[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 10 (Thursday, January 16, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S425-S432]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HOMEOWNER FLOOD INSURANCE AFFORDABILITY ACT OF 2014--MOTION TO
PROCEED--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Functioning of the Senate
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to continue the discussion
about the description of the Senate as a deliberative body and continue
to echo the call for the distinguished minority leader for a return to
a functional Senate. I have spoken on this issue before. I think it is
best to go back to the Constitution and the people who wrote the
Constitution for an understanding of what was intended when the Senate
was set up. So I do not intend to dwell on the use of the so-called
nuclear option related to the filibuster.
The reason I am not going to spend my time on the nuclear option
today as in previous speeches is the majority leader claims the
Senate's dysfunction is related to some unprecedented use of
filibusters. I think that has been thoroughly debunked. This claim is
directly refuted by the very source he has pointed to, the
Congressional Research Service.
More importantly, it has been debunked by fact checkers in important
media sources in America. Yet, as we know, the Senate is dysfunctional
beyond a doubt. To get to the bottom of how and, more importantly, why
the Senate is not functioning, we must have a clear understanding of
just how the Senate is supposed to function. As I just said, we should
turn to the Constitution.
For an understanding of what the Constitution means, there is no
better source for this than going back to the Federalist Papers. I have
referenced the Federalist Papers before on this subject, but it is
worth the detail about what the Framers of the Constitution had in mind
when the Senate was created.
Federalist Paper 62, which is usually attributed to the Father of the
Constitution, James Madison, begins to lay out the rationale for how
the Senate is to operate. He mentioned that the number of Members and
the length of terms are different between the House and Senate. Then he
said this--but before I quote, I hope you understand that when
something was written in 1787 and 1788, they use a little different
form of English than what we use. But it is pretty clear what they
intended to say about explaining the difference between the House and
the Senate. So here begins my quote of James Madison:
In order to form an accurate judgment on both of these
points, it will be proper to inquire into the purposes which
are to be answered by a Senate; and in order to ascertain
these, it will be necessary to review the inconveniences
which a Republic must suffer from the want of such an
institution.
End of that quote, but I will have several other quotes from the
Federalist Papers. In this specific quote, in
[[Page S426]]
other words, Madison is going to tell us the purpose of the Senate,
starting with the problems a Republic would face without a Senate and
how the Senate is designed to correct those problems. As we hear from
Madison about how our legislative process is supposed to work, I would
encourage my colleagues to think about major legislation that has been
considered in the Senate in recent years.
In fact, arguably the most major bill that has passed in recent
years, President Obama's health care law, serves as one example. When
that law was considered, one party held all political branches of
government: the Presidency, the House of Representatives, and even had
a supermajority in the Senate. That means they could run the Senate
like the House, without the need to compromise with any in the
minority.
At that particular time, my party was then and still is in the
minority. We are now dealing with daily problems caused by the way the
health care law was written, which is something to keep in mind as
Madison describes in these coming quotes. The problems the Senate was
designed to prevent, here is the first problem Madison discusses. It is
a fairly long quote from the Federalist. First he says:
First. It is a misfortune incident to republican
government, though in less degree than to other governments,
that those who administer it may forget their obligations to
their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important
trust. In this point of view, a senate, as a second branch of
the legislative assembly, distinct from, and dividing the
power with, a first, must be in all cases a salutary check on
the government. It doubles the security to the people, by
requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes
of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption of
one would otherwise be sufficient. This is a precaution
founded on such clear principles, and now so well understood
in the United States, that it would be more than superfluous
to enlarge on it.
Then Madison goes on:
I will barely remark, that as the improbability of sinister
combinations will be in proportion to the dissimilarity in
the genius of the two bodies, it must be politic to
distinguish them from each other by every circumstance which
will consist with a due harmony in all proper measures, and
with the genuine principles of republican government.
I see it this way: In other words, Madison is saying having a second
Chamber of Congress designed to operate differently from the House
makes it less likely that a partisan agenda that does not reflect the
views of Americans will pass. That is not a function the Senate
currently performs, as it has been run on a purely partisan term since
2007.
For example, we will recall that the President's health care proposal
did not enjoy widespread public support. Yet it passed the Senate along
strictly partisan lines with little input sought or accepted from the
minority party. In fact, before a final bill could be passed
reconciling the House and Senate bills, a special election was held in
the liberal State of Massachusetts, resulting in an election of an
opponent of the health care reform proposal.
Instead of moderating the proposal based upon public will and doing
it maybe just a little bit so it could attract even one Republican
vote, the House passed a draft Senate bill, then they used a budget
tool called reconciliation to ram another bill through the Senate with
a simply majority to change items in the first bill.
That is not how Madison intended a bicameral Congress to work. The
next point Madison makes:
Secondly. The necessity of a senate is not less indicated
by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to
yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to
be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and
pernicious resolutions. Examples on this subject might be
cited without number; and from proceedings within the United
States, as well as from the history of other nations. But a
position that will not be contradicted, need not be proved.
All that need be remarked is, that a body which is to correct
this infirmity ought itself to be free from it, and
consequently ought to be less numerous. It ought, moreover,
to possess great firmness, and consequently ought to hold its
authority by a tenure of considerable duration.
That describes what he thought the Senate should be, what the Senate
is. But my point is, the Senate is not functioning that way. In other
words, if we have just one legislative Chamber with a large number of
Members, it is likely to make laws hastily based on a partisan agenda
without thinking through all the long-term consequences. A hastily
passed partisan agenda that ignores the long-term consequences, does
that not remind you of the health care law? Remember how then-Speaker
Pelosi said the House had to pass a bill to find out what was in it?
They were in such a rush they could not be bothered to read it.
