[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 33 (Thursday, February 27, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1212-S1223]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              HEALTH CARE

  Mrs. MURRAY. I come to the floor this afternoon to take some time to 
talk about a law this Chamber passed in 2009. I wish to talk a little 
bit about what it means to serve in this body, what our 
responsibilities are, and why our constituents sent us here in the 
first place.
  I have served in the Senate for more than 20 years and I have seen my 
share of controversial legislation. I have seen Democratic bills that 
Republicans couldn't stand; I have seen Democratic bills that Democrats 
wouldn't vote for; and I have seen bills that pretty much everybody 
opposed. But what I have seen in the last 4 years since the Affordable 
Care Act was passed by Congress and signed by the President is 
something new altogether.
  Since the day that law passed, I have seen some of my Republican 
colleagues set reason, and some of their basic duties as public 
officials, completely aside, all in opposition of a law that means 
millions of Americans have access to affordable, quality health 
insurance they couldn't get before. It is a law that means millions of 
young people, many of them fresh out of college, are able to stay on 
their families' insurance plans. It is a law that says it is illegal 
for insurance companies to charge women more money just because they 
are women. It is a law that has provided millions of Americans with 
access to free preventive screenings and health care such as 
colonoscopies, mammograms, and flu shots. It is a law that says if you 
are an American and you have a preexisting condition, it is illegal for 
an insurance company to turn you away.
  Since 2009, I have seen some of my colleagues simply refuse to 
acknowledge those facts about the law. I have watched them time and 
time again not listen to or hear stories of people in their own States 
whose lives have been changed by the Affordable Care Act and others who 
simply need access to get the benefits that are theirs. Some of my 
colleagues have even passed laws that make it harder to get covered 
under the Affordable Care Act.
  One of our responsibilities as Senators, as public servants, is to 
help our

[[Page S1213]]

constituents access the Federal benefits that are available to them, 
particularly when it comes to health care. That might mean, perhaps, 
putting someone in touch with a navigator to help make sure they are 
getting the most affordable health insurance plan. It may be helping 
them become aware of an enrollment event in their State where they can 
learn how to get covered.
  But our responsibilities don't end there. We also have to have an 
open, honest discussion about what the Affordable Care Act means for 
our constituents and talk about ways to improve it.
  Instead, what we have seen is some of our colleagues who have spent 
the better part of 4 years try to turn this law into a bogeyman and 
trying to score cheap political points on an issue that can literally 
mean the difference between life and death.
  I can understand why some of our colleagues disagree with parts of 
this law, and I have heard from some people who had challenges, 
honestly. We have to look and say can we fix this in a way that makes 
it work better for you. But what I can't understand is why anyone 
elected to Congress would decide to simply ignore real-life stories of 
their own constituents whose lives were changed the day this law took 
effect.
  I can't understand why anyone would ignore an opportunity to make 
this law better, because that is not why we were sent here. We were 
sent here to listen to our constituents and fight to make sure our laws 
work for them.
  I want to give some examples from my home State of Washington about 
people whose lives have been changed by the Affordable Care Act, people 
whose stories have been pretty much ignored in Washington, DC. I know 
later this afternoon several of my colleagues will be doing the same 
thing, so I hope everybody can turn off Fox News for a little while, 
not listen to Rush Limbaugh, and listen to some real stories of real 
live Americans who have been impacted by this law. I encourage them to 
go home and listen to some of the men and women in their own States, 
because the stories I am going to share are not unique.
  I will start with the story of Susan Wellman from Bellingham, WA. She 
is self-employed and has had to pay for individual health insurance. 
Every year she has watched her health care costs rise higher and 
higher. It reached the point where she was paying $300 monthly premiums 
with an $8,000 deductible. All were what she described as ``paying for 
nothing.'' So as soon as she could, Susan got access to health care 
through our Washington State exchange, and she was so happy to have 
that chance. She spoke on the phone with a real-live person, and she 
was able to sign up for an affordable plan in just a few minutes. Now 
Susan is on a plan that costs her $125 a month instead of $300--$125 
instead of $300--and it is a plan that has a $2,000 deductible, not an 
$8,000 deductible, and she says it actually pays for things.

