[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.

                          ____________________