The Senate is intended, as Madison just said, as I quoted, to be
smaller, to be more deliberate, and to be less partisan. Imagine if the
Senate had been allowed to operate in a deliberative fashion and craft
a truly bipartisan health care proposal. If that had happened, we
certainly could have come up with something more workable than the
current law.
Madison continues his explanation of the rationale for the Senate:
Thirdly. Another defect to be supplied by a senate lies in
a want of due acquaintance with the objects and principles of
legislation. It is not possible that an assembly of men
called for the most part from pursuits of a private nature,
continued in appointment for a short time, and led by no
permanent motive to devote the intervals of public occupation
to a study of the laws, the affairs, and the comprehensive
interests of their country, should, if left wholly to
themselves, escape a variety of important errors in the
exercise of their legislative trust. It may be affirmed, on
the best grounds, that no small share of the present
embarrassments of America is to be charged on the blunders of
our governments; and that these have proceeded from the heads
rather than the hearts of most of the authors of them. What
indeed are all the repealing, explaining, and amending laws,
which fill and disgrace our voluminous codes, but so many
monuments of deficient wisdom; so many impeachments exhibited
by each succeeding against each preceding session; so many
admonitions to the people, of the value of those aids which
may be expected from a well-constituted Senate?
A good government implies two things: first, fidelity to
the object of government, which is the happiness of the
people; secondly, a knowledge of the means by which that
object can best be attained. Some governments are deficient
in both these qualities; most governments are deficit in the
first. I scruple not to assert, that in American governments
too little attention has been paid to the last. The federal
Constitution avoids this error; and what merits particular
notice, it provides for the last in a mode which increases
the security for the first.
That is a long quote. But Madison is essentially saying that the
House is to be composed of a representative slice of American citizens
while the Senate is supposed to be composed of individuals who have
more experience and approach public policy more thoughtfully. I am sure
many people might question whether individuals in the House or even in
this Senate match those descriptions today that Madison lays out.
But it is true that the rules of the House allow for new ideas to be
quickly translated into legislation.
By contrast, the process in the Senate has historically been slower
and more deliberative to refine those ideas into law that can stand the
test of time. Note that Madison complains about all the ``repealing,
explaining, and amending laws'' that have had to be passed by the
unicameral legislatures of that time--of the early days of our
Republic.
Our early experiences with passing bills quickly, without thinking
things through, led to the understanding that we should take our time
and get it right in the first place.
Getting back to Madison and those quotes I gave, that is what the
Senate is supposed to do. Failure of the Senate to take the time,
examine, and take time to revise legislation is quite obvious. It
results in bad laws that don't work.
We now have a situation with the health care law where the President
claims the authority to unilaterally suspend or reinterpret parts of
the law that are clearly unworkable.
That is very similar to the embarrassing situation Madison refers to,
to have a constant stream of ``repealing, explaining, and amending
laws,'' except the President is doing all of the repealing, all of the
explaining, and all of the amending, unilaterally.
Our constitutional system is not designed to pass a lot of
legislation quickly, and that can be frustrating, particularly to any
majority party anxious to enact its agenda.
Still, our deliberative process is a design and not a flaw. Based on
experience, the Framers of our Constitution
[[Page S427]]
determined that it was better to get it right the first time than to
subject the American people to the upheavals of laws that need to be
constantly amended or repealed. The House was designed to act quickly.
The Senate was designed to be a deliberative body, implying a slower
approach to legislating.
The fundamental problem is that the current majority leader is trying
to run the Senate like the House, and the Senate was not designed to be
operated in that way. Sure--with the majority then and now the
majority, the same majority when they had 60 votes--it was possible to
ram legislation through the Senate without any deliberation, but that
is no longer the reality.
When the majority leader brings a bill to the floor, routinely
blocking amendments and then rapidly moves to end consideration of the
bill, that means the Senate is presented with a measure as a fait
accompli and has to take it or, the opposite, leave it.
In other words, the majority leadership wants their agenda approved,
no questions asked, or nothing at all.
The fact is, if the majority leader allowed the Senate to deliberate,
we could get a lot more done than we have been doing. Sure, we might
not get as many laws passed as some people might like. The full Senate,
through its deliberation, may alter legislation somewhat from how the
majority leadership would prefer. Still, we would be able to accomplish
some important legislation. But, no, that is not acceptable, we are
told. One week ago today there was a strong debate on that very issue.
For all the talk about getting things done, the majority leadership has
demonstrated repeatedly with cloture motion after cloture motion that
it would rather grind this body to a halt than allow the slightest
alteration of their agenda.
The latest message from the majority leadership is that they will
respect the rights of Senators to offer an amendment only if they have
certain assurances about the final outcome. The senior Senator from New
York implied that is the way it used to be done.
Well, I want to assure that Senator that in the 33 years I have
served in the Senate, it has never been done that way. I have managed a
lot of bills over the years, and if I had tried to impose that
requirement, I would have been laughed at, to say the least.
Since when did duly elected Senators have to negotiate for the right
to represent their constituents? An open amendment process should be
the default situation, not something that is granted at the sufferance
of the majority party leadership.
We must get back then to what we call in the Senate regular order. I
would say do things the way Madison intended. That means an open
amendment process without preconditions or special limitations on what
amendments will be allowed.
Cloture shouldn't even be contemplated until after a substantial
number of amendments have been processed. That was the standard
practice when the Senate got things done, when we accomplished things.
Again, Madison describes a Senate that is to represent all Americans,
not only one party. It was designed to be more thoughtful and
deliberative and, whether we like it or not, slower than the House of
Representatives.
The Senate's purpose is to make sure that Congress passes fewer but
better laws. We saw what happened when the Senate was controlled
entirely by one party while the voices of the minority party and the
citizens they represented were ignored. We got a deeply flawed health
care law and the American people are paying the price. Yet the majority
leader insists on running the Senate as if he still has 60 votes,
doesn't have to compromise, and even refuses to compromise. That is not
how the authors of our Constitution intended the Senate to work and, of
course, it isn't working.
