[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 156 (Tuesday, November 5, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7804-S7814]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EMPLOYMENT NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT OF 2013--MOTION TO PROCEED
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order the Senate will
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 815, which the
clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 184, S. 815, a bill to
prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation or gender identity.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unions in America
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will speak as in morning business before
addressing the matter that is pending before the Senate. I will speak
in morning business on two issues, to respond to the Republican leader
who just left the floor, as he spoke on two issues; first is the issue
of unions in America. History shows us that after World War II, when
labor organizations across the United States were at their peak
organizing workers, giving them an opportunity to bargain collectively
in the workplace for wages, benefits, safety, retirement, and health
care, that was one of the most amazing periods in America history. The
growth of the American middle class was unprecedented as men and
women--some fresh from serving in the war--came home and had a chance
to earn a livelihood, to build a family, to build neighborhoods,
communities, and literally build the middle class in America. It is no
coincidence that when the workers were given this voice and this
strength through the collective bargaining process, they prospered and
America prospered.
Today, we are in a much more difficult and challenging situation,
when so many workers are living paycheck to paycheck while their
productivity gains, when it comes to our economy, are well documented.
While the companies they work for are showing unprecedented levels of
profit, when the individuals who are managing these companies are being
compensated at the highest levels in our history, many of these men and
women working every day are falling further and further behind. If we
look to the state of unionism, I think the facts speak for themselves.
Those in the private sector who are in organized labor--part of a labor
union--are in very low percentage.
I think there is a parallel that can be drawn. At a time when workers
had a voice in the process, when their rights and their futures were
within their control at a bargaining table, they prospered and America
prospered. Today, without that strength at the bargaining table, many
of these same families are falling further and further behind, despite
the profitability of the companies they work for. So those who want to
eliminate the opportunity for collective bargaining and make it more
difficult for workers to stand and speak for themselves in the
workplace, frankly, are going to condemn us to a much slower growing
economy and much more injustice when it comes to compensation.
The Affordable Care Act
Secondly, the Republican leader spoke to the whole issue of the
Affordable Care Act, which is characterized by some as ObamaCare. It is
ironic that the Commonwealth of Kentucky is one of the top three States
that is the most successful in signing up people for this new approach
to health insurance. Some 31,000 people have signed up already through
the Affordable Care Act. Governor Beshear was on television just about
10 days ago talking about the opportunities for Kentuckians to finally
have an opportunity for affordable health insurance, some of them for
the first time in their lives. It is an opportunity which I voted for
and I support. I will make no excuses for the dismal rollout of this
Web site, and I hope it is fixed soon so people across the country will
have ready access to the information they need about their health
insurance. But I will not apologize for standing up for 40 or 50
million Americans who have no health insurance today.
Those of us who have gone through life experiences as a father with a
sick child and no health insurance will never forget it as long as we
live. To sit in a waiting room of a hospital in Washington, DC, with
your baby and wonder who is going to walk through the door and take
care of her because you do not have insurance--you just have to hope
that the charity care being offered in that hospital will be good
care--that is a feeling no one should ever have.
I have lived it. I do not want others to have to live it. We have to
give to every American family a chance for health insurance.
Let me say a word about this notion of canceled policies. The market
of insurance we are talking about here are people who are buying
individual health insurance, not the group plans at most places of
employment. It is a small segment but an important segment of our
population. If you look at the facts you will find that almost two-
thirds of the people who are in the individual health insurance market
buying their own plans for their family--through a broker, for
example--almost two-thirds of those plans are literally changed and
canceled every 2 years. There is a lot of flux and change in this
market, and prices continue to go up.
At the end of the day, here is what we are facing: Some 2, 3, or 4
million people may find themselves in a more difficult position because
the policy they once had does not meet the standards which have now
been established in law for minimum health insurance coverage in
America.
What are those standards that we say should be in every health
insurance policy?
No. 1, you cannot discriminate against people because of a
preexisting condition. Is there a person alive in America today--any
family who does not have someone with a preexisting condition? It can
be something as basic as asthma, diabetes, high blood pressure,
cholesterol issues, mental illness. These things literally disqualified
people from coverage in health insurance. We have changed that law and
said you cannot discriminate based on preexisting conditions. That is
basic.
Second, we have said you cannot put a lifetime limit on how much the
insurance policy will pay. Who knows--who knows--whether they are one
diagnosis or one accident away from needing health insurance that costs
way beyond what we can even imagine. Mr. President, $100,000, $200,000
is not an unusual charge for what used to be considered somewhat
routine. We say you cannot cap the coverage in a health insurance
policy because life is unpredictable and our medical future is
unpredictable. That is one of the provisions that has to be built into
the policy.
We also say you cannot discriminate against people in selling health
insurance because they happen to be women. And there was rank
discrimination against women in America when it came to the issuance of
health insurance before this new law.
We go on to say that 80 percent of the premiums you collect have to
be paid
[[Page S7805]]
into medical services, not taken out in profit and marketing.
We also say that if you have a health insurance policy, your son or
daughter can stay under it until they reach the age of 26. That is
important to every family with a graduating college student or someone
looking for a job in the household. They may not find a job, or if they
do, it may not have benefits. Don't you want the peace of mind as a
parent to know that up to age 26 you can keep them on the family
policy?
I have just given you five parts of so-called ObamaCare, five parts
that have to be written now into every health insurance policy and five
reasons why many companies are saying: We have to cancel the old policy
and reissue a new one consistent with these five principles, with these
five protections. That is why many of these policies are being
rewritten. The President should have been more expansive in his
explanation, but the fact is that is the story. That is what the
Affordable Care Act does.
I hear the Senator from Kentucky tell us that 120,000 people may face
a new policy. I would like to ask, what is the normal turnover in
health insurance policies in his State or other States. It happens with
some frequency. It is estimated that 17 million Americans are going to
have help in paying for their health insurance because of the
Affordable Care Act. That means some will qualify for Medicaid. That
means others will receive tax credits and tax benefits to help with
their health insurance payments.
We are moving toward a society that has health insurance protection
for all, and that is good, not just for the peace of mind of each and
every individual and family affected by it but also because the system
becomes more just, more fair. Uninsured people get sick. They go to the
hospital. They go to the doctor. They incur bills, many of which they
cannot pay, and that burden is shifted to everyone else in America.
Let's accept the personal responsibility of health insurance. Let's
move forward as the Presiding Officer's State of Massachusetts has
already done. Some 98 percent, I understand, has health insurance
protection in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, thanks to the
leadership of Governor Mitt Romney and the cooperation of both
political parties. Massachusetts has shown us the way. Let's follow
that now. Let's not turn our back on it.
The last point I will make on this issue is that I keep hearing from
the Republican side they have a better idea. What is it? I would like
to see the proposal from the Republican side that they would put up
against the Affordable Care Act. You will never see it because they
basically believe: Let the market work its will. The market working its
will has resulted in 40 to 50 million uninsured Americans. The number
is growing, and it should not, it will not, under the Affordable Care
Act.
Mr. President, I would like to address the business pending before
the Senate: the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
It was about 20 years ago that I first heard the name Margarethe
Cammermeyer. I had no idea who she was, but I read about her, and it
turned out she was a remarkable woman. She started off during the
Vietnam era as a combat nurse in the Air Force. She risked her life in
Vietnam to save the lives of those who were in battle and those who
were injured and wounded. Then, after the war, she rose through the
ranks and became a colonel in the U.S. Air Force.
There came a time when she had to make a disclosure, a regular
disclosure, and in that disclosure she said, for the first time
publicly, she was gay. Margarethe Cammermeyer, a colonel in the Air
Force, conceded she was gay. As a result of that concession and
statement, she was discharged from the Air Force. Had she done anything
wrong? Not a single thing. She had done everything right, including
risking her life as a combat nurse in the Air Force and moving up
through the ranks with a stellar record. But her admission that she was
gay in those days, 20 years ago, was grounds for her discharge from the
U.S. Air Force.