  Guess what. She can now afford to go to a doctor not just in the case 
of an emergency but for a physical or a mammogram that could save her 
life, not to mention thousands of dollars in health care costs. That 
kind of preventive care is good for Susan, and it is good for her 
family. It is also good for this country because when more people have 
access to preventive care, it makes health care cheaper for every 
single one of us.
  Another person I have heard from whose life was changed by the 
affordable health care act is a man named Don Davis. He is 59 years 
old, and he actually goes by ``Reverend Don.'' He is a pastor in 
Seattle, and he is also a volunteer at the Boys and Girls Club. As the 
pastor of his church, he doesn't get any health care through his job. 
He doesn't even have a salary. That meant for a long time that Reverend 
Don didn't have health insurance. So when he was hospitalized back in 
2008 for severe headaches, he was only able to receive an MRI through 
charity care. That MRI showed that Reverend Don had several brain 
tumors, but when the doctors wanted to do more testing and provide more 
care, he didn't have the insurance to pay for that. This is a man who 
has asked for nothing in life, who woke up every day willing to give to 
others, but he couldn't get the basic care he needed when he got sick.
  Reverend Don is healthy today. He is serving his community. Because 
of the Affordable Care Act, he now also has health insurance. He signed 
up with a navigator at the local YWCA. Now, if he gets a headache, he 
can afford to go to the doctor. So because of the Affordable Care Act, 
Reverend Don can afford to dedicate his life to people in his community 
and he doesn't need to worry that the cost of the health care he needs 
might be denied him.
  Finally, I want to talk about a couple in Bellingham, WA, named Rod 
Burton and Sarah Hill. Rod is one of millions of Americans who have had 
the utterly maddening experience of being denied insurance because of a 
preexisting condition. In Rod's case his preexisting condition was a 
congenital heart defect. Under our old system Rod was deemed 
uninsurable by most insurance plans from the moment he was born. So for 
a long time Rod found himself forced into purely catastrophic insurance 
with a very high premium that wouldn't cover much of anything. That 
changed for him with the Affordable Care Act.
  Despite his heart defect, Rod was able to get a plan that covers him 
and his wife, and they found out they were eligible for tax credits to 
help pay for it. So today both Rod and Sarah are covered through a 
silver plan with lower premiums than the plan that only covered Rod if 
the worst happened.
  I know we have a number of other colleagues who are here to speak, 
and I note some of them are here to tell stories from their own States, 
but I would like to note that I only told three stories today of people 
who are benefiting from the Affordable Care Act. These are only 3 
people among the 400,000 others in my home State of Washington who have 
now signed up for care through the exchange, Washington 
Healthplanfinder, and they are only 3 people among the 4 million people 
who have signed up across the country. For the most part, their stories 
are not unique. Millions of other Americans face the same kind of 
health care problems they do. It is time that we stop ignoring that 
reality. It is time that we do our job and help our constituents get 
the health care coverage they deserve and can now get under this law.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                       IRS 501(c)(4) Regulations

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I understand Senator Schumer wants to 
speak in a little while, so I will try to hurry my remarks as quickly 
as I can.
  I rise today to speak once again on the proposed IRS regulations 
targeting grassroots 501(c)(4) organizations. I have already come to 
the floor to discuss this issue, and I expect I will be here several 
more times in the coming months as these proposed rules continue to 
move through the regulatory pipeline at the IRS.
  The public comment period for these proposed regulations ends today. 
As of this morning, the IRS had received over 100,000 comments on this 
proposal, the vast majority of them negative. This is an all-time 
record. In fact, the number is more than five times greater than the 
previous record for comments on a proposed IRS regulation. By contrast, 
the Keystone XL Pipeline--another item of enormous public interest--
received just over 7,000 comments.
  With all this public attention, the obvious question is, Why? Why has 
this proposal generated so much criticism from the American people? I 
think the answer is quite simple: The American people see this proposal 
for what it is--an attempt to silence this administration's critics and 
keep them on the sidelines of the democratic process.
  I would like to take a few minutes to describe in detail just what 
this regulation does.
  Under the Internal Revenue Code, a 501(c)(4) organization is a 
nonprofit organization, the exempt purpose of which is the ``promotion 
of social welfare.'' The phrase ``promotion of social welfare'' has 
long been defined as ``promoting in some way the common good and 
general welfare of the people of the community'' or ``bringing about 
civic betterments and social improvements.''
  Such organizations may engage in political activity for or against 
candidates for public office so long as their primary activity falls 
under the category of promoting social welfare.
  Under current regulations, activities such as voter registration or 
``get out

