[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 174 (Tuesday, December 10, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8587-S8594]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF MELVIN L. WATT TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL HOUSING
FINANCE AGENCY--Continued
Mr. REID. On the matter now before the Senate, how much of the time
that remains is controlled by the Democrats?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 147 minutes.
Mr. REID. That is a little over 2 hours. How much time for the
Republicans? The same?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 130 minutes for the Republicans.
Mr. REID. Oh, I see. Why don't we yield back 130 minutes of our time.
That would leave us 14 minutes or something like that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seventeen minutes.
Mr. REID. That is far too much time. I yield back another 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader's time is now set to 7
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
Health Care
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, 4 years ago Members of both parties came
to this Senate floor virtually every day to discuss the problems with
America's health care system and offered suggestions for how we could
remedy that.
I distinctly remember being here on Christmas Eve, 2009, at 7 in the
morning and witnessing a party-line vote on ObamaCare. All of our
Democratic friends voted for it, and all Republicans voted against it.
I guess the most charitable thing I can say is that our Democratic
friends actually thought it would work while Republicans were skeptics
about this big government takeover of one-sixth of our national
economy.
Well, 4 years later the cost of ObamaCare has become abundantly
clear. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that ObamaCare is the
biggest case of consumer fraud ever perpetrated in this country. A law
that
[[Page S8588]]
was supposed to expand coverage to those without it has instead caused
millions of people with coverage to lose their coverage. A law that was
supposed to improve patient access has instead resulted in smaller
provider networks where people are restricted in terms of the doctors
and hospitals they can see, making it much more likely that people will
not be able to keep their doctors, should they want them. A law that
was supposed to bend the cost curve down has instead caused individual
and family premiums to skyrocket.
We have heard story after story that even if the premiums are lower,
people, due to copays and deductibles, are finding themselves with
thousands and thousands of dollars of deductibles they didn't
previously have, meaning it is more money out of their pocket before
the insurance actually kicks in.
We were told this was supposed to make Medicaid the safety net
program for the most economically disadvantaged among us.
We were told that Medicare for seniors was supposed to make them
stronger. Instead it has made them weaker.
A law that was supposed to help our economy has instead hurt our
economy by discouraging full-time job creation, because if you have a
full-time job your employer has to pay for the full ObamaCare pricetag.
Due to ObamaCare businesses have been moving people from full-time work
to part-time work.
A number of labor organization leaders went to the White House a few
months ago and called the implementation of ObamaCare a nightmare. They
said it made full-time work part-time work. It is worse than that.
ObamaCare has hampered medical innovation by taxing the very people
who build medical devices here in America and is causing them to move
those businesses offshore or simply cut down their hiring. It has
placed costly new burdens on small businesses, the entities which
produce as much as 70 percent of the new jobs in America. It is not the
Fortune 500 companies that create the vast majority of jobs in America,
it is the small mom-and-pop operations, the entrepreneurs who create
those jobs, and that is who ObamaCare hits the hardest.
It is no wonder our economy continues to struggle. It is no wonder
the labor participation rate--the number of people who are actually in
the workforce--is at a 35-year low. People have given up looking for
work, and that is an American tragedy.
As I stand here today, the broken promises of ObamaCare are causing
enormous distress and financial hardship for people all across my State
of Texas and all across America. It is undeniable that millions of
Americans have lost their insurance because of ObamaCare despite
President Obama's almost daily recitation that if you like what you
have, you can keep it. He was making that promise as late as 2012, and
we knew it wasn't true. We knew it was not true--and he knew it wasn't
true--as early as 2010 when we debated some restrictive grandfather
regulations from the Department of Health and Human Services.
Senator Enzi, who was the ranking member of the Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions Committee, tried to get it fixed, and again we saw a
party-line vote. All of our Democratic friends said, no, let's not
provide flexibility for the grandfather provisions. Let's maintain the
rigid grandfather provisions which have now resulted in more than 5
million people getting notices telling them that even though they like
the policies they have, they can no longer keep them. That is why I
have said this is one of the biggest cases of consumer fraud ever
perpetrated in the United States by virtue of its scope and the
audacity with which these promises were made time and time again, which
are demonstrably not true. They are false.
We know ObamaCare is leading to a dramatic spike in insurance
premiums for many people who buy their insurance in the individual
market. My colleagues will recall that during and after the 2008
Presidential election, President Obama repeatedly told Americans his
health care plan would reduce their health care premiums for a family
of four by about $2,500. I don't know where he came up with that
number, but it turned out to be just another broken promise.
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, annual premiums for
employer-based family health insurance increased by nearly $3,000
between 2009 and 2013. In other words, the President was $5,500 wrong.
Rather than going down $2,500, they went up $3,000. For that matter, a
recent study by the Manhattan Institute estimated that ObamaCare will
drive up individual premiums by an average of 41 percent.