I never met her, but I heard her story and thought: That is just
plain wrong. She served our country and served it well, and to
discharge her from the military because of this admission is just
unfair.
The first time I ever saw her was a few years ago. President Barack
Obama was signing into law the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I was
in the audience when that signing ceremony took place, and they called
the name: Margarethe Cammermeyer, for her to come up and lead us in the
Pledge of Allegiance. It was the first time I had ever seen her.
I remember that day also because there was a rabbi who gave an
invocation. He said in this invocation that if you look into the eyes
of another and you do not see the face of God, at least see the face of
another human being. How apropos that Margarethe Cammermeyer would lead
the Pledge of Allegiance and the rabbi that invocation because it
really calls into sharp focus what is pending on the floor of the U.S.
Senate.
We waste too many hours and too many days and too many weeks on
Capitol Hill with government shutdowns, threats of defaulting on our
debt, but every once in a while this Senate and this Congress can rise
to the challenge and do something of a historic nature. Yesterday was
one of those days. Yesterday, on the floor of the Senate, with 61
votes, we voted to move forward on the Employment Non-Discrimination
Act. Here is what it says: that you cannot discriminate against a
person because of their sexual orientation or sexual identity.
What I thought was unfair about Margarethe Cammermeyer--dismissing
her not for anything she had done but for who she was--can happen now
in more than half of the States. In more than half of the States, there
is no protection against discrimination based on a person's sexual
orientation or sexual identity. It means that in those States, you can
literally be fired, denied a promotion, denied a raise, simply because
of your sexual orientation. That is not right.
Hiring, promoting and retaining employees based on performance is not
only the right thing to do, it helps American business attract and
retain the best and brightest employees.
Attracting and keeping the best and the brightest employees is
essential to succeeding in a global economy. That is why 88 percent of
Fortune 500 companies already have policies preventing discrimination
on the basis of sexual orientation.
More than 100 companies have already endorsed this bill, including a
number of leading companies in my home State of Illinois such as
Motorola, GroupOn, Hyatt Hotels, BP America, Orbitz, Nielsen, Miller
Coors, HSBC North America, and others.
It is time that Federal law caught up with the best practices that
have already been adopted by leading companies across the country.
Luckily, we had bipartisan support last night. Seven Republicans
joined us in voting to move forward on this bill. I came to the floor
yesterday to thank one of them who spoke, Senator Collins of Maine. Her
statement in the Congressional Record is an important one for everyone
to read.
But I would like to call attention, as well, to my colleague Senator
Mark Kirk of Illinois, a Republican, who came to the floor of the U.S.
Senate yesterday and gave his first speech on the floor in 2 years. You
see, my colleague suffered a stroke, and as a consequence he has gone
through a lengthy rehab and hospitalization, and he has really made a
remarkable comeback.
I was here on the day when he walked up the steps of the Capitol to
the Senate, and there were people of both political parties, Senators
cheering him on, as they should. I have watched his progress ever
since, and it is remarkable. His determination to serve our State and
Nation continues.
Yesterday, he gave his first speech on the floor in 2 years. That
speech was brief, but it was important. I would like to quote from my
colleague's speech. This is from Senator Kirk's statement yesterday in
the Congressional Record:
I think it is particularly appropriate for an Illinois
Republican to speak on behalf of this measure--Speaking of
the Employment Non-Discrimination Act--in the true
tradition of Everett McKinley Dirksen and Abraham Lincoln,
men who gave us the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 13th
Amendment to the Constitution.
It was a brief statement but it was important. Senator Kirk joined in
a bipartisan effort to move this bill forward. I searched the
Congressional
[[Page S7806]]
Record. I searched the Congressional Record of yesterday to look for
one statement in opposition to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
There is not one. There was a specific opportunity given for anyone
opposed to that measure to stand and speak. Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa
supported it. He spoke eloquently from this desk yesterday before the
vote, and then time was allocated to those in opposition. No one stood
to speak. But then 30 voted against it.
So what I would like to do is encourage my colleagues to take, in the
spirit of Senator Kirk and Senator Collins, this opportunity for us to
truly do something in a bipartisan way. Let us move this Employment
Non-Discrimination Act forward, and let us do it with dispatch. We know
it is the right thing to do. America is not a stronger nation when
there is discrimination anywhere--anywhere--including the workplace,
and this bill will end that form of discrimination.
There are those who say: Well, you are just wasting your time,
Senator, because Speaker John Boehner of Ohio has already announced
that he not only opposes this, he will not let it see the light of day
in the House of Representatives.
The Presiding Officer served there for many years; I did as well. The
Speaker has lots of control in the House. He can decide what is going
to come to the floor and what will not come to the floor. Unless a
majority of the Members of the House overrule him with a discharge
petition, he usually has his way. But if we can show a strong
bipartisan vote, even beyond the vote yesterday, when seven Republicans
joined the Democrats in trying to end this form of discrimination, then
perhaps we can prevail on the House of Representatives to move forward
in what Senator Harkin characterized as a historic achievement putting
an end to discrimination.
There was a time in our country when it was perfectly acceptable to
refuse to hire or even interview someone based solely on the color of
their skin, their religion or gender. It wasn't easy, but Congress
ultimately corrected this wrong by passing title VII of the Civil
Rights Act.
At one time, employers could fire someone solely because of their
age. Congress recognized this was wrong and passed the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act to put an end to age discrimination.
There was also a time in our country when an employee could be passed
over for a promotion solely because they were living with a disability,
even if they were the most qualified person for the position. The
Americans with Disabilities Act put an end to this type of
discrimination.
We now have an opportunity to outlaw one of the last vestiges of
discrimination in the workplace. All Americans deserve an equal
opportunity to succeed or fail in their jobs based solely on their
ability and performance.
This is our opportunity to take a historic stand against
discrimination. Passing ENDA is our chance to get on the right side of
history and close an embarrassing loophole in our Nation's employment
laws.
I urge my colleagues to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act
so that all Americans have an opportunity to excel in the workplace
based on their job performance--not who they are or who they love.
We will be a better nation for it. Both political parties should
gather together all the political strength and support they have to
make this a reality.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. I see my colleague from Maryland is here. I promise I
will not take all of that time.
During the debate over ObamaCare back in 2009 and 2010, the President
repeatedly and unequivocally promised his fellow Americans that if they
liked their current health care plan, they could keep it. By one
account, there were as many as 29 different times where the President
was captured on videotape making that same unequivocal commitment. This
was not an off-the-cuff remark or a casual throwaway comment, it was
essential to the President's entire argument selling ObamaCare.
I heard the distinguished majority whip from Illinois talking about
the reasons why ObamaCare was so important, suggesting that you could
not cover preexisting conditions or even young adults up to the age of
26 unless you accepted the whole package, the whole enchilada, as we
would say in Texas. Well, that is not true. The truth is we are
committed to dealing with preexisting conditions, we are committed to
helping people be able to buy and afford health care coverage. What the
President sold in 2009 and 2010 was basically sold under false
pretenses, as it turns out. If Americans had known that ObamaCare would
result in them losing their current coverage which they like, it never
would have become law. According to one estimate, as many as 3.5
million people will lose their current health insurance coverage.
I have heard the revisionist history here on the floor and elsewhere.
They are trying to change the commitment. Rather than: You can keep
your current coverage if you like it, period, which is what I know the
President said at the American Medical Association and many other
times, now they are trying to tweak that and say: If it is not
otherwise changed or canceled by our insurance company.
Well, that is not what the President said then. That is not what the
American people heard. That is not the basis upon which ObamaCare was
sold to the American people in 2009 and 2010. When President Obama
campaigned for reelection in 2012, he reiterated his promise from 2009
and 2010, again a remarkably consistent message from the President. He
said: If you liked your existing plan and you wanted to keep it, you
had nothing to worry about.