[[Page S1214]]

the vote'' drives are correctly treated as promoting social welfare, 
just like the distribution of voter guidelines outlining candidates' 
positions on issues that are, in the view of the organization, 
important to the public.
  The proposed regulations would re-categorize these types of 
candidate-neutral activities as not consistent with the exempt purpose 
of promoting social welfare. This is important because over the past 
few days, in an effort to justify these regulations, the administration 
has communicated to Members of Congress that they are not banning these 
types of activities; they are just putting them in different 
categories. But lost in their justifications are some important 
distinctions. It is easy to get lost in the weeds, which is probably 
what the administration is hoping for. So let's break this down.
  Traditionally speaking, in order to keep their tax exemption, 
501(c)(4) organizations have had to limit their involvement in 
``political activities'' to around 49 percent or less of their overall 
activities. In other words, they can be directly involved in the 
political process so long as the majority of their activities are 
devoted to social welfare.
  What this proposed regulation would do is redefine the parameters of 
what is considered political activity, moving a number of activities 
from the social welfare category to the political category. As I said, 
under this regulation, simply stating where candidates for public 
office stand on issues important to a specific 501(c)(4) organization 
would be considered political activity. In fact, even mentioning a 
candidate's name in a communication within a specified period before an 
election--even if the communication does not say whether the 
organization supports or opposes the candidate--would be considered 
political activity. As I mentioned, the same could be said for voter 
registration drives or ``get out the vote'' initiatives even if the 
efforts are obviously and legitimately nonpartisan.
  Basically, this proposed regulation would instantly categorize so 
much run-of-the-mill behavior as partisan political activity that many 
existing 501(c)(4) grassroots organizations would have to stop 
promoting their causes altogether. And that is precisely what the 
administration wants. They do not want 501(c)(4)s educating the public 
on the issues of the day or telling voters where candidates stand on 
political issues. Sure, they are fine with these groups promoting 
social welfare so long as that promotion does not include criticism of 
this administration or its policies that are harmful to the general 
welfare of their communities.
  It would be one thing if the IRS was an agency with clean hands when 
it came to dealing with critics of this administration. But, as we have 
seen, that is simply not the case. Indeed, over the last few years we 
have seen a record of harassment and intimidation of conservative 
groups applying to the IRS for tax-exempt status. The agency is under 
investigation in three separate congressional committees for its 
actions in the run up to the 2010 and 2012 elections.
  Put simply, the credibility and the political independence of the IRS 
are very much in question. A reasonable person would think that, rather 
than further damaging the IRS's reputation, the administration would 
instead focus on rebuilding it in the aftermath of the targeting 
scandal. Sadly, there don't appear to be too many reasonable people 
working in the Obama administration, at least not when it comes to this 
set of issues.
  We need to call this what it is: an affront to free speech and the 
right of all American citizens to participate in the democratic 
process. This is an attempt by the administration to marginalize its 
critics and silence them altogether.
  Republicans have been very vocal in our opposition to this proposed 
regulation. We have spoken out in a variety of venues. But make no 
mistake, it is not just Republicans and conservatives who oppose this 
new rule. A number of left-leaning organizations have spoken out 
against it as well. The ACLU, for example, submitted a scathing comment 
letter to the IRS arguing that the proposed regulation would ``produce 
the same structural issues at the IRS that led to the use of 
inappropriate criteria in the selection of various charitable and 
social welfare groups for unfair scrutiny.'' The ACLU argued further 
that social welfare groups should be free to participate in the 
political process because that kind of participation ``is at the heart 
of our representative democracy. To the extent it influences voters, it 
does so by promoting an informed citizenry.'' We have seen similar 
comments from groups such as the Sierra Club. Leaders of labor unions 
have also publicly weighed in about the overly broad nature of the 
proposed regulation.
  Put simply, when you have a proposal that is drawing unanimous 
opposition from Republicans in Congress and is being criticized by the 
ACLU and Big Labor, there is a pretty decent chance it is not good 
policy. Quite frankly, that characterization is probably too charitable 
for this particular proposal.
  This proposed regulation needs to be stopped in its tracks. Yesterday 
the House of Representatives passed legislation that would do just 
that. If enacted, the House bill would delay the implementation of the 
proposal for one year. I am an original cosponsor of the Senate 
companion bill to this legislation, which was introduced by Senators 
Flake and Roberts.
  Sadly, I think I know where my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle stand on this issue, and I expect those of us here in the Senate 
who support the right of all Americans to participate in the political 
process are likely to be disappointed with regard to this particular 
legislative effort. Still, even if this legislation dies here in the 
Senate, that will not be the end of the line.
  Earlier this month, when I came to the floor to talk about this 
issue, I called on IRS Commissioner Koskinen to use his authority to 
block these regulations. I expect him to do so. When questioned about 
this proposal, he has consistently deferred, usually saying he was not 
the Commissioner when it was drafted and published. Fine. But he is the 
Commissioner now, and now that he is the Commissioner, he is in a 
position to stop the proposed regulation from going final and acquiring 
the force of law. This proposal cannot take effect unless Commissioner 
Koskinen personally approves and signs the final regulation clearance 
package. That being the case, I call on him today to do the right 
thing--to not sign it when it reaches his desk. In fact, he ought to 
decry it for what it is.
  In an ideal world, the administration would simply withdraw this 
proposal and leave this issue alone. However, we are not living in such 
a world. That being the case, if the administration continues its 
effort to push through this proposed rule, the IRS Commissioner can and 
should use his authority to stop it from taking effect. After all, that 
is one reason Congress gives the IRS Commissioner a 5-year term. The 
Commissioner is supposed to be free from political pressure when making 
decisions and implementing our Nation's tax laws.
  In light of that fact, I want to implore Commissioner Koskinen to use 
the power he has been granted to restore the IRS's credibility and make 
it clear to the American people that his agency, the IRS, will no 
longer be used as simply another political arm of this or any future 
administration. I hope he will do so because it is the right thing to 
do, and I am calling on him to do it.