The Senate is facing a crisis, and the only way to solve it is to
restore the Senate as a deliberative body envisioned by the authors of
the Constitution and express it in an explanatory way in the Federalist
Papers.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Senate Functioning
Mrs. BOXER. I appreciate the fact that Senator Grassley has given us
his view of how the Senate ought to work. When the Senator says more
deliberative and knowing how many filibusters have been supported on
that side, that is what it says to me. As someone who didn't want to
change the filibuster rules because I thought maybe we would come to
some agreement, and we wouldn't be facing historic numbers of
filibusters, let me say what the majority leader did was the right
thing. It was the right thing.
I have been in Washington a long time. I came to the House in 1983.
The Senate worked well. It isn't working well.
What the majority leader said is how can we have a President, be he
or she Republican or Democratic, how can we have that President
function without a team in place, a team, their team. One person can't
run a country; they need a team. One Senator can't run our offices; we
need a team.
My God, what if we were told that we couldn't put our team together
unless we had a vote that wasn't a majority vote, it had to be a
supermajority? We would never get anything done. We would be running in
circles. It would be very difficult.
It sounds to me as if my friend wants to go back to the bad old days
where we would have all of these nominees objected to, stalled. It took
154 days to get the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency.
My view, having been here, loved this institution, loved my work, and
enjoyed my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the Senate has
changed because the parties have moved so far apart. Let's call it what
it is. In my eyes Republicans have moved so far to the right that,
unlike years ago when I came, it is very difficult to get anything done
legislatively.
That is why today is one of those bright, rare moments. My hat is off
to Senator Mikulski, Senator Shelby, and their House counterparts. We
actually got something done. Half of the Republicans joined all of the
Democrats to pass an Omnibus appropriations bill. This is a good thing
for America. No side got everything it wanted, we know that. Do you
know what the American people received? They got compromise, they got
security, and they got stability. In the near future we are not going
to have shutdowns, shouting matches, and debates through the night on
whether we should have a government.
We need more legislating such as this. That is why I so look forward
to getting the Water Resources Development Act done. This is so
important to so many of our States. We need to do flood control. We
need to do adaptation. We need to make sure there is recreation on our
wetlands and so on. We need dredging in our ports. Those are the
economic engines of our Nation.
We have a bill we passed. Over in the House they have a bill. We are
now in the middle of trying to conference the differences, and I am
very hopeful we are going to get it done. Senator Vitter and I are
working together to get it done. It is a little slower than we would
like in terms of progress, but I am convinced we are going to have a
bill before this body. We need to take care of the people's business.
Guess what. The President of the United States has a right to get his
team in place. It is as simple as it is.
The people know it. I go home and the people say: Hooray, thank God
you people are doing something. You are getting people confirmed.
Then we have the courts. We have courts where the judgeships are
vacant. Justice delayed is justice denied. We need those judges in
their places. The Senator from Iowa, I remember, made a big, eloquent
speech about how we wanted to ``pack'' the courts. Anyone who knows
anything about history knows pack the courts means wanting to add more
judges and put your people in it. It doesn't mean filling vacancies. I
think he got off that. But that was something to listen to.
We need to take care of the people's business and not play politics
depending on who is in the White House. Unemployment insurance was a
perfect example of this.
Under George W. Bush, between putting in place the unemployment
insurance and extending it, we did it five times, no offsets. Now all
of a sudden the Republicans--people are struggling. I am stunned that
we couldn't come together and extend unemployment insurance for the 1.5
million people right
[[Page S428]]
now and the 250,000 Californians included in that 1.5 million who have
run out of hope.
The Republicans said: Pay for it, even though the deficit has been
cut in half. They have suddenly noticed the deficit. After George Bush
it was $1.4 trillion. They put two wars on the credit card, and they
put a huge tax cut for millionaires on the credit card. Oh, no problem.
Now they have discovered the deficit even though it has been cut in
half by this President. Oh, we have to pay for it.
OK, we said, we have to pay for it, we will pay for it. We gave them
an offset that we took out of Paul Ryan's budget. It wasn't good enough
for them. Then they said: We want amendments. We have to have
amendments, just give us some amendments. I will give you some
unemployment insurance for these struggling people.
Then Harry Reid: Twenty amendments, OK; 5 a side and 5 side-by-sides,
20 amendments.
Oh, no, that wasn't good enough.
It is childish. People are struggling. They are deciding whether they
can put heat on in their house. They are wondering whether they can pay
the rent, whether they are going to lose their homes, whether they are
going to have to beg other family members for their help. This is
outrageous. Outrageous.
Income inequality is outrageous.
Does the Presiding Officer know that 400 families are worth more in
wealth than 150 million Americans? Let me say that again: Four hundred
families in America are worth more than half the United States of
America. And when there were tax cuts for those people, I never heard
one word from one Republican about a pay-for. The deficit soared. They
all voted to go to war. No problem. But we want to help these families
who are desperate--middle-class families, people who have paid into the
workers unemployment insurance fund, people who are looking for work
because they can't get that extended unemployment unless they can prove
that--and no. Nobody is home over there.
I appreciate that some of my colleagues made a speech about poverty.
Great. How about doing something about it? How about doing something
about it, and not just speechifying? Where are they in raising the
minimum wage? I don't know, maybe they will come with us. I don't see
it. I really don't see it. I hope so. I pray so. I do. So far, I don't
see it.
In the last Presidential election of 2012, the Republican leader said
his top priority was defeating President Obama. That is what the
Republican leader said--not working for the people of this country, not
passing legislation to make their life better, not moving forward and
making sure the air we breathe is clean, the water we drink is safe,
not making sure our kids have a good education and workers get job
training--no. Top priority: Defeating President Obama. President Obama
won; so why don't you wake up and smell the roses and understand we
need to work together. You have to accept reality.