Here is the exact statement the President made on June 28, 2012, at a
White House press conference. ``If you are one of the more than 250
million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your
health insurance.'' That is a direct quote, no qualifiers, no caveats--
a simple unequivocal promise. However, way back in 2010 we now learn
that the Obama administration itself issued the very regulations which
have made, keeping this promise impossible. Indeed, the 2010 ObamaCare
regulations acknowledged that between 40 to 67 percent of all policies
in the individual market would lose their grandfathered status by 2014
and must be required to meet the costly mandates in ObamaCare. In other
words, at the same time the President was making the promise, his own
administration acknowledged that the regulations they were passing
would make it impossible to keep it.
Well, as you can imagine, people are increasingly frustrated by these
broken promises.
I recently set up a Web site in my office where my constituents can
let me know how their personal health care coverage has been affected
by the implementation of ObamaCare. I hope if others who perhaps may
hear my comments on the floor this morning have stories they would like
for us to be able to tell to explain how these broken promises have
resulted in their inability to keep what they have, they will let us
know on our Web site. It is cornyn.senate.gov. I plan to forward these
stories to the President.
One woman from Livingston, TX, over in East Texas, writes:
My health insurance is being canceled due to the Affordable
Care Act. My insurance company offered a plan . . . that I
can keep until 2014. Guess what? It's 19 percent more a month
than my current plan and drops coverage for laboratory and
imaging studies.
So not only is it more expensive, it actually reduces the coverage.
Going on, she said:
In December 2014, I'll have to change it again. Premiums
for myself and my husband at that time will increase 100
percent each, which will equal just about half--50 percent--
of our gross monthly income. What exactly are we supposed to
do?
Another woman from Pampa, TX, up in the Texas Panhandle, writes that
her monthly health insurance premiums have increased by 30 percent
already over last year, and now her policy is being canceled altogether
because of ObamaCare, so she has to purchase a new health insurance
policy that will cost, in her words, ``much more'' than her existing
coverage.
[[Page S7807]]
As her letter indicates, many of the folks losing their insurance
will be forced to buy a new ObamaCare-approved policy from an online
exchange which does not even work yet. It is no wonder that a growing
number of our friends across the aisle are beginning to wonder: Why did
the administration not extend the open enrollment period beyond March
2014? They realize they were marching in lockstep with the President
when he made these promises, and the fact that these promises are not
being kept is a political liability for them. At the very least it is a
hardship for their constituents that they would like to see rectified.
Why is the ObamaCare Web site malfunctioning? It is an important
question. But it is again just the tip of the iceberg. Remember,
ObamaCare became the law of the land more than 3\1/2\ years ago. I
think most people are astonished to learn that. Some news reports I
have read said that people thought ObamaCare had already been fully
implemented, we have been talking about it for so long. But by design,
it was created to be implemented over a many-year period of time. I
think that was a terrible mistake, because the political accountability
that comes with implementing a law and then having to live with the
political consequences of not delivering on your promises has now been
delayed.
But 3\1/2\ years ago the administration should have gotten prepared
to roll out its signature legislative achievement. According to CBS
News, one of President Obama's top outside health care advisors sent
the White House a memo back in May of 2010 warning them that ObamaCare
was spiraling out of control. This memo came from Harvard economist
David Cutler and reads in part:
I do not believe the relevant members of the Administration
understand the President's vision or have the capability
to carry it out. . . . You need to have people who have
the understanding of the political process, people who
understand how to work within an Administration, and
people who understand how to start and to build a
business, and unfortunately, nationally they just didn't
get all of those people together.
Republicans have for years been warning that this government takeover
of one-sixth of our economy, this central planning scheme, social
engineering, if you will, would not work. At the very least, the
Federal Government has proven itself incompetent on making something
this big and this complicated and this expensive work as advertised, it
is becoming increasingly clear. We spent years warning that ObamaCare
would force many Americans to lose their existing coverage. We spent
years warning that ObamaCare would limit patient choices and reduce
health options. We have spent years warning that the law itself would
prove to be unworkable. Now it appears that many of those warnings have
come true. We are reiterating our call to dismantle ObamaCare and to
replace it with patient-centered reforms that will help bring down the
cost, will not limit patient choices, and which will address most of
the biggest problems in our broken health care system.
There are other areas such as preexisting conditions, young adult
coverage, that we could readily agree on. Those are not debatable. I
think the fact that the distinguished majority whip has suggested you
have to have ObamaCare in order to get those is a gross exaggeration.
Remember, ObamaCare was sold as a policy that would expand health
care coverage without raising costs, and without disrupting anyone's
existing health care arrangement. It has proven to be a false promise
on both of those counts. Despite the promises made in 2009 and 2010,
promises that were repeated on the campaign trail in 2012, it is
becoming increasingly evident that ObamaCare is making it harder for
Americans to get or to keep the insurance coverage they already have,
and which they want.
By the way, ObamaCare was sold to the American people as a way to get
everybody covered with insurance. The Congressional Budget Office has
documented that as many as 30 million Americans will remain uncovered
even after ObamaCare is fully implemented. So you have not met the goal
of universal coverage, the CBO says.
We are finding that rather than your costs going down, they are going
up; you are finding that if you like what you have, you cannot keep it.
Well, as Republicans have said all along, there are much better ways to
expand health insurance coverage. I heard the majority whip this
morning say they would like to hear our plan. Well, either their memory
is faulty or they just were not listening.
ObamaCare regulations are incompatible with the genuine marketplace
in health care insurance. They are incompatible with cost control. I
think perhaps the best example I can think of is where the market
actually works in conjunction with a government program, such as
Medicare prescription drug coverage.
Remember when the Medicare prescription drug coverage plan was
adopted, Medicare Part D, true competition in the market was created
and vendors competed for the business of beneficiaries when it came to
selling them their prescription drug plan. Lo and behold, due to the
discipline and the competition, not only did quality of service go up
and cost go down, we have seen that actually there is a 40-percent
reduction, or I should say the cost of the plan is 40 percent under
what was originally projected. That is something we could use with
ObamaCare, which has been completely rejected. But that is why we
believe we can replace ObamaCare with reforms that will make it easier
for people to acquire or keep a health insurance plan that meets their
actual individual needs.
My friends across the aisle continue to say we have not offered a
practical alternative, but that is not true. Just to remind them, some
of the alternatives we offered include equalizing the tax treatment of
health care so individuals purchasing insurance on their own are on the
same level playing field as those who have employer-provided coverage.
We would let Americans buy their health insurance coverage across State
lines, something that is now not currently permitted, which would
increase competition and increase consumer choice. So if I found a
policy I needed from Maryland or Massachusetts or anywhere else around
the country, I could buy it. So could my 26 million constituents. We
would let individuals in small businesses form risk pools in the
individual market, which is the most expensive part of the insurance
market, helping to bring costs down. We would make price and quality
information more transparent, again to increase that discipline known
as market forces, which would help improve consumer choice and, in the
process, bring down cost, while improving quality of service.
We would also expand the power of individuals to control their own
health care spending through tax-free health savings accounts, which
also have the additional benefit of providing skin in the game for
consumers. One of the reasons why our health care spending is so high
and so worrisome is that for too long our health care coverage was like
a credit card that each of us, or many of us--not all of us--85 percent
of us had in our pocket, where we could continue to charge and charge,
but we would never see the bill. Well, that is a recipe for a runaway
system, which is the reason we do need true health insurance reform.
Part of that reform would be to control frivolous malpractice
lawsuits that help drive up costs by increasing the incentives for
defensive medicine, doctors treating patients not because they think it
is called for based on clinical guidelines but, rather in their effort
to say: I have conducted every test, I have done everything possible so
I cannot get sued successfully. We would use high-risk pools to ensure
that people with preexisting conditions could get coverage. We would
give the States a lot more flexibility in how to manage Medicaid.
I read with interest that a lot of the increased coverage since
ObamaCare passed is not in the exchanges but it is Medicaid, the
Medicaid expansion. Well, in my State, Medicaid pays a doctor about 50
cents on the dollar for what private insurance pays that doctor. So
only about one-third of doctors will actually see a new Medicaid
patient, because the cost of doing so eats into their profit, and,
indeed, may make their doing so completely unprofitable and nonviable.