  I have faith in Commissioner Koskinen. I believe he is an honest man. 
I don't think he has any other choice but to stop these obnoxious 
regulations which people from the left to the right consider to be 
breaches of free speech and are wrong.
  I yield the floor.


                          Affordable Care Act

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, over the next several months the 
Affordable Care Act is going to become less important as a Republican 
campaign issue because more and more Americans--from young adults all 
the way through seniors--are going to realize the benefits it has to 
offer. It is happening already.
  Every day there are more positive stories about people getting 
cheaper coverage, better coverage or coverage for the first time. Let 
me say, in my State of New York the initial rollout of ACA has been a 
big success. We didn't have the problems of a Web site because we did 
our own, and because we have a lot of competition, as was intended on 
the exchanges, people are getting very good offers and a large number 
of people are getting their costs reduced.

[[Page S1215]]

  I will tell one story. A friend of mine goes to a hairdresser in a 
conservative neighborhood in New York. The person who owns the beauty 
shop is very conservative, and when the ACA first rolled out she was 
very upset. She said: Look. I have looked at that Web site. I am a nice 
person. I pay for health care for my eight employees. It is going to 
cost me hundreds of dollars more for each employee. I don't even know 
if I can afford to stay in business. That person talked to all of her 
friends, I think she blogged on her Web site, and talked all about it.
  I spoke to my friend a few weeks ago. Guess what. This same person 
actually got health care on the New York Web site which reduced the 
cost of health care for employees by a couple of hundred dollars each. 
She was very happy. Of course, I asked my friend to make sure she puts 
that on her Web site and tells all of her conservative friends about 
that.
  But this story is going to be repeated over and over. There are going 
to be millions of seniors who realize they can get a free checkup and 
keep their health good. There are going to be millions of young people 
who realize they can continue their health care and stay on their 
parents' health insurance from age 21 to 26. Millions of people are 
going to find out that either, God forbid, someone in their family or 
someone in a family they know has a preexisting condition, and now they 
can get health care. Millions of businesses are going to see the cost 
of health care is actually going up at a much smaller rate than they 
are used to. So all these good things will start mounting and the 
positives about ACA will grow in the public's mind and eventually I 
believe it will catch up in the Senate and the House. Then something 
else too will happen and that is this: Lots of people who are not 
affected directly by ACA have had fear put into their souls. They 
listen to the rightwing talk radio and they hear: Oh, they may lose all 
their health care or their costs will go way up. But what they are 
finding is it is not happening.
  I met a firefighter who works for New York City--not a volunteer 
firefighter--a few months ago. He said: I know ObamaCare is going to 
kill me. It is going to greatly reduce the health care I am getting as 
a New York City firefighter.
  They get very good health care and they should. They are risking 
their lives for us. He said: It is going to happen, I hear, in the new 
year, January 1, 2014.
  I saw the firefighter a few weeks ago, and he said to me: Hey, I 
still have my health care and nothing changed. Well, of course nothing 
changed. All the horror stories which have been launched by so many on 
the rightwing talk radio and those who just hate ObamaCare, whether it 
works or not, are starting to fade.
  So we are seeing two things happen at once: We are seeing the 
positives increase and the negatives decrease and we are seeing it 
particularly with senior citizens. Because the doughnut hole is filled, 
millions of our senior citizens are spending much less on prescription 
drugs than they had to. It is a huge benefit to them. Since ACA was 
enacted, more than 7 million seniors and people with disabilities have 
saved $9 billion. That is a huge amount of money. To seniors, many of 
whom are on fixed incomes, that is dramatic savings for them.
  Something else is happening to our seniors. They are getting free 
checkups. That does two things. First, it saves money out of their own 
pockets but, second, it reduces our health care costs because we all 
know an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
  Free checkups are that prevention we need. It will not only save the 
