[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.

                          ____________________