Look. I have had my candidates in the past win and lose. I have been
here through tough elections. We lost the Senate, then we won the
Senate. We lost the House, then we won the House. We won the
Presidency, then we lost it. Guess what. I had to understand that when
it comes to legislating, we put that aside. We fight hard during an
election, but once it is over you don't carry that over. You work
together.
But too many on the other side are politically motivated. All they
want to do is hurt our President, day in and day out criticizing him
endlessly, not working with him. He has offered that olive branch over
and over, whether it is on economic recovery, jobs, health care, the
environment, income inequality--even foreign policy--day after day.
Here is the thing you never hear from the other side, so I am going
to talk about it tonight. When President Obama took office, the economy
was losing over 700,000 jobs a month. Now we have added 8 million
private-sector jobs in the past 45 months. How does that compare to
George W. Bush? After 8 years in office, President Bush's record was
that we lost 665,000 private-sector jobs. So far we have added 8
million private-sector jobs in the past 45 months.
When President Obama took office--we remember those days, frightening
days with the stock market collapsing. Now the stock market has gone up
10,000 points. That is unbelievable. The GDP--gross domestic product--
was contracting at a rate of 8.3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008
as we said goodbye to George W. Bush. Now we just learned that the GDP
grew by 4.1 percent in the third quarter. Is this President satisfied?
Are we? No. But have we turned it around? Yes. Does the President ever
get one ounce of credit for any of this? No. No.
How about looking at our deficit. Let's look at that, something the
Republicans claim is a very central part of it. This is it--a $1.4
trillion deficit down now to 680, going down to 560, and falling at the
fastest rate in many, many years, just as health care costs are not
rising the way they used to. Do you think we would hear one word about
it from the other side? No. No.
Even on foreign policy, even on foreign policy, politics used to stop
at the water's edge. Senator Grassley has a historic perspective. I do
too. Politics used to stop at the water's edge when it came to foreign
policy. No more. No more.
But you would never know the deficit has been cut in half, and you
would never know that 8 million private-sector jobs have been created
if you listen to my friends on the other side because they can't give
any credit to President Obama. But history will. History will.
The last thing I am going to talk about is health care. I listened to
my colleague Senator Cruz go after this President and the Democrats on
health care. So let us look at a few things.
First fact: Even though we had a horrible roll-out of the health care
site--not in California but the Federal site, healthcare.gov--and a
couple of States had a horrible roll-out, let's put that aside. This is
what we know.
There are more now, but I didn't have a chance to make a new chart.
We are getting to 10 million Americans, but over 9 million Americans
have new, secure health insurance; 3 million young adults have stayed
on their parents insurance policies; 3.9 million are on Medicaid; and
there are 2.1 million exchange plans, the private plans.
Let me show this another way on the private plans--the 2.1 million.
Now we think it is more. It is a little bit more. Here we are. Very,
very tough roll-out. Nothing worked. Now it is working, and it is
spiking, and it is only going to get better.
But you wouldn't know that because Senator Cruz keeps saying over and
over: What have the Democrats in the Senate done to protect the people
from ObamaCare? I have to protect the people from him because if he had
his way, he would repeal ObamaCare. I ask you: What is going to happen
to those young people if Senator Cruz has his way and we repeal
ObamaCare? What happens to the 3 million young adults? They are back on
their own. They have no insurance. They are back at the emergency room.
What happens to those on expanded Medicaid? Forget it. What happens to
the exchanges? They would be gone.
So while Senator Cruz says we have done nothing to protect the
people, the opposite is true. We stand in support of the people--the
people's right to get affordable health care. Do we have the perfect
answer on every front? No. Do we have to make corrections? Of course.
We had a meeting with the President yesterday. He is reaching out his
hand to the Republicans and Democrats. If we can fix this in any way
and make it work better, we will.
Let's look at some of our other charts as far as what our Republican
colleagues want to do when they say repeal ObamaCare. I am telling you,
400,000 Californians have enrolled, and now it is 500,000. It is
500,000 Californians who have enrolled in an exchange plan through--
coveredCA.com. This is working in my State. It is working.
I am not going to allow Senator Cruz to take the benefits away from
my people who are writing me letters--and I have some of them here, and
I will read a little bit of those stories.
John Nunnemacher is a 43-year-old freelance graphic artist from San
Jose, and the last time he had health insurance was 15 years ago, when
his employer paid for coverage. But as of January 1, John is covered by
a plan he can finally afford. This is what he told the San Jose Mercury
News:
I hoped this day would come. I worried that it wouldn't.
And I'm very glad that it finally has.
[[Page S429]]
So he is happy, and I am not going to let Senator Cruz take away his
insurance. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. He waited for a long time,
and I am not going back. We can't go back to those days when there was
no insurance for our young people. We can't go back to the days when
being a woman was a preexisting condition, and you got charged double
that of a man. We can't go back to the days where kids were thrown off
their parents' policies. We just can't go back.
Amy Torregrossa, 27, is from San Francisco. She had been without
insurance since July, when coverage through her partner's company ended
because he changed jobs. She has a congenital heart defect and a
history of high blood pressure. She no longer runs because she says
``if I twist my ankle or get hit by a car . . . any doctor visit is so
expensive.''
She signed up on Covered California for a silver plan costing $310 a
month. She made sure her cardiologist was in the insurer's network and
plans to schedule a checkup for early this year.
Amy, I am not going to let anyone take this away from you. I am not.