seniors but save our system billions and billions of dollars in the 
years and decades to come. Somebody who finds a growth on their skin 
and gets it removed before it becomes cancerous, somebody who might get 
a colonoscopy, a mammogram or a prostate exam and is saved from 
prostate cancer--all that is going to happen.
  So the bottom line is very simple: People are learning the positives 
of ACA. The Web site is being improved. More people are signing up. In 
my State of New York alone, more than 250,000 people with Medicare 
saved $246 million on prescription drugs. The numbers are higher when 
we count up to today because that was only the first 10 months, through 
November 1 of 2013. The benefits are all over the place.
  One other thing. This is not our subject of the week, but I think we 
have to keep mentioning it. We are reducing the budget deficit through 
the ACA. I know our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are very 
careful about the budget deficit. Good. They should be. Health care 
costs are declining and declining significantly. Some is due to the 
recession, but almost every expert says much is due to the ACA.
  National health care expenditures, for instance, in 2012 grew by 3.7 
percent, meaning that the growth from 2009 to 2012 was the slowest 
since government collected this information in the 1960s. The 
percentage of health care spending for the first time actually shrunk 
from 17.3 to 17.2. At the same time, the solvency of Medicare's 
hospital insurance fund increased and costs declined. So this is great 
news.
  The bottom line: I know our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
think they hit political goals when they attack the ACA and call for 
its repeal, but the American people don't want repeal. Secondly, as we 
move on in time the positives of ACA will become more apparent, the 
negatives people perceive of ACA will decline, and I believe by 
November this issue will not be the political gold mine our colleagues 
think it is.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Schumer for his great 
leadership on this issue and his strong words.
  I am pleased to join with my colleagues on the floor to speak about 
the positive impacts of the Affordable Care Act and the impact it is 
having on our Nation's health and particularly the health of our 
seniors.
  We have all heard about the benefits of the Affordable Care Act in 
terms of increasing coverage: Over 4 million people have already signed 
up for the affordable private health insurance through the State and 
Federal exchanges, millions more have signed up for Medicaid coverage, 
and millions more young people are now able to stay on their parents' 
insurance policies until they are 26--and the numbers are growing.
  But as important as these figures are, the Affordable Care Act isn't 
just about expanding coverage for the uninsured. It is also about 
improving the quality of care and the quality of coverage for all 
Americans, including our seniors.
  Seniors in this country rely on the Medicare Program--and they should 
rely on the Medicare Program--because Medicare respects a promise that 
we made as a country to ensure that people who contribute to the 
program during their working years will have their health care needs 
taken care of after the age of 65. We have a duty to keep that promise, 
and we need to build on that promise.
  To keep the promise of Medicare, we have to make sure the program 
stays afloat. The Affordable Care Act does this by improving the 
quality of care, by coordinating care, and by better delivering under 
Medicare so we reduce waste in the program and we use Medicare dollars 
in a way that improves health outcomes for our seniors.
  The Republicans have a very different approach to Medicare solvency. 
They want to reduce benefits, they want to increase premiums and copays 
so it is harder for seniors to afford to go to a doctor, and they even 
want to end Medicare's guaranteed benefits entirely by turning it into 
a voucher system. Think about that: lower benefits, charge more, and 
end Medicare as we know it.
  These approaches are wrong. They do not reflect our values, and they 
also don't reflect good policy because cutting Medicare benefits will 
not stop seniors from having heart attacks, it will not stop seniors 
from getting sick. It will just push them into emergency rooms and 
private insurance systems--which is more expensive and less efficient 
than Medicare--or, worse, it will prevent them entirely from getting 
the medical care they need.
  Fortunately, the Republican vision is not the law of the land. The 
Affordable Care Act is the law of the land, and it is already showing 
progress in improving the solvency of Medicare and the quality of care 
for our seniors.