But we could improve Medicaid by creating more flexibility in the
States to manage that beneficiary population and to expand coverage.
[[Page S7808]]
Then we would expand provider competition and patient choice and
Medicare.
Those are nine different reform proposals we have been making since
2009 when ObamaCare was first being debated, but it is clear our
colleagues across the aisle were so concentrated on this huge takeover
of our health care system--one-sixth of our economy, in a way that we
now know is not going to work--that they weren't even listening. I hope
they will now.
While the reforms I have described enjoy broad support among
Republicans on Capitol Hill, my hope is whether you were a critic of
ObamaCare, as I was, or you were a skeptic and thought, well, maybe it
will work but I am not sure it will, or whether you were one of its
biggest cheerleaders--now that we are seeing these promises that were
made by the President and others in order to sell this to the American
people are not true, I am hopeful Democrats and Republicans can come
together to try to fix our broken health care system. After witnessing
ObamaCare's disastrous rollout and its long trail of broken promises, I
think most Americans would agree it is time for something different.
I have read that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing
over and over and expecting different results. ObamaCare is not going
to get any better by continuing to do the same thing over and over. I
hope we will learn from our mistakes, and we will work together to
improve access and the price of health care to the American people.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, the legislation that is currently pending
before this body, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, S. 815,
provides a historic opportunity for us to advance civil rights in this
country and end employment discrimination against lesbians, gays,
bisexuals, and transgenders, the LGBT community.
The United States has shown international leadership against
discrimination, promoting better understanding and tolerance around the
globe. That has made the security of countries better. It has provided
opportunities for minority communities. The United States has been in
the forefront of those efforts. We have shown leadership
internationally and we have done that because we have taken action in
our own country to protect against discrimination. Action at home helps
us provide that credibility for our international leadership. Passage
of S. 815, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, would demonstrate
that action, that we have taken the right action at home and,
therefore, we have the standing to promote better understanding
globally.
The U.S. leadership has been shown in many different ways. I am very
proud that one of the primary organizations the United States has
participated in that has advanced human rights is the Organization for
Security and Co-operation in Europe. Our local arm in participating is
the Helsinki Commission. I have the honor of chairing the Helsinki
Commission, which includes Members of both the House and the Senate,
along with members of the administration. We have used that role in the
Helsinki Commission to promote an international agenda to deal with
best practices to end discrimination on ethnic communities, religious
communities, and racial discrimination. As a result of U.S. leadership,
we have made a difference. We made a difference in Europe, we made a
difference in North America, and we made a difference around the world.
Today there are special representatives under the OSCE to promote
tolerance in regard to minority communities on race, the Muslim
community, and Jewish communities. We have made a difference in the
Roma population in Europe, which has been badly discriminated against.
We have had conferences to deal with anti-Semitism to help the Jewish
communities of Europe, and we have helped religious minorities around
the region.
U.S. leadership is needed to help the LGBT community. We have seen
countries in Europe take discriminatory actions to marginalize
lesbians, gays, and those who, because of their sexual orientation or
gender identity, have been discriminated against. In order to do that,
we need to pass the legislation before us to give us the moral ground
and to promote the core values of our country. America's core values
are based upon equal rights for all citizens, and that is what we need
to promote by the passage of this legislation.
I must tell you it also is important for economic advancements. If we
are going to be able to adequately compete globally, we need to empower
all of the people of this country. We can't leave anyone behind.
I am proud of what has happened in my own State of Maryland. Maryland
has had a proud history of advancing civil rights for all of its
citizens. Two weekends ago I had the opportunity to join in the 25th
anniversary of Equality Maryland. In 25 years, they have changed the
landscape in regard to the LGBT community in my State of Maryland. We
passed many laws that have advanced protection for all of our citizens
in our State.
The State of Maryland has passed laws. We have had local governments
pass law. Baltimore City has passed a law, Baltimore County, Montgomery
County, Howard County, and the list goes on. In Maryland, not only did
our legislature pass marriage equality, it was a petition to referendum
and the voters of Maryland approved marriage equality. We have taken
steps in our State to advance the rights of all of our citizens,
including the LGBT community.
It has been nearly half a century since we passed the Civil Rights
Act of 1964. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents discrimination in
employment based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
That has been our law for almost half a century. ENDA, the legislation
before us, would expand that to sexual orientation and gender identity.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has worked. It has worked. It has
provided enforcement mechanisms for those who have been discriminated
against in their employment because of their race or because of their
religion or because of their national origin or because of their sex.
It has worked. ENDA would expand that protection for sexual orientation
and gender identity. It is time we do this. Twenty-one States have
already acted, including my State of Maryland. We have passed laws.
Seventeen States include gender identity. Federalism has worked.
What do I mean by that? We have seen that there is a national law.
The law is the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It set up the framework so
that everyone understands we won't tolerate discrimination in the
workplace. It has had a workable way where those who are victimized can
get remedy, but the real remedy we want is equal employment opportunity
for all the citizens of this country. It has worked.
Our States have said we can go farther, we can protect the LGBT
community. They have and it has worked. Those who have said: Look, we
are going to have problems because of religious organizations or we are
going to have problems because of this group--that has not been the
case.
Federalism has demonstrated it is now time to pass a national law to
protect against those who discriminate in employment on a person's
sexual orientation or gender identity. We need a national law.
I can give you many specific examples that have been shared with us.
We could talk the numbers. We know the numbers. I want to speak about
specific cases and to mention two people.
Kimya has a master's degree in social work and nearly two decades of
experience in the field. She was the manager of a unit of a long-term
care facility for those suffering from Alzheimer's and dementia. She
enjoyed her job and was good at it but suffered through nearly a year
of threatening messages, vandalism to her car, and slurs uttered in the
halls. In 2003, she was fired, her supervisors telling her: ``This
would not be happening if you were not a lesbian.''
Next is the case of Linda. Linda is an attorney who relocated to this
region when her partner accepted a faculty position with a local
university. Linda was invited for a second interview with a local law
firm. During the interview, Linda was asked why she was moving to this
region, and she replied that her spouse had taken a position at a local
university. The law firm asked Linda
[[Page S7809]]
to come back for a final interview, which would include a dinner with
all the partners and their spouses ``to make sure we all got along.''
At that point, Linda told one of the partners at the law firm that her
spouse was a woman. Soon after, Linda was told that the firm would not
hire a lesbian and she should not bother coming in for the third
interview.
In Kimya's and Linda's cases, they live in States that do not have
protection for the LGBT community, and therefore there was no way to
address this wrong.
The legislation before us has been endorsed by the Leadership
Conference on Civil and Human Rights that represents over 200 civil
rights, religious, labor, and women's rights organizations. It has
broad support. It is supported by the American people. It is the right
thing to do. It represents our core values.
Our former colleague Senator Ted Kennedy said civil rights was the
great unfinished business of America. We are on that path. The passage
of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act would be a major step forward
to making us a more perfect union.
I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Maryland,
who has argued so well that the time has come to take a bold step in
favor of equality, in favor of fairness in passing employment
nondiscrimination. I too rise to speak to the importance of this
action.
The Declaration of Independence in its second paragraph says, in
words that are famous and well-known to all Americans:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
Certainly that vision of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is
infused into everything we pursue in this Nation in the success of
individuals, the success of our families, the success of our
communities, and the success of our Nation. The debate on which we are
about to embark is deeply connected to this issue because certainly the
ability to be free from discrimination in the pursuit of a job and to
be free from discrimination in the course of employment is central to
that pursuit of happiness. It is central to the issue of liberty.
I rise today to say how important and vital this is to millions of
Americans for whom discrimination has blocked and compromised the
vision laid out in the Declaration of Independence. This bill, this
framework for ending discrimination in employment, S. 815, is born with
a lot of bipartisan partners whom I wish to thank at this moment.