Michelle Strong, 57, is a self-employed product designer. For many
years she could not afford any insurance at all because of a false-
positive--a false positive--test for lupus, which incorrectly flagged
her as having a preexisting condition. For the past 15 years she could
only afford catastrophic insurance. Now, thanks to a tax credit, she
will pay $55 a month, with no deductible, and a $3 copay. Here is what
she said:
It just blows my mind that I can get health insurance at
this price. I can finally afford checkups, tests, and age-
related visits.
Michelle, I am not going to let anyone take your insurance away from
you. You deserve it.
Elaine Post, 64, from West Hills, CA. She told CNN:
When I first got laid off, I tried to get private insurance
through the big companies. They all rejected me . . . wanted
to charge me really, really high premiums for not very good
insurance.
Now Elaine has coverage through a bronze plan through Covered
California that costs $461 a month.
Elaine, you are going to keep your insurance and we are going to
protect you.
Judith Silverstein, 49, is a Californian who was diagnosed with
multiple sclerosis in 2007. Her family helps her pay the $750 monthly
cost of her existing plan--which she only had because of Federal law
requiring that insurers who provide employer-based insurance continue
to offer coverage if the employer goes out of business, as hers did;
otherwise, she would be uninsured because of her MS. ``I researched the
options,'' she says. ``Nobody's going to sell you insurance in the
individual market if you have MS.'' But next year she will get a
subsidy that will get her a silver level plan for $50 a month.
Last summer Ellen Holzman and Meredith Vezina, a married couple in
San Diego County, got kicked off their long-term Kaiser health plan,
for which they had been paying more than $1,300 a month. When they
applied for a plan with a new insurer, they couldn't get coverage
because Ellen disclosed that she might have carpal tunnel syndrome.
Through Covered California, they found a plan through Sharp Healthcare
that will cover them both with a subsidy for a total premium of $142 a
month. Holzman says, ``If not for the Affordable Care Act, our ability
to get insurance would be very limited, if we could get it at all.''
Jason Noble, 44, who has his own property management firm in Southern
California, found a gold plan that will cover his wife and their three
children for a little less than $1,300 a month. That is slightly more
than they would be paying this year for the plan they had in 2013, but
the benefits are much greater, including pediatric dental coverage.
Their family deductible will fall from $3,400 to zero. Last year, the
family had a health scare that ran them $1,800 in out-of-pocket
expenses, but next year, a similar event would cost them nothing.
``It's definitely a good deal,'' Noble says.
Barbara Neff of Santa Monica, who had been stuck in a bad plan
because of a preexisting condition, said she is relieved that under
Obamacare, she will get life-saving preventive care at no cost. Neff
said, ``I have been paying for my mammograms out of pocket, and that's
$400 to $450 per year,'' Neff says. ``That type of care is 100 percent
covered under this new policy.''
Rakesh Rikhi of San Jose, CA, paid $950 a month last year to insure
himself, his wife and two children with Kaiser. Through Covered
California, he will be able to get a similar Kaiser plan that saves his
family $400 a month.
Tim Wilsbach, a 40-year-old TV editor who lives in Culver City with
his family, had been paying for a bare bones policy with an $11,000
deductible for himself and his 4-year-old son, and another policy with
a $5,000 deductible for his wife. Wilsbach checked out his options on
the Covered California website, and was pleased to find a plan for the
whole family that offers broader coverage, a much lower $4,000
deductible and a more affordable monthly premium. ``Our premium went
down, not quite 100 bucks, and just looking through what the plan
covers versus what used to be covered, yeah, I'm quite happy about
it,'' Wilsbach said.
Allan Pacela, from Santa Maria, CA, is a retired engineer on
Medicare. His wife was insured through Cigna, under a group plan
offered by her husband's engineers' society, and because of preexisting
conditions, could not leave the plan even though premiums had gone up
to $20,000 per year, because no other plan would take her. This year,
her insurer canceled her entire plan, leaving her with no insurance.
``So we turned to Obamacare,'' Allan told his local paper. ``She found
it simple and easy to sign up through an agent in a 10-minute phone
call. She obtained their best plan, providing much, much better
coverage than in the past. . . . My wife would not have insurance
coverage at all as of January 1, if not for Obamacare. And, here's the
kicker--we now are saving $8,000 per year, for a very much better
plan.''
Megan Foster, from Kern County, CA, said, ``My mom is finally able to
get health insurance after being denied for so long because of her
Crohn's disease and epilepsy, and it's for an affordable price. She
works full time but her job doesn't offer benefits and she can't work
without her medicine. It's not a perfect solution, but I am happy that
my mom doesn't have to choose any more between medicine or groceries.''
Lori Greenstein Bremner is a cancer survivor, a single mother and a
self-employed real estate agent in Sonoma, CA. Before the Affordable
Care Act, she struggled to obtain and afford health insurance because
of her pre-existing condition. Now Lori says, ``In January, for the
first time since my diagnosis 36 years ago, I will have an individual
health plan that offers quality coverage for me and my family. I will
save $628 every month on premiums. Best of all--I wasn't even asked if
I've ever had cancer.''
Mr. President, I just want to say that when you listen to the
naysayers and the bad news bears and everyone who comes here and starts
criticizing, you should get to the bottom of it. Look at this 9 million
number, headed toward 10 million, and understand what is happening in
our Nation. People are getting health coverage.
Here is the deal. The way we did it, ObamaCare, is just like it was
in Massachusetts when Governor Romney put it through. That is where the
ideas came from. We did not do another plan. We did that type of plan,
and it is working in Massachusetts where I believe 95 percent of the
people are covered.
Now, I will close with a couple of other protections that are in
effect, so that you can see why, when Ted Cruz and my other Republican
colleagues and friends come to the floor who want to repeal ObamaCare,
I'm saying: No way. You want to work with us to make it better?
Absolutely. But I am not going to let my constituents lose their
insurance. You want to tell your constituents they can lose their
insurance, that is your business, but don't mess with California.