[[Page S1216]]

  We can already see how the accountable care organizations created 
under the Affordable Care Act are saving money. The pioneer accountable 
care organizations--five of which are now operating in Massachusetts--
have already saved Medicare nearly $147 million while continuing to 
deliver high-quality care. New standards for hospital reimbursements 
have reduced the number of people who need to be readmitted, meaning 
that for seniors 130,000 fewer Medicare beneficiaries had to check back 
into a hospital last year.
  Thanks to these and other changes, the Medicare trust fund will be 
solvent for nearly 10 years longer than was projected before we passed 
the Affordable Care Act. The results are clear. When it comes to our 
seniors, the Affordable Care Act is saving money and saving lives.
  But the Affordable Care Act does more. It builds on the promise of 
Medicare by improving prevention coverage and reducing actual out-of-
pockets for our seniors. Last year over 70 percent of seniors--25.4 
million people in Medicare--visited their doctor and received a 
preventive service, such as a critical colonoscopy or a lifesaving 
mammogram. They received it for free because of the Affordable Care 
Act. Despite high drug prices, the average senior in America saved an 
average of $1,200 on their prescription drugs in 2013 because of the 
Affordable Care Act closing the doughnut hole in Medicare Part D 
prescription drug coverage. The Affordable Care Act has made these 
changes--reducing the cost for seniors, expanding benefits and reducing 
wasteful spending at the same time that we have improved the solvency 
of Medicare.