It was back in 2009, my first year in the Senate, that Senator
Kennedy and his team asked me to take the leadership of this bill that
he had held near and dear to his heart and to carry the torch forward
in fighting for fairness in employment, fighting for an end to
discrimination. Since that time, many have stepped forward to be
partners in this journey.
Senator Collins was the first chief cosponsor on the Republican side,
stepping forward and taking her voice, her energy, her experience, and
her insight in bringing that to bear. After 2 years, she passed the
baton to Senator Mark Kirk, who had been a long-time champion of the
vision of fairness and equality for all Americans. Both of them have
done an outstanding and extraordinary job in forwarding this dialogue.
On the Democratic side we have, first and foremost Senator Kennedy,
who carried the leadership for many years, including back in 1996 when
we had this on the floor of the Senate--and I will return to that in
due course. He was a champion for civil rights in many different parts
of our world, including race discrimination, gender discrimination, and
discrimination against the LGBT community.
Senator Harkin, who chairs the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee, carried this bill forward through two hearings in 2009 and
2012, and then brought it to markup this past year and is prepared to
send it to the floor. So I thank Senator Harkin for his leadership.
Senator Tammy Baldwin, who came to us with her own personal story and
her experience with leadership in the House, has extended the
conversation here in the Senate and has carried on so many individual
meetings to speak to these core issues of equality, fairness, and
opportunity.
So I thank all the bipartisan sponsors, and I thank all of those who
last night said, yes, we should debate this issue. We should debate
this issue of discrimination and blocking full opportunity for millions
of Americans. So shortly we will be engaged in that debate.
After the Declaration of Independence, we had the preamble to the
Constitution. This also is well known to Americans across our land.
We, the people of the United States, in order to form a
more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic
tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the
general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish the
Constitution of the United States of America.
So here we have this core concept of justice and the blessings of
liberty for that generation and the generations that would follow. But
what exactly is liberty? What is freedom?
President Johnson, in 1965, at a commencement address at Howard
University, said:
Freedom is the right to share, share fully and equally, in
American society--to vote, to hold a job, to enter a public
place, to go to a school. It is the right to be treated in
every part of our national life as a person equal in dignity
and promise to all others.
I think that is a pretty good description of what liberty and freedom
mean--a right to participate fully in American society in every
respect: at the voting booth, in the job place, and in the public
square, as you would choose to participate.
So the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which ends discrimination
against our LGBT community, is rooted in the best of American values.
It is rooted in the concepts of liberty and freedom in our founding
documents and in our founding vision. It is rooted in the concept of
fundamental fairness.
How unfair is it if an individual who is seeking to apply for a job
cannot have the full opportunity for that job, the full opportunity to
thrive because of discrimination? How fair is it that because of who
you are outside of the workplace you are fired from the workplace?
Let us think of the Golden Rule. We all learned this early in life--
that we should treat others according to how we would want to be
treated. And we all want to be treated with the respect and dignity
President Johnson referred to.
It is the vision of equality that was in the Declaration of
Independence, and it is the vision of opportunity that is rooted so
deeply in the American Dream--the idea that in America, if you work and
study hard, you can do just about anything. That is the vision my
father gave me when he took me to the schoolhouse doors when I was
small and said: If you go through those doors and you study hard, here
in America you can do just about anything.
But discrimination takes away from that vision of opportunity. It
says: If you study hard, here in America you can do just about
anything, unless you have a certain color of skin, unless you are a
certain gender, unless you have a certain gender identity or sexual
orientation.
We have struck down many of those barriers. We have advanced on this
vision of equality, but we have further to go. That is what this debate
is about. In 29 States, an individual can still be fired from their
job, they can still be told not to apply in the first place because of
their sexual orientation or their gender identity--in 29 States. It
should not be the case that the vision of equality and fairness and
opportunity happens to occur on one side of a State line but it is
destroyed if you cross that State line. This vision of opportunity and
fairness and equality in the Constitution and in the Declaration of
Independence didn't say the vision is only if you live in particular
States, only if you live in the 21 States that have protections for our
lesbian, gay, and bisexual community; only if you live in the 17 States
that have employment protection for our transgender community.
[[Page S7810]]
The journey of this legislation began in 1974. It was a year after
Stonewall. It was 39 years ago that Bella Abzug and Ed Koch introduced
in the House of Representatives legislation that would ban job
discrimination. It took another 19 years before such legislation was
introduced here in the Senate and where hearings were held in the Labor
and Human Resources Committee in 1994. It was 2 years later the bill
was debated here in this Chamber--right here in this very room. The
outcome was 49 for and 50 against, with Vice President Gore sitting in
the presiding chair where the Senator from Hawaii now sits.
Vice President Gore had already clarified where he stood, so we were
missing one Senator and one vote, and the result was that it took 17
years to again hold this conversation in this Chamber--17 years of
discrimination in so many States across America. It is time to end that
discrimination and enhance the vision of equality and fairness.
Today, we have a bill before us with 55 cosponsors. When we think
about that 49-50 vote 17 years ago, we might think: Well, isn't this a
done deal? There are 55 cosponsors and you only need 51 or 50 plus the
Vice President to pass a bill in the Senate. But it is not a done deal.
Because in the last decade and a half, the Senate has gone from being a
simple majority Chamber, as envisioned in the Constitution, to being a
Chamber where every action takes a supermajority vote.
We needed a supermajority of 60 to get on to the bill last night, and
everyone anticipates we will need 60 votes to get off the bill; that
is, to close debate and have a final vote. That is not the Senate of
the past 200 years, but it is the Senate of the last 10 years, where
the courtesy of extended debate has been turned into the veto of a
supermajority. That is where we stand right now. Therefore, we need 60
votes.
We had 61 votes last night to get onto this debate, and I thank every
one of those 61 Senators who stood up and said: Yes, after 17 years it
is time to debate this issue; yes, it is right to consider the core
issue of fairness to millions of Americans; yes, it is right to
recognize that we should have a debate about the impact of
discrimination on the ability of the individual to have full
opportunity in our Nation.
Have no doubt. Discrimination is alive and well. I will share with
you the story of Laura from Portland, OR, before Oregon had
nondiscrimination clauses, which we adopted in 2007. Laura wrote that
from 1980 to 1996 she worked for the Josephine County Sheriff's Office
in Grants Pass, OR. She had the rank of sergeant. She was promoted
often. She worked in a variety of capacities, including as a SWAT team
commander, as a detective of the major crimes unit, and in the
narcotics task force. During her 16 years, she says: I received
numerous commendations, including commendations for removing an
automobile accident victim from a burning vehicle, delivering a baby
alongside a roadside, and disarming an armed man intent on harming
himself. She was awarded for her expertise and diligence shown in a
number of complicated criminal cases. She was named Deputy of the Year
in 1994. She taught law enforcement classes at Rogue Community College
and at the Oregon Police Academy. She had a distinguished employment
record.
On Labor Day 1995, Laura was in a remote area when a police dog
attacked her and did some damage to her leg and she was put on
administrative leave. During the month that followed, her storage unit
was broken into. Out of that break-in of her storage unit came
information she was a transgender individual, and because of that she
was fired. She had a stellar career in every aspect, but a break-in
into her storage unit, plus discrimination, ended that career.
She ends her commentary by saying: Had employment nondiscrimination
laws been in effect, I likely would have continued serving the citizens
of Josephine County to this day.
We know from her employment record she would have served well. But
that was before Oregon adopted antidiscrimination legislation.
Many people have written to share their stories. Terri from Aloha
wrote:
Thank you for continuing the fight against discrimination.
I am retired now, but I did lose a job when I was young, for
being a lesbian. Until later in life, I stayed deep in the
closet after that to keep from losing another job. All of the
non-discrimination bills help us define who we are as a
people and underscores our belief in life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness for every American.
By one survey, far more than a third of LGBT individuals have
experienced some form of harassment or discrimination in the workplace.
That has a tremendous impact on the pursuit of happiness. That is a
tremendous shrinking of freedom and liberty as envisioned in our
founding documents, our vision for this Nation.