I don't know many hardworking American families who can afford a 41-
percent increase in their health care costs as a result of a law
promising that health care would be more affordable. The single biggest
increase, according to this study, will be in the majority leader's
home State of Nevada where individual premiums are projected to rise by
an astounding 179 percent. The increases in New Mexico, Arkansas, and
North Carolina are 142 percent--that would be New Mexico; 138 percent,
that would be Arkansas; and 136 percent in North Carolina. What do each
of these States have in common? They are represented by Senators who
voted for this bill, perhaps believing what the President said would be
true, but their constituents are having to pay the price.
Such premium increases are particularly burdensome for senior
citizens and other folks on a fixed income. For example, recently in
Copper Canyon, TX, one of my constituents wrote to me and said that
because of ObamaCare, her monthly premiums were increasing by $200,
which is only $27 less than her monthly Social Security income. In
other words, it takes up almost the entire amount of her Social
Security check for her to purchase this insurance. That is wrong.
In addition to premium hikes, many Americans entering the ObamaCare
exchanges are facing higher deductibles. I mentioned that a moment ago.
In a front-page story just yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, it was
reported that many ObamaCare deductibles are so high that people with
modest incomes may not be able to afford the portion of medical
expenses that insurance doesn't cover. What is that all about? In fact,
according to one study, the average deductible for the cheapest
individual coverage on the Federal ObamaCare exchange is 42 percent
higher than the average deductible for individual health insurance
earlier this year, before most of ObamaCare kicked in--a 42-percent
higher deductible. As we know, many of these deductibles we are hearing
are in the $4,000 and $5,000 range for individuals and they are up to
$10,000 or more for married couples. I don't know many households in
Texas or across America that can absorb $10,000 in a deductible for
their health insurance policy. Certainly that doesn't strike me as a
success if the purpose is to cover health care costs and to prevent
people from suffering economic hardship as a result. That strikes me as
an epic failure. In other words, ObamaCare is making it significantly
harder for many Americans to pay their bills, to buy groceries, and
take care of their families.
Again, as I have said many times before, it didn't have to be this
way. It didn't have to be this way. In 2009, polls demonstrated that
the overwhelming majority of Americans who had health insurance liked
what they had, and they were broadly satisfied with it. I assume that
is why the President said: If you like what you have, you can keep it,
because about 90 percent of the respondents said: We like what we have.
So if you are the President trying to sell this so-called Affordable
Care Act, you wouldn't want to scare that 90 percent of people into
thinking they can't keep what they have even though they like it. So
you misrepresent what you are selling. You tell people you can keep
what you have and your premiums are going to go down and it is all
going to be all right.
If we had focused on those people who either did not have coverage or
who had inadequate coverage--obviously a smaller subset of Americans
than the whole country--if we focused on them and dealt with their
challenges in purchasing health insurance, we could have done much
better. There were millions more who had low-quality Medicaid coverage
that many doctors refused to accept because, in my State, Medicaid pays
a doctor about 50 cents on the dollar compared to private insurance.
Many doctors said: Look. I
[[Page S8589]]
want to see more Medicaid patients, but I simply can't afford to do it.
I have to opt for higher paying private insurance patients. We know
Medicare was facing a fast approaching bankruptcy date. What Congress
could have done--what we should have done--is to enact sensible,
narrowly drawn, targeted reforms, No. 1, aimed at improving the
coverage options for each of these groups and strengthening and
preserving Medicare and Medicaid. We needed to bring down the costs,
not jack up the costs.
If we ask most people the biggest problem they have with their health
insurance, they say it costs too much, and we have made it worse. It is
worse, not better. To bring down the costs, we could have allowed
people to buy health insurance across State lines. I know that doesn't
sound like a panacea, but most States have captive insurance markets
and many State legislatures, including the Texas legislature, have
mandated coverage that many people simply don't want, but it adds to
the cost of their health insurance. So I could have the choice to buy
insurance across State lines if we enacted this reform. If I liked the
insurance coverage of Wisconsin or Louisiana or somewhere else, and if
that suited my needs, I could buy it there and we would have a true
competitive market and people would compete based on quality and price,
but we don't have that now.
What else could we have done? We could have expanded the use of tax-
free health savings accounts paired with high deductible plans, such as
the kind I talked to a number of my constituents in Austin, TX, about
who are employed at Whole Foods. They cover roughly 80 percent of the
out-of-pocket costs for health insurance through health savings
accounts and high deductible insurance, and the employees--I think it
is still the case; it was then--still vote on an annual basis for what
kind of coverage they want. They vote for this type of coverage because
they are satisfied with it and it gives them a sense of ownership,
which is actually true, because the money put in a health savings
account they get to keep and if they don't use it on their health care,
then they get to save it, the same as with an IRA or something such as
that. But it also changes the calculation. It makes people much smarter
shoppers and it moves us further along to a system where people can
shop for their health insurance and their health services as they do
with everything else and it will bring down costs and it will improve
quality of service as a result of competition for that business.