Look here: Already in effect, 3 million young adults insured through
their parents' plans; 71 million Americans are getting free preventive
care, such as checkups and birth control and immunizations.
You want to take that away from Texans, be my guest. You are not
going to do it because we are not going to let you do it.
Health reforms in effect: 17 million kids with preexisting
conditions, such as asthma and diabetes, cannot be denied coverage.
Insurers cannot cancel
[[Page S430]]
your health insurance because you get sick. No lifetime limits on
coverage. No annual limits on coverage.
You can't deny coverage or charge more for preexisting conditions.
You can't charge women more than men. You can't put annual limits on a
plan.
Women. Women. Two-thirds of women are on the minimum wage. Two-thirds
of minimum wage workers are women. So if you don't support raising the
minimum wage, you are taking on the women, and that is a fact. They are
not students. They are not youngsters.
Look. Women now can get contraception so they can plan their
families. Well-women visits, STD screening, breastfeeding support,
domestic violence screening, gestational diabetes screening, HIV
screening, HPV testing, this is all happening because of ObamaCare.
So I say to anyone within the sound of my voice--if I haven't put you
to sleep--when anyone gets on the floor and starts complaining about
ObamaCare and wanting to repeal it, just say to them: Why do you want
to hurt the people of this country who have waited so long to get
health insurance, who have suffered so much, who have gone bankrupt
because somebody had the misfortune of getting cancer? Why do you want
to go back to those days? That is not good for America. Just because it
was President Obama who signed the bill?
The Affordable Care Act is now called ObamaCare. What a wonderful
thing for this President. Anyone who stands and says they want to take
away these benefits is hurting the American people and I am going to
collect these stories and I am going to come to the floor and read
them. This is about real people getting secure insurance for the first
time in their lives, and it is affordable. No one is going to turn back
the clock. We can't go back to those days.
So we have to deal with making this health care bill work the best it
can. We have to work on income inequality. We have to come back and
still work for unemployment insurance extension for the 1.5 million
Americans who desperately need help. We have to work on making sure
there is a bright future for our families.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Pensacola Naval Air Station
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I am going to get to another issue in a
moment, but there is a special anniversary in Florida I wish to
commemorate, and it is Naval Air Station Pensacola which is now
celebrating its centennial anniversary. NAS Pensacola, as it is more
commonly known, is a Florida institution and is known as the Cradle of
Naval Aviation.
The first naval airplane flight from Pensacola took place on February
2, 1914. Over 325,000 alums have gone on to bravely serve with honor in
our wars, and they have also delighted crowds across the country as
part of the Blue Angels. They have made their mark on the Florida
Panhandle and on our Nation's defense in the process.
In fact, one of our colleagues, John McCain, trained there. He of
course went on to serve our country heroically and admirably and then
has also served us in the Senate. Others who have passed through there
include many NASA astronauts. Alan Shepard, Neil Armstrong, among
others, began their aviation careers at NAS Pensacola, and of course
eventually went on to become astronauts and made an immeasurable impact
on American and world history.
NAS Pensacola is also the final resting place for thousands of fallen
warriors at the Barrancas National Cemetery, a place which truly
humbles visitors and reminds us to be thankful that America has been
blessed with so many courageous patriots throughout our history.
Today there are over 17,000 service men and women who continue their
service to America at NAS Pensacola, and there are an additional 7,000
civilians who support the base's operations. They are part of a real
community, where parents are raising their kids, and where many
veterans who once served there decide to make it their permanent home.
We are proud of this in the Florida Panhandle. It makes our State a
better place.
So as the celebrations get underway this weekend, I join our State
and our entire Nation in celebrating 100 years of military excellence
at NAS Pensacola. We truly give thanks to all the brave men and women
who have made this military installation the crown jewel of our
national defense and contributed to America's exceptional history.
ObamaCare Taxpayer Bailout Prevention Act
I also wish to take a moment to talk about an emerging problem with
the health care law which has only begun to filter out in the news
cycle but bears watching in the days and weeks to come.
As we all know, a key part of the health care law is the exchanges,
which are theoretically supposed to be competitive private marketplaces
where individuals can go online either through their State exchange or
the Federal exchange and buy health insurance at a competitive price,
and they can choose between different plans. That is the idea behind a
health exchange.
In and of itself, the idea of an exchange is not a bad one, if
appropriately administered and it doesn't come accompanied with all the
other things the health care law came accompanied with. But there is a
problem with the way the exchanges are now designed which has not yet
received the attention it deserves but, I promise, we are going to be
hearing a lot about in the days to come.
The technical term is risk corridors. What it basically means is
companies that participate in an exchange or a marketplace of insurance
are told there is a reinsurance plan in place which will protect them
in case of loss or catastrophic loss.
For example, let's say you are an insurance provider and go into a
marketplace, and then it turns out the demographics of the groups that
signed up for your plans didn't turn out the right way or there was an
enormous spike in health care costs, whatever it may be, and you
suffered dramatic losses. A risk corridor is in place to protect you.
The reason is, No. 1, a safety net per se for the industry on a
short-term basis. The reason that is important is because we want
patients' bills to be paid and their providers' bills to be paid. The
problem is applying that to the health care exchange is going to prove
extraordinarily problematic.
What has happened over the last few weeks, as we predicted would
happen, is not enough young people are signing up through the
exchanges. In order for health insurance to work, you have to have
enough younger and healthier people on it. If you have a health
insurance plan largely composed of people guaranteed to get sick,
economically it doesn't work. There is no dispute about that.
In fact, by the administration's own statistics, they say at least 38
percent of the enrollees in the exchanges had to be under the age of 34
in order for the exchanges to work in an actuarially sound way.
