest deliberative body used to be common. And back in the
1850s, a Senator was beaten on the Senate floor. But through it all,
Americans trusted their government to meet its constitutional
responsibility and keep the lights on. After all, if we couldn't agree
on anything else, at least we could agree on keeping the lights on.
Today, constant political brinkmanship and grandstanding replace
commonsense compromise and actual governing. This is taking a toll on
all Americans, and Montanans are no exception.
With a government shutdown once again a real possibility, America's
frustration is reaching new heights. For some folks a shutdown is
another opportunity to shake their heads and bemoan the state of
affairs right here in Washington, DC. They are the lucky ones. For
others, a shutdown will hurt their health, their wallets, and their
bottom lines.
I am talking about a veteran--a veteran who could be anywhere in this
country--whose disability case appeal could and probably will be
delayed if we have a government shutdown; a senior citizen waiting for
a Social Security check; a small business owner waiting to get a
potential contract that could fix a decaying road infrastructure.
Hotels and other businesses around our national parks, which would be
closed if we have a government shutdown, are also holding their breath
to see what we are doing here these days. If the parks close because of
a government shutdown, the money coming in and out of the wallets of
those businesses and those folks who not only drove to the park in
anticipation of being able to utilize it but the businesses around the
park would be impacted very negatively.
Everybody knows about the Bakken oil plate that is driving the
economic growth in North Dakota and eastern Montana. But if the
government shuts down, the Bureau of Land Management's permitting
office would be shut down too. That means wells would be delayed and
the jobs that come with it.
Since the House Republicans have been unwilling to begin negotiations
on a new farm bill, farmers and ranchers are going to have a lot of
questions come October 1. On that day, not only will the government
shut down but the farm bill will expire as well. So not only could some
folks lose critical nutrition assistance, but farmers and ranchers
would have no place to go to get their questions answered about the
fact there is no more farm bill for a commodity type; no more ability
to get questions answered about conservation, which needs to be planned
far ahead of time. Why? Because their local farm service agency office
will be closed. Like the other government offices, nobody is going to
be there to answer the phone.
In Montana, Washington now is shorthand for uncertainty, Congress is
shorthand for dysfunction, and faith in government is being eroded
because some folks around here are more concerned about raising money
on C-SPAN than the people of this great country and the American
economy. It needs to stop.
The American people expect Members of Congress to make smart,
responsible decisions based on the best information we have. That means
advocating for issues that matter but compromising to get something
done. That means giving a little and getting a whole lot in return. It
is called governing. That is a lesson some folks around here need to
learn.
I would have thought flirting with a government shutdown and costing
taxpayers billions of dollars in 2011 would have been sufficient enough
a lesson or maybe coming within a few hours of falling off the so-
called fiscal cliff in 2012 would have been a sufficient lesson. I
would have thought that causing an unprecedented credit downgrade 2
years ago by threatening not to raise the debt ceiling would have
knocked some sense into some folks. And I would think the American
people's overwhelming desire not to shut the government down come
October 1 would cause my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to
use common sense. But here we are, playing politics once again as
regular Americans twist in the wind.
There is a way forward, and it doesn't have to start with political
games at the eleventh hour. It starts with working through the regular
budgets and appropriations process and not proposing amendments just to
slow the process down.
But funding the government is the easy part. In less than 1 month, we
will once again be reaching a debt ceiling--a much more serious issue.
If we don't raise it before then, we will not be able to pay our bills
and the economy will be devastated. Crashing into the debt ceiling will
cause our credit rating to drop, increase the interest rates not only
on our government debt but for anybody who has debt.
If you don't believe a farmer from Big Sandy, MT, maybe you will
believe a guy by the name of Mark Zandi, an economist who has advised
Presidents, Presidential candidates, and Fortune 500 companies. He said
that failing to raise the debt ceiling will hurt consumer and business
confidence, force businesses to stop hiring, and raise borrowing costs
for average Americans.
He is far from alone. Former Republican Senator Judd Gregg says
failing to pay our bills would ``lead to job losses and more debt.'' He
calls failing to raise the debt ceiling a ``terrible policy that would
produce difficult times for people on Main Street.''
Senator Gregg, whom I had the opportunity to serve with, spent 18
years here in the Senate. He knows as long as Congress fails to provide
the American people with political and economic certainty by funding
the government and raising the debt limit, we will not be able to
tackle other important issues, such as replacing the sequester the
Senator from Alaska talked about, and replacing it with smart budget
cuts or striking a long-term budget agreement that will put this Nation
on solid economic footing.
A government shutdown would be irresponsible and it would be
unnecessary. Congress needs to do its job by finding a way to
responsibly keep the government running. We cannot keep holding
businesses, seniors, working families, veterans, students, and our
military men and women hostage to the political whims and aspirations
of a select few.
When I was a member of the Montana Senate, my colleagues and I knew
what we had to get done every session. Passing a budget was at the top
of the list. Even if we didn't agree where to cut or where to spend, we
worked together to figure it out. And just like my former colleagues in
Montana did this spring, we passed a budget and kept the State
government running. Here in Washington there are a lot of pressures we
don't face at the State level. There are news channels that give any
Senator a chance to get on TV, and every issue has an advocacy group
fighting for its share of the pie. But real leaders make tough
decisions. Real leaders work together to find common ground and move
our Nation forward. Real leaders put their constituents first.
[[Page S6956]]
It is not too late. It is not too late for us to regain the trust of
the American people. But it is going to take some work. We won't be
able to do it right away, but we ought to start this week, and we can
start by responsibly funding the government, providing our economy and
our Nation with the confidence they need. That is what we did in
Montana, and that is what we need to do here in Washington.
The American people are calling for an end to the brinkmanship and an
end to the gridlock, and it is time we start to listen to them.
I also want to thank Senator Mikulski, the chair of the
Appropriations Committee, for agreeing to end a special-interest
provision that was included by the House of Representatives in last
year's government funding bill a few months ago and the one that was
sent over here recently.
A few years ago the committee voluntarily agreed to match the House's
earmark moratorium, and I think it is interesting our friends in the
House make very serious statements about the need to get rid of
earmarks, then stuffed a few items in the spending bill last year that
directly benefited a couple of the biggest multinational businesses in
this country. I spoke to Chairwoman Mikulski about this issue this
spring and she was very gracious and listened to my concerns. I am
pleased to see she and Senator Reid have eliminated one of those
corporate earmarks, and I want to thank them for that. It will make
this bill a lot cleaner.
In closing, I know there are people in this body who want to work
together to make this country all it can be. I also know there are
people in this body who would love to see a government shutdown because
they might be able to pad their own PACs or political coffers. And
maybe it would take a government shutdown to make them understand how
bad this would be for the American people, its businesses and its
working families. But I certainly hope that doesn't happen. The
American people don't deserve it. This country doesn't deserve it, as
it comes out of one of the worst economic times since the 1930s. Quite
frankly, being a businessman myself, I look at what goes on in
Washington, DC, and all the challenges businesses have in this country,
and the biggest challenge we have right now is Washington, DC.
Let's start moving the country forward by working together. Let's
fund the government. Let's not shut it down. And let's do what is right
when the debt limit debate comes around.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________