There are a number of issues which have been raised as colleagues
have talked about this bill before it comes to the floor, and I wish to
address some of them.
First, this bill is fully inclusive. It includes the lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender community. It should be fully inclusive
because discrimination is wrong. Discrimination shrinks opportunity.
Discrimination is an offense against liberty and freedom in our Nation
and full participation in society. So of course this bill should be
fully inclusive, as it is in 17 of the 21 States that have laws on
their books right now.
A second issue has been concern about lawsuits. We heard this
yesterday from the Speaker of the House. But we have all of these
pilots, if you will, with 21 States with measures on the books with all
kinds of experience. So I asked the General Accounting Office to do an
updated study on the issue of lawsuits, and what did we find? There has
been no abuse. There has been no extraordinary stream of unfounded
lawsuits against businesses, no damage to business, none at all.
In Oregon, LGBT discrimination claims are less than 2 percent of the
total number of employment discrimination claims. That is less than 1
out of 50. In other States it has ranged from 2 to 6 percent. That is a
small number, and that is why the business community has remained so
supportive. In fact, close to 90 percent of the Fortune 500 companies
have nondiscrimination practices they have adopted on their own. They
have adopted them because it is good business.
Nike, in my home State of Oregon, says that ``ENDA is good for
business, for our employees, and for our communities.''
The Nike statement continues: Inclusive, nondiscrimination policies
``enable us to attract and retain the best and brightest people around
the world.''
That is why Fortune 500 companies have lined up to adopt
nondiscrimination provisions--because what is good for liberty and what
is good for opportunity is good for business. And the GAO study shows
that any claim that there has been a problem with excessive lawsuits is
simply false.
A third concern is about the religious exemption. The religious
exemption in this bill is deeply founded on title VII of the Civil
Rights Act, so there is a whole history of interpretation and
understanding exactly where the boundaries are. This is the same
religious exemption that was voted in favor of in the U.S. House of
Representatives by a measure of 420 to 25. Mr. President, 420 to 25
said this is the right foundation to make sure we create the balance
for religious organizations.
There are others who are concerned that, simply, the American people
are not ready for this discussion--despite the fact that it has been
adopted in 21 States, despite the fact that we have had many related
issues before the American public up for discussion, including hate
crimes. We have the Matthew Shepard hate crimes act; we had don't ask,
don't tell; we had a Supreme Court discussion about marriage equality.
Certainly Americans are well familiar with this. In fact, 80 percent of
Americans think we have already done this.
I was explaining to my daughter Brynne about this bill, this fight
against discrimination and its terrible impacts on liberty, freedom,
and opportunity.
She said: But, Dad, people can't fire others because they are lesbian
or gay, right? That is not possible.
I said: Sweetie, it was possible right here in Oregon until a couple
years ago when in 2007 we adopted nondiscrimination policies and
nondiscrimination statutes for our State.
She just shook her head.
It took me back to when I was in high school and I was hearing about
[[Page S7811]]
Jim Crow and discrimination against those with dark skin instead of
lighter skin, and I thought that is not possible, not under our vision
of opportunity and equality in our Constitution and our pursuit of
happiness. It is not possible.
But it was possible, and it was very real well after I was born. But
we ended that discrimination, and it is time to end this
discrimination.
This is about the individual, but it is about our Nation as well. It
is certainly about the vision of the Declaration of Independence, which
has the promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the
founding motivation. It certainly is about our Constitution, which says
that the core purpose is to secure the blessings of liberty because
certainly you do not have liberty if you do not have the full
opportunity to participate in the workplace across America.
Senator Ted Kennedy carried this battle until days before his death.
The quote I am about to share is from August 5, 2009. He died just 20
days later. This may well have been one of his last public comments and
introducing the 2009 bill may well have been one of his last
legislative acts. He said:
The promise of America will never be fulfilled as long as
justice is denied to even one among us.
I urge my colleagues, take a stand for equality. Take a stand for
fundamental fairness. Take a stand for the vision of the pursuit of
happiness embedded in our Constitution. Take a stand for justice for
all. Support this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. the Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
ObamaCare
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, among the many promises the President made
when he and congressional Democrats enacted their unpopular health care
law nearly 4 years ago--which, by the way, was enacted without any
bipartisan input or support--there is one thing in particular Americans
definitely have not forgotten. It was the promise President Obama
repeated over and over again to the American people at rally after
rally. You can't turn on the TV or radio or pick up a newspaper these
days without this promise the President made so definitively being
played over and over again because it was so ingrained in the thoughts
of the American people:
If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep
your health care plan, period.
By saying ``period'' behind it, it is like he puts a stamp on it:
That is it. No disagreement.
If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep
it. Period.
Well, here are the facts. The ObamaCare online marketplace has been
in place for 1 month and a couple of days. Already, at least 3.5
million Americans have received cancellation notices from their
insurance companies. Lord knows how many more letters are in the mail
or will be in the mail, arriving in Americans' mailboxes in the coming
weeks and months ahead. So when the President says: If you like your
health care plan, you can keep it--already 3.5 million Americans have
been told: No, actually you can't keep your health care plan.
Thousands of Hoosiers are receiving those letters, and many more will
receive them as well.
Rebecca from Muncie received a letter saying that her individual
health care plan will be canceled. She also learned that the premiums
in the government-approved plans are double and triple what she is
paying now. Do you remember when the administration said ``This won't
cost one penny more''?
Dwight from Indianapolis wrote to me and shared a similar story.
Dwight also received notice in the mail that his health care plan is
being terminated. When he started looking for an alternative
government-approved plan he experienced sticker shock: dramatic
increases in the premiums he would have to pay for having to buy an
ObamaCare plan now that his plan has been terminated.
That sticker shock was felt by Garth in Marion, IN, as well. Garth
told me his family's health insurance costs will be more than three
times as much under ObamaCare as they are paying now.
Rebecca, Dwight, Garth, and tens of thousands of other Hoosiers now
have found out that the promise the President made is a broken promise.
But despite the repeated promise by the President for several years
to the American people--that you can keep your health care plan if you
like it, period--we have now learned the administration knew all along
this wasn't true. For at least the past 3 years the administration has
known that millions of Americans would receive cancellation notices and
lose their current health care coverage. Yet the President has
continued to package this flawed product with false advertising and
apparently deliberate dishonesty to sell it to the American people. We
wonder why Americans are losing confidence in their government? We
wonder why there is such an alarming trust deficit in the country
today?
As Washington Post writer Chris Cillizza wrote recently, ``When
you're the President, words matter.''
Mr. President, words matter. Your words were: If you like your health
care plan, you can keep it, period. Mr. President, that was a false
promise, and it has undermined the confidence and trust of the American
people in this President and in this government.
The fact is that you can only keep your health care plan if the Obama
administration likes that plan, and apparently there are millions of
plans already that they don't like. The ones they do like are their own
creation, with multiple doubles and triples of premium costs.
In 2009 the President also said:
We will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you'll
be able to keep your doctor, period.
The President keeps enunciating his promises with a period. That
means that is it, final, nothing else to say about it. The fact is that
under ObamaCare many individuals are not going to have access to the
doctors they have trusted for years. If the White House had been honest
with Americans, would the administration have promised people could
keep doctors they like?
Many individuals and families are seeing higher premiums, higher
copays, and higher deductibles under ObamaCare. If the White House had
been honest with Americans, would it have told the public the health
care law would save families up to $2,500? We haven't seen any of those
stories yet.
What is the President's response to all of this and to the millions
of Americans who have had their insurance coverage canceled? He says:
Just shop around.
Well, first of all, maybe the President has forgotten that Americans
can't even shop around because his Web site doesn't work. Maybe the
President hasn't tried shopping around himself because he and his
political appointees are not required to join ObamaCare. That is right.