We could have cracked down on frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits
which cause defensive medicine. Just think about it. If a doctor is
worried about losing everything they have worked a lifetime to achieve
in terms of assets and their medical practice, the last thing they want
to do is be subjected to a lottery-type lawsuit. So the easiest thing
for those doctors to do--I know they don't do it on purpose--is make
the decision to provide a test or a treatment based not so much on a
patient's clinical situation but based on their desire to not be sued
and to not be second-guessed 2 years later when somebody comes in and
says you should have done this or that. So the temptation is to do
everything and to run up the cost of health care coverage.
These are just a few examples. But by lowering costs across the
board, these reforms--which I talked about and which the President and
his political party rejected--could have helped people who already had
coverage and we could have helped those who previously could not have
afforded coverage. Some people--if I have heard it one time, I have
heard it a thousand times--said we need ObamaCare because people with
preexisting conditions couldn't get coverage. That is a serious
concern. But we already have in place high-risk pools in the States,
and if we needed to help those States provide coverage to people with
those high-risk health conditions, we could have done it a whole lot
cheaper and a whole lot more efficiently than creating this huge
monstrosity, this huge bureaucracy, this huge expense known as
ObamaCare.
We could have increased funding to the high-risk pools that were
already operating in about three dozen States. The irony is that the
people in the high-risk pool in Texas got a letter that said their
coverage has been canceled effective December 31--the very people
ObamaCare was supposed to help--your coverage is canceled because
ObamaCare kicks in January 1. But because people were worried about
their ability to get on the exchanges due to the Web site problems, the
Texas legislature and the Texas Department of Insurance decided to
extend the coverage of the high-risk health insurance pools in Texas so
people wouldn't fall through the cracks because of this train wreck of
a rollout of ObamaCare.
How about Medicaid. We hear a lot of discussion about Medicaid. I
have already mentioned that Medicaid only reimburses doctors about half
what a private insurance policy would, so a lot of doctors simply can't
afford to see a new Medicaid patient. In Texas, only one doctor out of
three will see a new Medicaid patient for that reason. It is not
because they don't want to; it is simply because they can't afford to
do so. We could have made it a lot easier for States to bolster their
Medicaid Program and deliver targeted policies that would allow them to
manage Medicaid populations, for example; create a medical home, for
example. But because of the redtape Washington refused to cut, Medicaid
ends up in many instances being an appearance of coverage, but people
can't find a doctor who will see them. What good is that? That is, to
me, a sleight of hand and part of the reason I call this one of the
biggest cases of consumer fraud in American history.
To help Medicare patients--who are, of course, our seniors--we could
have increased private competition and patient choice by embracing the
premium support model that was endorsed by 10 members of President
Clinton's Medicare Commission back in 1999. That is not a partisan
solution; it is one President Clinton's Medicare Commission embraced
back in 1999.
The reforms I have just outlined would have given us a genuine
national marketplace for individual health insurance. Unfortunately,
our friends across the aisle and our President decided to take a
different path with the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare.
Unfortunately, the folks who designed ObamaCare consciously chose to
destroy the individual market and force millions of people to pay for
Washington-mandated coverage they didn't need and they didn't want and
at a price they can't afford. Rather than adopt measures to bring down
the costs and coverage issues for a subset of the population, the
roughly 10 percent who weren't among those 90 percent who said they
like what they had, the President and his allies chose to wreck the
existing health care system--to wreck it, to make it worse, not better.
As a result, they have made the cost problem worse. They have
jeopardized physician access for millions of Americans who like their
current health plans and wish to keep them. And, of course, now the
administration is boasting that the Web site is mostly fixed. Indeed,
by most objective reports, people are not experiencing the same sort of
epic failure they did when they first tried to get into the Obama
exchanges. But at this point the President and his allies have lost all
credibility with regard to other aspects of ObamaCare, which I have
mentioned. Fixing the Web site will not fix the underlying deficiencies
of ObamaCare. These are not glitches. These were baked in the cake.
These were designed. This is the way ObamaCare was created and was
supposed to work, notwithstanding the fact that the American people had
been sold a bill of goods to the contrary.
Indeed, the only way to solve America's biggest health care
challenges is a do-over, to replace ObamaCare with the sort of patient-
centered reforms I mentioned a few moments ago. ObamaCare may be a
complete disaster, but it is not too late for us to work together to
fix what is broken and to start over.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, with less than 2 weeks remaining
before the deadline for people who need to sign up for health insurance
that
[[Page S8590]]
starts for them to be insured on January 1, there is a significant
amount of anger as well as anxiety across the country. The Web site
where people are supposed to go to buy that insurance has been plagued
with problems that everyone in the country seems to know about, and
that has caused huge amounts of anxiety. I heard about it last week in
Wyoming, I hear about it on Capitol Hill with staff members, and I hear
it pretty much anywhere I go.