So based on the assumption that was going to happen, insurance
companies bid on these exchanges, offered a product and have begun to
sign up people. The problem is so far that figure is not being met.
The numbers are just starting to come in. We don't know the full
picture yet, but the trends are troubling.
No. 1, not enough people are signing up. The target goal is a total
of about 7 million people or more by a deadline which has now been
extended to March 31. The number is less than 2.2 million. There are
still 8 weeks left or so, so we will see what happens, but the trends
are not positive.
Here is an even more troubling trend: Only 30 percent of national
enrollees are from that demographic I described. Only 30 percent are
under the age of 34. In Florida, it is only 25 percent.
Here is the fundamental problem we have right now with the exchanges,
beyond all the other ones we have already discussed ad nauseam: Not
enough people are signing up and not enough people under the age of 34
are signing up.
The result is that the way this is trending now, the exchanges are
becoming more like a high-risk pool and less like a true competitive
exchange. Here is why that is problematic: If companies lose money, as
they are going to if we look at these figures and as the companies
themselves anticipate--in fact, in some of the early disclosures these
companies are making,
[[Page S431]]
we are starting to see the forecast of losses.
If these trends continue and companies lose money because not enough
people under the age of 34 signed up for them and not enough people
signed up, under the ObamaCare law they will be entitled to a payout
from the high-risk pool. This is a program in place for the first 3
years of these exchanges.
What that means is a taxpayer-funded bailout of ObamaCare. For
taxpayers of the United States, this means your money is going to go
from your pocket into the pocket of these private companies.
What the private companies will tell us is: Look. We bid on this
product when you said the rules were going to be this. But since then
you changed the rules even more, and so what was already bad has gotten
worse.
There is not enough awareness about this, but we are going to be
hearing about it in the weeks to come. As we get closer to the reality
that billions of dollars in taxpayers' money is going to be used to
bail out these exchanges, there is going to be growing outrage around
the country and people are going to want answers. I hope my colleagues
are starting to think about what we need to do.
That is why I filed a bill in November called the ObamaCare Taxpayer
Bailout Prevention Act. What it would do is eliminate this provision
which allows for the tax-funded bailouts of these exchanges.
As we get closer to this problem, the numbers are as bad or worse
than we anticipated. So in the months to come, here is what we can
expect to see:
First, we can expect to see that companies are now going to say: We
need our money. Under the law, we were promised this high-risk bailout.
We signed up for it under that assumption. Now we need taxpayer money.
I predict the second thing we are going to see is as companies begin
to prepare their filings for next year, some companies are going to
decide that they are not participating in ObamaCare exchanges next year
at all, which means less choice and less competition and, therefore,
higher premiums. Other companies are going to say: We will participate
but only at these premiums; and they are going to be significantly
higher than the ones we have seen this year, meaning it will be even
less affordable, meaning even less people under the age of 34 will sign
up, meaning even more money will have to go from the taxpayer to bail
out these exchanges.
We are still in mid-January and these numbers could change, but
nobody realistically expects them to. In fact, I have yet to hear from
anyone knowledgeable about this subject who has said to me: Oh, don't
worry. In the next 8 weeks, another 5 million to 6 million will sign up
and we are going to get to over 30 percent of national enrollees. We
are going to get to over 38 percent of the people signing up being in
the demographic of 34 or under.
So it is only mid-January. But I come to the floor to sound the alarm
that this is coming so people across this country know we are weeks and
months away from transferring potentially billions of dollars from
taxpayers to private companies to bail out these exchanges. I promise
you, this will not be the last time we hear about this.
I encourage my colleagues, as they go home on this recess and talk to
people, get informed about this subject because we are going to be
hearing a lot about it in the weeks and months to come. This is a very
serious threat--to the law itself, by the way. This is unsustainable.
At a time that we have a $17 trillion debt, when so many Americans
are struggling to find employment which pays them enough to live off
of, when so many Americans have seen the jobs they once had disappear
and cannot find a job to replace it, when so many Americans are
struggling with a growing cost of living in every aspect of their
lives--childcare, student loans, utility bills, you name it--to be told
that at a time when all of these challenges are happening in the
personal economies of so many people that billions of dollars of
taxpayer money is going to go to bail out this law, there is going to
be collective outrage across the political spectrum in this country and
rightfully so.
Here is the last point I would make: If this law has to be bailed
out, it is one more reason why it doesn't work. These exchanges are
supposed to be private competitive marketplaces, where companies could
actuarially and soundly price a product and sell it at an affordable
rate. That is not where they are headed. We are headed toward a day
soon, as early as next year--and we will see the filings this year--
when companies are going to decide either not to participate or to
participate but only if they can charge substantially higher premiums
with higher copayments and higher deductibles; and, on top of that, the
only way they will participate is if they are promised this bailout.
We are going to hear a lot about this in the weeks to come, and I
encourage my colleagues--irrespective of how you feel about this law, I
cannot imagine any of us believing we are at a time in our Nation's
history, given the challenges we face now, where we should be bailing
out this plan with taxpayer money being transferred to private
companies to keep them in business.
That is where we are headed and we better be able to do something
about it soon, because people are not going to stand for it.
I yield the floor.
Thanking Members
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Veterans'
Affairs Committee, I take a moment to thank all the members of that
committee for their hard work over the last year. At a time when there
is obviously an enormous amount of divisiveness and partisanship here
in the Senate, I am happy to report that by and large there has been a
great deal of bipartisan effort being made in the Veterans' Affairs
Committee, and I think very productive work as well.
(The remarks of Mr. Sanders and Mr. Blumenthal pertaining to the
introduction of S. 1950 are located in today's Record under
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Thanks to Patrick Kilcur
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I spend long periods of time on the floor
compared to most Senators. That is my job. In doing so, I get to know
people more than probably a lot of people. Over these many years, I
have talked about a Senate family, and it really is a Senate family
and, for me, it really is my family. I know I am being way too
protective, and a lot of people say it isn't my business, but that is
how I feel. When people leave, I really feel badly because you get to
know people and you feel comfortable with the people you know.