Everybody else is forced into ObamaCare but not the President nor his
appointees and his team. They think it is good enough for the American
people, but they are not going to be forced to join it as the rest of
us are--including Members of Congress. Congress and the administration
should be forced to join ObamaCare because if we are going to impose
this on the American people, it needs to be imposed on us so that we
feel the pain just as they are feeling the pain. But the President? He
exempted himself. The President's appointees? Exempted. What kind of
leadership is that?
Individuals and families who have been able to shop around are
finding that many of the Obama-approved health care policies are going
to cost them more money, not less. Middle-class families are getting
hit with massive premium increases and outrageous deductibles.
Remember, the point of health care reform was to lower the cost of
health care and increase access, but we are seeing just the opposite of
what the President promised. I think it is now clear that if the White
House had been honest with the American people, this law would never
have been passed in the first place.
It was Abraham Lincoln who said:
If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens,
you can never regain their respect and esteem. It is true
that you may fool all of the people some of the time; you can
even fool some of the people all of the
[[Page S7812]]
time; but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
Unfortunately, today many Americans believe they have been fooled by
a series of promises by this administration and its supporters that
were simply not true. Given the many problems and broken promises with
ObamaCare, given the law's negative impact on American families, the
sensible course of action at this time is to take a time-out from
implementation of this law. Recent polling shows that nearly three in
four American voters now support delaying ObamaCare's individual
mandate. In September I introduced a bill to delay that mandate for 1
year. The House has already passed similar legislation offered by my
Indiana colleague, Todd Young, to delay both the employer--and the
individual--mandate. By the way, 22 House Democrats supported it.
The first step we should take today is to pass this legislation to
delay the ObamaCare mandates and put people over politics. There is a
lot of work ahead to deliver real health care reform. We need to bring
down the cost of health care, not raise it. We need to put patients in
control of their health care decisions, not Washington bureaucrats. We
need to increase competition, reform medical malpractice, allow people
to buy insurance across State lines, create risk pools, and a number of
other initiatives that have been put forward that would make it an
affordable health care reform and not the unaffordable, overpromised
and under-delivered health care plan that the American people got from
this administration.
Delaying the individual mandate will give the American people an
opportunity to voice their displeasure over this false information by
the President and the chance to start over with a real, honest approach
to health care reform. It is time to start now.
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. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask consent to speak for up to 15
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, recently, President Obama made the comment
that ObamaCare is not just a web site, it is much more. I could not
agree more with that statement. His health care law is also a list of
broken promises that harm middle-class Americans. While he was trying
to sell ObamaCare to the American people, President Obama repeatedly
stated that ``if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep
your health care plan, period.''
He did not say that if you like your health care plan, you can keep
your health care plan unless your health care plan changes or if you
like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan unless
your health care plan gets canceled. He didn't say that you can only
keep your health care plan if the White House likes your health care
plan. He said, ``If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to
keep your health care plan, period.''
It is pretty emphatic, I would argue, when the President of the
United States says something such as that. Yet just 1 month after the
ObamaCare exchange rollout, at least 3.5 million Americans have
received insurance cancellation notices, according to the Associated
Press. That number just reflects the number of dropped plans in about
25 States. There are about 25 other States that have not reported their
numbers yet.
A report by the American Action Forum cites that this number is
expected to dramatically increase in the coming months. On Sunday,
former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs conceded that it was
certainly wrong for the President to claim that ``if you like your
plan, you can keep it.''
The Washington Post fact checker even gave the President four
Pinocchios for his oft-repeated pledge that no one will ever take away
your health care plan. We are now learning it is actually only if the
White House likes your plan that you are going to be able to keep your
plan.
We are also learning the White House knew people would be losing
their coverage. After ObamaCare was signed into law, the President's
administration released regulations that would invalidate grandfathered
health care plans if they made routine changes. This information was
buried in 2010 regulation and, despite the fact that the administration
had posted this regulation, the President continued to state, ``If you
like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care
plan.''
At the time this regulation was released, the administration issued
estimates stating that 40 to 67 percent of Americans who purchased
insurance in the individual market would lose their coverage. The
administration also stated in that regulation that by the year 2013, 39
to 69 percent of businesses, large and small, would lose their
grandfathered plans.
What the President blatantly left out of his promise was the caveat
that if the Federal Government approves of your health care plan, then
you can keep it--not if you like it you can keep it, but if the Federal
Government likes it, then you can keep it. But what we are finding is
the opposite is true. It is a completely broken promise--completely.
What makes this issue even more startling is that in 2010 Senate
Democrats voted along party lines to reaffirm that those Americans who
like their plan can only keep it if it receives a government seal of
approval.
In September of 2010, Senator Mike Enzi from Wyoming proposed a
resolution to block the way the administration was planning to handle
plan cancellations. On a party-line vote, Democrats killed the
resolution, effectively endorsing the administration's proposal to
cancel plans individuals have and like. After breaking his oft-repeated
promise, the President is now telling millions of Americans who had
their insurance canceled that they should just shop around for policies
that can be more costly on a Web site that does not function.
It is clear the administration has mislead Americans with their
promises. Jerry Buckley of Marion, AR, says he did not pay attention to
any of that because the President kept telling you this will not affect
you if you like what you have. Despite being assured he could keep his
plan, Mr. Buckley received a letter from Arkansas Blue Cross Blue
Shield saying his policy did not comply with the new regulations under
ObamaCare. A comparable plan has a higher premium, higher out-of-pocket
costs, and less coverage.
As the leader of our country, the President's words matter. He needs
to be held accountable for these millions of insurance plans he
promised the American people they could keep. Simply having
administration officials apologize for a broken Web site is not a
solution. The issues run much deeper than anything any IT expert can
fix. This is fundamentally about the flaws in this law. That is why the
cancellation notices continue to go out despite the President's
assertions and promises that if you like your plan, you can keep it.
In addition to the cancellation notices, consumers are experiencing
sticker shock when they see what plans are available to them this next
year. Forbes reports that premiums in 41 States are going to increase
under ObamaCare. My home State of South Dakota ranks seventh on that
list, with premiums rising 77 percent, on average. In four States,
insurance premiums are expected to rise over 100 percent. A Washington
Post headline from the weekend reads:
For consumers whose health premiums will go up under the
new law, sticker shock leads to anger.
The article cites an anecdote by an area lawyer, Deborah Persico. Ms.
Persico recently found out her insurance is being canceled due to
ObamaCare. Under a comparable plan with the new law, her premium is
going to increase by 55 percent and her deductible will double. She
expects this new plan will cost her at least $5,000 a year more than
she pays under her current plan.
There are millions of middle-class Americans just like Deborah whose
health care costs are skyrocketing under ObamaCare. The rising premiums
are affecting both Americans
[[Page S7813]]
who buy their insurance in the individual market and those who have
employer-provided health care as well. In an effort to avoid these
higher costs, small businesses are renewing their plans early to avoid
requirements imposed by ObamaCare. Insurance brokers told USA Today
that 60 to 80 percent of small businesses with less than 50 employees
are scrambling to renew their policies before the year's end to avoid
paying the ObamaCare prices for 1 more year.
With our still sluggish economy and unacceptably high unemployment
rate, Americans cannot afford ObamaCare. This catastrophic law is
leading to canceled policies, higher costs, and less coverage.
Senate Republicans want to hear your stories. If you had a plan of
your choice canceled, visit Republicans
.senate.gov/yourstory.
It is now evident that after supporting the rule that led to
insurance cancellations, nervous Democrats are beginning to recommend a
delay in the individual mandate. It is clear that even those who
supported this law in 2009 and 2010 are having second thoughts, but
second thoughts are not enough. We need to work together to repeal this
law and replace it with policies that actually lower the cost of care
and allow individuals to keep the plans and the doctors they like.
Republicans will continue to fight to protect as many Americans as
possible from this train wreck, and we hope the Democrats in the Senate
will work with us.
Over the weekend we saw more examples, including a story in the Wall
Street Journal from yesterday, about a lady who lost her coverage and
can't use her doctors. She is a stage 4 cancer survivor, and she has
used health care facilities in her own State of California that have
done wonderful things for her in treating her illness. Yet under the
ObamaCare policies that are currently in place, she is losing that
coverage and losing access to her doctor.