What people have been learning is that the problems with the Web site
are actually just the tip of the iceberg. The Obama administration has
been saying that it has been fixed, that the problems with this health
care law are fine, that everything is good, that a majority of people
are having good experiences. I remember listening to the President not
long ago, sitting with Bill Clinton, saying: Easier to use than Amazon.
Well, that is not what the American people found. He also said:
Cheaper than your cell phone bill. He said: You will be able to keep
your doctor if you like them.
But the law continues to leave so many Americans struggling--
struggling with higher costs, with greater confusion--and really with a
lot less confidence in the administration. People all around the
country are worrying about whether the administration even knows what
it is doing.
So when I talk about the Web site being just the tip of the iceberg,
people around the country are running into higher premiums, canceled
coverage, finding out they cannot keep their doctor. They are running
into fraud and identity theft issues and issues in terms of higher
copays and out-of-pocket costs and deductibles.
People at home in Wyoming--and I went not just around communities in
the State, traveling to a number of different communities, but I also
went to my own medical office where I practiced as an orthopedic
surgeon at Casper Orthopedics for 24 years--were telling me how worried
they were about the higher costs they are seeing regarding paying for
insurance for next year.
I got a letter from one man in Cody, WY. He talked about how the
rates he has been quoted are going to go up from about $860 a month
that he pays now for a family of four to $2,400 a month--$860 to $2,400
a month. He said: ``I'm not sure what planet they think I live on, but
there is no way I can spend more than half of my monthly income on
insurance.'' Well, I hear the same thing from people all around
Wyoming. People are having this same sticker shock all over the
country.
We know that more than 4.7 million Americans in 32 States are being
told they cannot keep the insurance they had. When we take a look at
the map, we know we do not have the numbers yet on certain States,
including the State of Wisconsin. We do not have Illinois. We do not
have Ohio. We do not have Texas. We do not have Virginia. So we really
do not know how many people have lost their coverage. But we know that
at least 4.7 million Americans were told they cannot keep the insurance
they had in spite of what the President may have promised them. Now
what they have to do is buy new Washington-approved health coverage
that really may not be the right coverage for them and may likely cost
more than they were paying before. Millions of Americans are going to
be forced to use money that in the past was used to pay rent or put
their children through school or to invest in their communities or in a
business or to help make repairs to their homes--now that money is
going to go to pay for higher premiums as well as the incredibly high
deductibles people are seeing related to the health care law.
It is interesting, looking through the papers--this was yesterday's
Wall Street Journal, Monday, December 9. Above the fold on the front
page: ``Deductibles Fuel New Worries of Health-Law Sticker Shock.'' The
article says:
The average individual deductible for what is called a
bronze plan on the exchange--the lowest-priced coverage--is
$5,081 a year, according to a new report on insurance
offerings in 34 of the 36 states that rely on the federally
run online marketplace.
The Wall Street Journal reports:
That is 42% higher than the average deductible of $3,589
for an individually purchased plan in 2013 before much of the
federal law took effect.
So what people are seeing--and the Wall Street Journal reports above-
the-fold on the first page--are higher deductibles by a lot.
It is not just the Wall Street Journal. In the New York Times
yesterday, Robert Pear had an article: ``On Health Exchanges, Premiums
May Be Low, But Other Costs Can Be High.'' It says:
. . . as consumers dig into the details--
Dig into the details--something this body never did. Members of that
part of the body who voted for this health care law never did dig into
the details.
It says:
. . . as consumers dig into the details, they are finding
that the deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs are often
much higher than what is typical in employer-sponsored health
plans--the plans many of these people have had in the past.
So what we are seeing are not just the higher costs, not just the
higher deductibles, the higher copays; there is also a lot of confusion
about the health care Web site itself, and I think that is only going
to get worse. Ten weeks after the Web site launched, there is still an
awful lot that is broken, including the parts that actually get people
the insurance they think they signed up for.
A number of my staff have applied, and they believe they have signed
up for health insurance. They are not sure. They have not yet gotten
confirmation. And I know Members on Capitol Hill who have staff signing
up are experiencing the same thing.
Last month one of the officials from the Department of Health and
Human Services testified in the House of Representatives that as much
as 40 percent of this Web site's system still has not even been built
yet. The Web site still has trouble transmitting information to the
insurance companies once someone has chosen a plan.
The Web site was down again earlier today. It still has not figured
out how to automatically pay the portion of premiums covered by any
government subsidy.
There are still many, many security holes that can be exploited by
con artists, by hackers. Certain branches of the government have been
warning citizens to be cautious when going on the Web site because of
the concerns about exploitation, people who are trying to use this in a
fraudulent way.