The reason I mention this today is because one of the people I have
learned to really admire and appreciate and joke with and have a good
time with is one of the Republican staff members who is leaving. His
name is Patrick Kilcur. I have no idea whether I pronounced his name
right, K-I-L-C-U-R. I really don't know the name very well, but I have
known him for a long time. We call him Patrick. He is a Republican
floor assistant. If I have an issue and there is not a Democratic floor
person around, I go to him, and he always gives me the answer that is
honest and truthful. That is how we are so well served by these people
who fill these spots in this wonderful, historic Chamber.
Patrick came to the Senate from Pennsylvania. He is from
Pennsylvania. He worked for a famous Pennsylvania Senator, Arlen
Specter. He spent time working with him and worked his way here to the
cloakroom and became a floor assistant as he is now. He is going to
leave to go to work with one of my dear personal friends--Chris Dodd.
I asked Patrick to come spend a few minutes with me this week before
he left and we had a nice visit. I talked about my relationship with
Chris Dodd. I said what a good opportunity to be working for one of the
great orators we have had during the time I have been in the Senate and
one of the nicest people a person could get to know--Chris Dodd.
So Patrick will be missed here. I will miss him. I wish him the very
best. He is always--I have to be very careful; I don't want to bring
him any bad luck. He is engaged now. He is going to have a job. He can
afford it. So I really wish him well. I will miss him, but I will say
this: At least he has a first name. The people he works with, they
don't even call him by his first name. They call him Duncan.
So, anyway, enough of that. I really will miss you. You have had such
a
[[Page S432]]
positive effect here. You are always happy, in spite of the pressure
placed on you from people in the well: How should I vote? How much
longer? Trying to get people here to go late--how much longer is it
going to be? So thank you very much. You have been great, and I look
forward to visiting with you and, hopefully, you and Dodd will let me
watch one of those movies some time, because Chris Dodd is the leader
of the Motion Picture Association of America.
Thanking the Pages
Mr. President, another short thing I wish to say. Over the years I
have come to admire so very much our pages. They sacrifice to come
here. It is not easy for them to come here and go to school for a
semester, but they do. This school they go to is no soft school. It is
hard. They start school at 6 a.m.--I think it is 6 o'clock--and they go
for a couple of hours. I know they are supposed to get up around 5. It
is such a good environment. We have gone out of our way to have a
pleasant place for them to live, the so-called dorm. They have monitors
who watch them so very closely. Their parents don't have to worry about
them. It is a good experience. They see what happens on a daily basis
in the bowels of government, the Senate, and they all go different
ways. They are all juniors in high school. They will go back to their
high school and then go on to college, but in their entire life they
will never forget their experience here.
I went just for a few days when I was a junior in high school--maybe
I was a senior; it was right after my junior year--to Boys State, and I
made friends during the five days we spent there, and they are my
friends even today, after all those many years ago, and that is the
relationship these pages have developed.
So I say to them, thank you very much for the work you do.
I was walking out, as I do, this back door the last night or two, and
I see one of the pages. They have a door open, and I see this list of
stuff on the wall. So I say: What is that? What they have to know,
among other things--each of us can be pretty--what is the right word--
demanding, although I don't know if that is the right word. Senator
McConnell and I have these podiums here all the time, but we are the
only two. So when a Senator comes to speak, they need a podium. But
they have to get the right podium and the pages have to know, when a
Senator wants to speak, what podium to get. Is it going to be a low
one, middle-sized, half middle-sized, or a big one? Anyway, they have
to know that. They have a big chart up there to make sure they don't
make mistakes.
They make sure we have water. I don't like warm water. I don't like
cold water. I don't like ice. The pages have learned we all have our
demands for water--sparkling, half sparkling, half regular, half tap.
Anyway, I am so grateful they took the time to leave their homes to
come here to go to school, to be students in the Senate.
Flood Insurance
Mr. President, finally, we are going to have a vote when we come back
on flood insurance. Senators Menendez, Landrieu, and Isakson have
worked on this for a long time. Senator Landrieu has been--what is the
right word--persistent, and that is an understatement. She has been on
this as she can get on something and never get off of it. We have come,
over the last several months, within just inches, we thought, of being
able to have an agreement and move it to the floor. But she and Senator
Isakson have worked hard to get a unanimous consent request to bring it
to the floor, and they are always just a little bit short. So I am
filing cloture in just a few minutes on a motion to proceed on this
matter, and that will be the vote when we get back. If they are able to
work out an agreement, then we can always modify having that vote and
move forward. As I understand it, there are five or ten amendments they
want to have to that bill, and we have all agreed that is OK. So I hope
we can do that when we come back, and I thank those Senators for their
good work.
Mr. President, could I ask what the pending business is before the
Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the motion to proceed
to S. 1926.
Cloture Motion
Mr. REID. I have a cloture motion at the desk relative to that
measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to calendar No. 294, S. 1926, a bill to delay the
implementation of certain provisions of the Biggert-Waters
Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, and for other purposes.
Harry Reid, Robert Menendez, Mary L. Landrieu, Sherrod
Brown, Richard Blumenthal, Joe Manchin III, Tom Udall,
Patrick J. Leahy, Bill Nelson, Christopher A. Coons,
Christopher Murphy, Mark R. Warner, Kay R. Hagan, Amy
Klobuchar, Tim Kaine, Thomas R. Carper, Dianne
Feinstein.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory
quorum required under Rule XXII also be waived; and the vote on the
motion to invoke cloture occur at 5:30 p.m. on January 27.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________