The promise that ``you can keep your plan if you like it'' and the
promise that ``you can keep your doctor if you like your doctor'' are
broken promises that cannot be fulfilled. The President of the United
States, over and over, said, ``If you like your health care plan, you
can keep it.'' We know that is not true, and we know it is never going
to be true. We know now, going back to 2010, they knew it wasn't going
to be true. They were predicting that there were going to be
cancellations and sticker shock. Yet never once did the President
modify his statement. He consistently said, ``If you like your health
care plan today, you can keep it, period''--completely misleading.
Millions of Americans who have received cancellation notices and who
are seeing skyrocketing premiums are in peril in their ability to cover
themselves and their family.
There is a better way. There was a better way back then and there is
a better way today of bringing down health care costs and making it
more affordable for more Americans, allowing them to have access to the
health care plan they like and the doctor they choose. Yet if we stay
on this current path, we are headed for a train wreck. We have time to
turn the train around before this is fully implemented, and I hope to
find bipartisan cooperation because health care is an important issue
to millions of Americans. It is a pocketbook issue that affects so many
families across this country, and their ability to provide affordable
coverage for themselves and their families is an economic issue and
something everybody talks about at the kitchen table.
We can come up with a better solution. We should come up with a
better solution. If we don't, not only will we see millions of
Americans with canceled coverage and millions of Americans with
dramatic increases in the amount they are paying for health insurance
coverage today, we will also see the impact this will have on jobs as
more and more employers find it more difficult to retain their
employees and hire more workers. The chronically high unemployment rate
we see today, as well as the historically low labor participation rate,
the reduced take-home pay we have seen for middle-class Americans,
those will become a permanent state for the American people. I think
the American people want to see us work on policies that will improve
their standard of living, improve their quality of life, get more
Americans back to work, and increase take-home pay for middle-class
Americans.
This policy takes us backward. This policy takes us down a track that
leads to broken promises and unfulfilled expectations for the American
people. It is high time we change that. We can do that. I hope we will
find the bipartisan cooperation here and hopefully the engagement of
the President of the United States who, after all, made the promise
that ``if you like your plan, you can keep it, period,'' repeatedly,
over and over--a broken promise. It is not too late to do the right
thing. I hope we will be able to find the bipartisan cooperation to do
that.
I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the
Senate as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Honoring Senior Pastor Jasper W. Williams, Jr.
Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, we get to do a lot as Members of the
Senate on the floor of this great body. We make great speeches and we
have great debates. Periodically, from time to time, we pay tribute to
someone in our State who has done great work for many people. I take
this opportunity to do exactly that on the floor of the Senate.
This Sunday night, at 5 p.m., at the Salem Baptist Church in Atlanta,
GA, the Reverend Jasper W. Williams will be honored for his 50th year
of continued service at the Salem Baptist Church. I have been
privileged to know Jasper for 20 of those 50 years. I have been a
member of that church and I heard his sermons. I have heard him preach
the Gospel. I have seen him teach others and I have seen him save
people's lives. I have heard and I have seen him reach out into the
community to bring children together for daycare, to watch him help to
mend the sick and the poor, and doing everything that is expected of a
church and doing so without any expectation of benefit to himself,
except for the self-satisfaction of serving the Lord and serving his
church.
He has a great church at Salem Baptist. They have two sites, as a
matter of fact, and two large congregations.
He succeeded his father as a minister and learned the ministry from
his father. He went to Salem Baptist Church to preach as a guest on
Easter Sunday in 1963. And in November of that year, at the age of 19,
that church offered Jasper the pastorship of Salem Baptist, and he has
been there every day since.
His two sons also preach in the Salem Baptist Church community to
carry on the tradition of the Jasper Williams family.
He is a graduate of Morehouse College, the leading Black institution
in Atlanta at the Atlanta University complex. He is a great citizen of
our city, a great citizen of our State, and a great citizen of our
country.
So I take a privilege at this time on the floor of the U.S. Senate to
pay tribute to my friend, Jasper W. Williams, Jr., to thank him and to
thank the Lord for his service to the people of Atlanta, GA, and to the
Baptist Church.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I ask to be recognized to speak on
behalf of the passage of ENDA.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I rise today in support of equal
treatment for all Americans. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or
ENDA, is aimed at protecting all lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender
[[Page S7814]]
Americans from workplace discrimination based on their sexual
orientation or gender identity. All Americans deserve to be free from
discrimination in the workplace, and ENDA is a crucial step to ensuring
equal treatment.
I have been a cosponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act
every time it was introduced in Congress since the bill was first
drafted in 1994. Two years later, in 1996, I was one of only 67 Members
of the House of Representatives to vote against the Defense of Marriage
Act. That seems like ancient history now--so long ago.
I am proud to say that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act has its
roots in my home State of Massachusetts. Back in 1994, it was
originally written by two titans of Massachusetts politics: Congressman
Gerry Studds in the House of Representatives and Senator Ted Kennedy
here in the U.S. Senate. We are coming up now close to 20 years since
those bills were introduced first in the House and in the Senate.
While neither of these visionary leaders is with us today, their
tireless work for equality lives on. They helped pave the way for this
debate by challenging the pervasive view that LGBT people do not need
or deserve the same legal rights and protections as everyone else.
We began debating this actually in the Massachusetts State
legislature in the mid-1970s. In Massachusetts, in the 1970s, a law
like this could not pass. But in 1989 Massachusetts became the second
State in the Nation to adopt a law prohibiting discrimination based on
sexual orientation in employment, public accommodation, housing, and
credit services.
In 2004 Massachusetts became the first State in the Nation to extend
marriage equality to same-sex couples. Massachusetts is again paving
the way with the passage of one of the first transgender equal rights
laws in the Nation.
The people of Massachusetts know that when some of our citizens are
being discriminated against, the liberty of all people is diminished.
From schoolrooms to boardrooms, members of the Massachusetts LGBT
community have made stunning progress toward full legal equality.
Simply put, equality works in Massachusetts, and it works for
Massachusetts. By ensuring that LGBT individuals have the same
employment protections as everyone else, we have made the light of
liberty in our State burn even more brightly.
The same basic civil rights protections that have been extended to
LGBT residents of Massachusetts should be extended to LGBT people
across the entire Nation.
For the last two decades, the people of Massachusetts have supported
a national employment nondiscrimination law because we cannot allow our
Nation to have one standard in States that pass laws that protect
people from discrimination and have other States that do not. We cannot
have the careers of people, the dreams of people, to be in fear of
prosecution as people move from State to State. There should be a
national standard which we establish--a standard that ensures that
every person knows that wherever they are in the United States of
America, they are going to be protected, that they were created by God,
and they have a right to these protections in every State in our
country.
Today the number of States that have adopted their own
antidiscrimination laws is basically increasing. I applaud the progress
that has been made to advance the cause of equality on the State level.
However, 29 States still do not have these critical protections in
place. That is 29 States too many that still refuse to provide those
protections.
In the end, it comes down to this: We should treat others as we would
like to be treated ourselves. The LGBT community is made up of our
friends, our neighbors, our coworkers, and our families. We all deserve
the same rights regardless of who we are, regardless of where we live
in our great Nation. That is what is truly exceptional about America.
Despite our challenges, we remain the brightest beacon of freedom,
opportunity, and equality in the world.
I have a great deal of pride in our Nation and our people. I truly
believe that despite our differences, we can come together with one
voice to say that discrimination is wrong. So let's here, this week,
all stand together for a future without discrimination in the
workplace. It will make America more productive. It will make us more
wealthy but, most importantly, it will ensure that we have removed that
stigma of discrimination that puts fear into the hearts of American
citizens unnecessarily. This is a huge, historic week that we are about
to see unfold in our Nation's capital. I pray we can pass this bill and
send it over to the House of Representatives so we can have this full
debate in our Nation for equality for every person who lives within our
boundaries.
I yield the floor.
____________________