And then you hear that the administration is bragging. It is really
sad that almost 9 weeks after the Web site opened the administration is
now bragging that it only has an error rate of 10 percent on one
important step of the Web site. Madam President, 1 in 10 is their error
rate. This is a President who said the Web site was going to be running
like amazon.com. He said that 3 or 4 days before the Web site opened.
Now, 9 weeks later, he is delighted that the error rate is still 1 out
of 10. Does the President actually believe Amazon would accept a 10-
percent error rate in their customers not being able to finish their
purchases?
I believe all of these flaws and failures have led to a dramatic loss
of confidence by the American people in their government. According to
a new Gallup poll, 52 percent of Americans are in favor of scaling back
the health care law or repealing it entirely. People continue to turn
against the law for a number of reasons, and it is not just the Web
site, it is the higher premiums, it is the canceled coverage, it is
that they cannot keep their doctor, and it is fraud and identity theft,
higher copays, higher deductibles, and confusion about what is going to
go wrong next because so many things the President and his
administration have said--have looked into the camera and told the
American people would be one way--turned out to be something very
different. There have been so many changing stories coming out of the
White House.
The President said: If you like your health insurance, you can keep
your health insurance, and then he actually said ``period,'' with a
punctuation mark, that that was it; no ifs, ands, or buts--just the
period. People now know all across the country--those who voted for
him, those who did not--what they all know is that what the President
said was not true.
The President said: If you like your doctor, you can keep your
doctor. Well, on Sunday one of the architects of ObamaCare went on FOX
News and admitted also that was not true. This is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel--
the brother of
[[Page S8591]]
Rahm Emanuel, the former Chief of Staff of the White House--who is a
medicine professor. What he said was, if you like your doctor and you
want to keep your doctor, you can pay more for insurance that includes
your doctor. There are a lot of places where you cannot even buy
insurance that will cover that doctor. This is not at all what the
President promised.
It is interesting, even in the Financial Times yesterday,
``Healthcare insurers cut costs by excluding top hospitals.'' So you
cannot even go to the hospitals. There is a picture here of the
University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. ``Plan will not cover
treatment at Houston cancer center.'' So we have somebody who has lost
their insurance who has been going to that cancer center where their
doctors are--they are losing their insurance on January 1, knowing they
cannot keep their doctor, they cannot keep their hospital. We see
children's hospitals around the country, people who are not going to be
included in these exchanges. So children with leukemia, come January 1,
are going to lose their doctor, lose their hospital. But that is what
the President and that is what the Democrats in this body who voted for
this health care law have given to the American people.
Just before Thanksgiving, the Obama administration announced it would
have to delay a health insurance exchange that was supposed to let
small businesses shop for insurance. I remember hearing speeches on
this floor about small businesses being able to find affordable
insurance. Well, it turns out, once again, the administration knew at
least 6 weeks before that they were going to have to delay the program.
Did they admit it to the American people? Did they tell the truth? No.
They waited.
One broken promise after another, one statement after another that
the administration knows is not true. So is it a surprise, then, that
the President of the United States is viewed as untruthful by a
majority of the people of this country? It is a terrible situation for
anyone to put their country in.
Back when we first started talking about the health care law,
Republicans offered ideas on how to give people what they really
wanted, which was reform that lowered costs and improved access to
care. That is what people were concerned about. So many of the
complaints we have heard around the country have had to do with the
cost of care.
So President Obama and Democrats in Congress refused to listen,
ignored all of the warning signs, and used raw majority power to force
this bad law on all of the American people. I remember the vote in this
body, Christmas Eve morning, voting on a health care law. We watched it
crammed through on party-line votes.
Now Democrats in the Senate have decided to make another power play
and have broken the rules of the Senate just a couple of weeks ago to
change the rules of the Senate. They took a drastic and unwarranted
step so that they could have the power once again to force more bad
ideas like the Obama health care law onto the American people.
They say we do not need the 60 votes now; all we need is a simple
majority. Let's change the way the Senate has run for well over 100
years, because, once again, the Democrats say: We know better than the
American people. We know better than you.
That is what the President said with his health care law. Now the
American people are realizing what they knew all along. This is not
what they wanted with health care reform. Regrettably it is what they
are living with now, and they are seeing the higher premiums, the
canceled coverage, losing their doctor, the fraud and identity theft,
higher copays, and higher deductibles.
It is interesting; even today in the Washington Post, the front page
above the fold said: ``Under health law, insurers limiting drug
coverage.'' Costs may soar. It talks about many different ailments,
including for those with HIV. That is a result of the health care law.
If this health care law would not have passed, forced down the throats
of the American people with the President telling one falsehood after
another, deliberately designed to mislead the American people, you
would never have seen a headline like this today.
If President Obama really wants to help the American people, he is
going to sit down with the Republicans and talk about the real issues
to reduce costs, to get rid of all of this confusion that he and the
Democrats have caused and to restore people's confidence in America, as
well as in him.
There is a better way. Republicans agree we need to reform America's
health care system. We think that those reforms could have been done
without the kind of harm caused by the President's health care law.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). 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, once again I come to the floor to discuss
the negative impacts ObamaCare is having on my constituents in South
Dakota and to countless Americans across the Nation. Since this health
care law was enacted in 2010, I have come to the floor on numerous
occasions to discuss the number of promises the President made to the
American people, promises that have been broken. My colleagues and I
have highlighted the fact that the President's promise, ``if you like
your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan--period,''
simply isn't true.
Reports indicate that more than 5 million Americans already have
received cancellation notices from their insurance companies and much
of the ObamaCare policy has not even been implemented yet. What is
worse, the administration knew they would never live up to this
promise. Instead of finding a permanent solution to the problem, they
proposed a political solution.
Today I would like to highlight yet another broken promise made by
the President that is resulting in sticker shock as many Americans
purchase health insurance.
While campaigning for the Presidency, and in speeches leading up to
the passage of ObamaCare, President Obama promised the American people
that their premiums would decrease by up to $2,500 per family. Instead,
many families are facing sticker shock. Since enactment of ObamaCare,
health care premiums have actually increased by more than $2,500 per
family--that according to the Kaiser Family Foundation annual survey.
As a result, many American families are sitting around their kitchen
table trying to figure out how they are going to shift their finances
around to afford health care when they were promised their premiums
were going to go down by $2,500 per family.
As the President has said, this law is more than just a Web site. We
agree with that; this law is more than just a Web site. This law is a
series of broken promises that are resulting in higher premiums, higher
deductibles, and higher out-of-pocket costs for middle-class families,
money the families could be using to help pay off student loans, save
for a house, or start a business. Those are now going to be used to pay
for government-approved health care.
Recent reports out this week by the New York Times and Wall Street
Journal highlight the fact that deductibles and other costs under
ObamaCare have surged. The Wall Street Journal reports that the average
individual deductible for a bronze level plan on the exchanges is over
$5,000 a year. This means a policyholder would need to pay over $5,000
in order for their insurer to start making payments.
One of my constituents recently informed me that her family's health
insurance plan was cancelled and the new policy she was offered would
double their deductible to $5,000 per individual. She and her husband
have three children. In addition to a higher deductible, this family
faces higher premiums, higher copayments, and a higher out-of-pocket
maximum. She goes on to say, ``Please explain how this new coverage is
considered `affordable' under the Affordable Care Act?''
Another couple in my State of South Dakota informed me, in the form
of an email, that their premiums were going up by $400 a month and the
deductibles were going up by $1,400 on their policy.
[[Page S8592]]
Their question was, What is the Federal Government doing? The gentleman
says I feel like the Federal Government just stole $5000 from me.
That is the frustration people across the country are feeling as a
result of ObamaCare. The middle class is faced with higher costs, while
their take-home pay and hours are being reduced.
As more and more Americans begin to formulate their family budget for
2014, they are going to learn that yet another promise by the President
has been broken. Not only are they losing the plan they were promised
they could keep, they are facing sticker shock over the increased cost
of health care coverage. This flawed law will continue hitting middle-
class Americans in their pocketbooks as the Nation's economy continues
to struggle to regain its footing.
The flawed rollout of ObamaCare is no secret. We have all seen what
were described as the countless glitches associated with the rollout.
But to make matters worse, recent reports indicate that in October, one
in four ObamaCare enrollees faced a glitch not many were aware of. This
glitch, called an 834 error, has prevented insurers from receiving the
proper information regarding people who believed they had successfully
enrolled in a health care plan. In essence, 25 percent of the initial
enrollees in ObamaCare, after persevering through the errors on a Web
site that was not ready for prime time, may not have proper coverage
come January 1 of 2014.
What is even more troubling is that the administration estimates that
10 percent of new enrollees will continue to face this problem. Here we
are, 23 days before January 1, and those who worked through the
headaches of healthcare.gov may or may not have coverage.
Unfortunately, this administration continues to refuse to seriously
address these problems.
Even though they have unilaterally delayed several portions of this
law from taking effect and have previously failed to meet half of the
requirements mandated by the law, the administration will not provide
the same relief for the individual Americans as it has for big
businesses.
This law is fundamentally broken and we need to start over. Rather
than expand the government's role in providing health care, we need to
enact policies that make the private insurance market more competitive
to ensure that individuals and families have choices when it comes to
their health care. Yet the unfortunate reality for middle-class
families is that their premiums, their deductibles, their out-of-pocket
costs under ObamaCare are not glitches, they are a harmful reality that
is resulting in sticker shock for literally millions of Americans.
We can do better; we should do better. This is more than just a Web
site. It is the substance of this law that was built upon a faulty
foundation that is leading to canceled policies, higher premiums,
higher deductibles, higher taxes, fewer jobs, and lower take-home pay
for the American people. This is a direct shot at the heart of the
American middle class.
The President last week got up and made a speech where he talked
about income inequality. What he should have focused on is the best way
to get rid of income inequality is to repeal this health care law
because what is going to happen to middle-class families and middle-
class Americans under this health care law is much higher costs, much
lower take-home pay, many fewer jobs for them and for their children,
and a lower standard of living and lower quality of life than they have
enjoyed in the past. This will be the impact upon middle-class
Americans as a result of this law.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss what I call
the Washington exemption from ObamaCare. One of the few real victories
the American people had in the ObamaCare debate was we actually got an
amendment included in the Senate consideration of the bill that said
much of Washington--all Members and all of our congressional staff--
have to go to the ObamaCare exchanges for our health care, just like
millions of other Americans. We had to get it there.
Unfortunately, I guess this was an example of what Nancy Pelosi said
when she said we need to pass the bill in order to understand what is
in it.
After the ObamaCare statute passed with that very clear and very
specific provision in it, a lot of folks around here read it and said:
Oh, you know what. How are we going to deal with this? A furious
behind-the-scenes lobbying effort then began. It went on for months. It
was to essentially get around that provision and the pain it would
cause--the pain being subjecting Members of Congress and all of our
staff to the same circumstance and experience as other Americans.
That ended with President Obama getting personally involved and the
Obama administration issuing a special rule, and that rule is just an
end run around the specific statutory provision. I think it is
completely illegal for that reason, because it is in conflict with that
statutory provision.
One of the key issues of that rule says--well, the statute says all
official staff will go to the exchange, but we really don't mean that
so we are going to leave it up to each individual Member to decide what
staff are official and what staff will go to the exchange.
As a result, there is a huge loophole some Members are using to
exempt much--in some cases even all--of their staff from going to the
exchange.
As mandated clearly by the ObamaCare statute, we have to walk the
walk of other Americans, and we have to share in that experience.
Sadly, according to press reports, the distinguished majority leader
Mr. Reid is one of those Members actively taking advantage of that
loophole and exempting much of his staff. Because of that, I have
written the majority leader today and asked him to answer some very
important and straightforward questions about that situation.
In order to make my point, I will simply read the letter into the
Record. It was sent to the distinguished majority leader in the last
several hours.
Dear Majority Leader Reid.
It has been reported that you were the only Member of top
Congressional leadership--House and Senate, Democrat and
Republican--who has exempted some of your staff from having
to procure their health insurance through the Obamacare
Exchange as clearly required by the Obamacare statute.
Millions of Americans are losing the health care plans and
doctors they wanted to keep and are facing dramatic premium
increases, all as Washington enjoys a special exemption.
Given this, I ask you to publicly and in writing answer the
four important questions below regarding your office's
exemptions. I will also be on the Senate floor to discuss
this at approximately 4:15 pm today and invite you to join me
there.
First, how did you designate each member of your staff,
including your leadership staff, regarding their status as
``official'' (going to the Exchange) or ``not official''
(exempted from Exchange)? Did you delegate that designation
to the Senate Disbursing Office, which would have the effect
of exempting all of your leadership staff from going to the
Exchange?
Second, if any of your staff is designated as ``not
official'' (exempted from Exchange), are any of those staff
members receiving official taxpayer-funded salaries,
benefits, office space, office equipment, or any other
taxpayer support?
Third, if any of your staff is designated as ``not
official'' (exempted from Exchange), did any of these staff
members assist you in drafting or passing Obamacare into law?
If so, which staff members exactly?
Fourth, how are the above designations of yours consistent
with the clear, unequivocal statement you made on September
12: ``Let's stop these really juvenile political games--the
ones dealing with health care for Senators and House members
and our staff. We are going to be part of exchanges, that's
what the law says and we'll be part of that.''
I look forward to your clear, written responses to these
important questions. I also look forward to having fair up-
or-down votes on the Senate floor on my ``Show Your
Exemptions'' and ``No Washington Exemptions'' proposals in
the new year.
Sincerely, David Vitter.
This letter lays it out clearly. I think this is an important debate
the American people care about. As I said in the letter, millions of
Americans face real dislocation and pain under ObamaCare. They are
losing--in millions upon millions of cases--the health care plan they
wanted to keep and they were promised they could keep. They are
[[Page S8593]]
losing their ability to see the doctor they love and were promised they
could continue to see. That number in Louisiana alone is 93,000
families.
They face skyrocketing premiums in many cases. Yet, as all of that
goes on, Washington enjoys this Washington exemption from ObamaCare.
Some Members of Congress, in particular--apparently, according to press
reports, that includes the majority leader Mr. Reid--are using this end
run around the clear language of the ObamaCare law and exempting much
of their staff.
I think it is incumbent upon the distinguished majority leader to
come clean and answer these four very legitimate, very straightforward
questions in an open, transparent, written, and straightforward way.
I am sorry he could not join me on the floor right now to discuss
this matter. I welcome that conversation at any point in the near
future, and I certainly look forward to his written responses to these
questions. I think the American people deserve that, at a very minimum.
I also think they deserve--at a very minimum--what I have been
fighting for months: Fair up-or-down votes on my Show Your Exemptions
proposal and No Washington Exemptions from ObamaCare proposal. The
first is real simple. It simply mandates that every Member disclose how
they are handling their office. It is the same sort of question and
goes to the same sort of information I am asking directly of Senator
Reid.
The No Washington Exemptions from ObamaCare ends the end run around--
ends that special status, that special treatment for Congress and our
official staff. It would also put them in the same category of having
to go to the exchanges with no special treatment or subsidy. It would
include the President, Vice President, White House staff, and political
appointees.
Unfortunately, again, the majority leader has blocked all of my
attempts to simply get a vote on these matters. I am not asking
everyone to agree with me; it is a free country, but I think I deserve
a vote. I think the American people deserve a debate and a vote, and so
I will continue fighting for fair up-or-down votes on the Senate floor
on both my disclosure proposal, Show Your Exemptions, and the ultimate
fix, No Washington Exemptions from ObamaCare.
I will continue that work, and I look forward to the majority
leader's response to this letter.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senate has considered several well-
qualified nominees this week. One of those is Congressman Mel Watt, the
President's nominee to be Director of the Federal Housing Finance
Agency. Congressman Watt has the institutional knowledge, legislative
experience, and vision to transform our housing market and ensure that
the mortgage crisis doesn't happen again.
Congressman Watt has vast experience working with the housing market.
He practiced law for 22 years prior to his congressional career,
executing countless real estate transactions. Since being elected to
serve in North Carolina's 12th District in 1993, Congressman Watt has
fought tirelessly to restore integrity to our financial system.
He serves on the House Financial Services Committee, where he
sponsored legislation that would eventually become part of the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to ensure that
mortgage applicants can, in fact, meet their mortgage obligations. What
is more, he recognized that lenders were engaging in predatory
practices when underwriting mortgage loans well before the foreclosure
crisis.
Since 2004, he has advocated for legislation to combat predatory
mortgage practices. He has also been working for 10 years toward reform
of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I share his goal, and I want the right
person at the helm when Congress begins that process.
Before responsible reform can happen, we need to come to some
consensus about what we want the secondary mortgage market to look
like. Families should have access to traditional 30-year mortgages. And
we don't want to cut off access to capital for multifamily housing,
which provides affordable housing for millions of families. Congressman
Watt's experience delving into these issues will be invaluable in his
role as the new Director of FHFA.
The mortgage crisis that took our Nation's economy to the brink in
2008 is still hurting American homeowners and our economy. About 15
percent of all borrowers--more than 7 million Americans--are still
under water on their mortgages and high rates of foreclosure continue
to plague communities across the country. The housing market still has
a long way to go.
There is more that FHFA can do to help the housing market recover--
from working with State and local governments to maintain vacant
foreclosed properties held by Fannie and Freddie, to targeted principal
reduction to help families stay in their homes. I look forward to
working with Congressman Mel Watt to address the challenges still
facing the housing market.
Time and again, some of my colleagues threaten to block confirmation
of nominees to further sometimes unrelated agendas. Sometimes it is
simply because President Obama nominated these individuals. I hope that
my colleagues will carefully consider the struggling homeowners in
their respective States as they do this.
FHFA has gone without a Director for more than 4 years. This
important agency needs a Director that will stand up for homeowners and
work with Congress to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
FHFA deserves to be fully staffed so it can serve the best interests
of taxpayers and homeowners. I urge my colleagues to support
Congressman Watt's confirmation and look forward to working with him as
he becomes the new Director of the FHFA.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). The question is, Will the
Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Melvin L. Watt, of North
Carolina, to be Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency for a
term of 5 years?
Mr. SCHATZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second. There is a sufficient
second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 41, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 252 Ex.]
YEAS--57
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--41
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--2
Cruz
Kirk
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, that last vote took 30 minutes. We are not
going to wait around for Senators to come. We are going to start
cutting off votes--Democrats, Republicans, Independents, everybody. We
cannot do this. We have a lot of work to do, so it is unfair to
everyone who gets here on time. We are going to start cutting off the
votes in 20 minutes. I advise the floor staff that in fact is the case.
We are not to be waiting for people. It is wrong. It is unfair.
[[Page S8594]]
____________________