  When I hear Republicans talk about repealing the Affordable Care Act, 
I wonder what alternative universe they are living in. In this real 
world there should be no confusion about what repealing the Affordable 
Care Act would actually mean for our seniors: higher costs for 
prescription drugs, higher costs for preventive services, reduced 
benefits, and a Medicare program that would go bankrupt nearly 10 years 
sooner.
  The Affordable Care Act is working to help seniors with their 
expenses and to keep the costs of health care down. We need to improve 
and build on the progress the law has made and not argue over tearing 
it down. This should not be about politics. This should be about 
keeping the promise we made to our seniors. It is about building on 
that promise, and I will continue to fight for that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleagues--Senator 
Warren, Senator Schumer, and Senator Murray--joining us on the floor 
today. I think we will be joined by Senator Stabenow in a few moments. 
I also appreciate that they were at an event we did yesterday in which 
we were kicking off the Affordable Care Works Campaign. The campaign is 
designed to tell what has been untold for much of the last 6 months, 
which is the increasing good news about the millions of Americans for 
which the Affordable Care Act is working and, indeed for many of them, 
changing their lives.
  An announcement was made this week that 4 million Americans have now 
signed up for the private health care exchanges. There are now over 10 
million Americans all across the country who now have insurance today 
that didn't have it prior to the passage of the law either because of 
these private exchanges or increased eligibility of Medicaid or the 
law's provision that young men and women under the age of 26 can stay 
on their parents' insurance. Over 10 million people all across the 
country now have access to insurance that they didn't have before we 
passed this law.
  As Senator Schumer said, there is even more good news because we now 
know that the second promise of the act, that it was going to reduce 
the deficit, is true as well. CBO tells us that from the 10-year period 
covering the enactment of the law to a decade later, we are going to 
save about $1.2 trillion beyond what we initially estimated.
  At current trajectories, we are going to be $250 billion under CBO's 
initial estimate for Federal health care expenditures on an annual 
basis. That is a big savings to the American taxpayers. When you 
combine that with the millions of Americans who have coverage, you can 
see how the Affordable Care Act is working.
  There is still work to do. There will be debates on the floor of the 
Senate about ways in which we can change and fix the Affordable Care 
Act. Because we are reordering one-sixth of the American economy, there 
is no doubt there will be bumps along the road, and no doubt there will 
be places where we can find bipartisan agreements on how we can fix the 
act to make it work even better.
  The answer from our Republican colleagues has been pretty simple so 
far. It has been to simply repeal the law. They say they want to repeal 
and replace it, but we have yet to see any evidence of that 
replacement. I think when the Presiding Officer and I served together 
in the House of Representatives, we probably witnessed about 30 or 40 
different votes to repeal all or part of the Affordable Care Act, and 
never once was there a vote to replace that act.
  The American people don't want this bill repealed so we can go back 
to the days when the insurance companies ran our health care. They 
don't want to go back to the days when the 10 million Americans who 
have insurance are uninsured. They want this act to be implemented. 
They want it to be perfected. They want us to work to make it better. 
But they are understanding day by day that the Affordable Care Act is 
working.
  Specifically for seniors there are some pretty unique benefits, many 
of which have been glossed over. At the outset of the implementation of 
this act, some pretty important things happened--sometimes while people 
weren't even looking.
  First, the doughnut hole was cut in half almost overnight. The first 
year anybody who was in the doughnut hole got a $250 rebate check. The 
second year, their drugs--when they were in the doughnut hole--got cut 
by 50 percent. By the end of this decade, the doughnut hole will be 
completely eliminated.
  The average savings for a senior, as Senator Stabenow will talk 
about, has been $1,200. People often don't know that is because of the 
Affordable Care Act. When you go in and your drugs all of a sudden cost 
50 percent less than they did, there is no stamp on that bill that says 
courtesy of the Affordable Care Act.
  The fact is that without the Affordable Care Act, seniors--over the 
course of the last 3 years--would have spent $9 billion more on drugs 
than they have. The number is so big that it is kind of hard to fathom. 
The Affordable Care Act has saved seniors $9 billion, an average of 
$1,200 per senior.
  On top of that, when seniors go in to get their annual checkup or for 
a cancer screening or tobacco cessation program, those preventive 
health care visits are now free. Twenty-five million seniors have 
access to those programs all across the country.
  In my State of Connecticut, 76,000 people with Medicare have taken 
advantage of free annual wellness visits under the health care law. So 
we are seeing tremendous benefits for seniors all across the country. 
This is not just about the doughnut hole or preventive health care.
  In 2012, the Medicare Part B deductible dropped by $22 to $140. That 
is the first time in the history of Medicare that the Medicare Part B 
deductible has actually been reduced thanks to the efficiencies that 
are being garnered in the Medicare Part B program by the health care 
law.
  Second, Medicare Advantage plans now can't charge more than Medicaid 
for things like chemotherapy, skilled nursing, and other specialized 
services, which results in saving thousands of dollars for seniors.
  In the first 3 years of the Affordable Care Act, Medicare recovered 
$15 billion in fraudulent payments under Medicare because of new tools 
designed to root out fraud and waste and abuse in the Affordable Care 
Act. Older Americans who have not yet reached Medicare age are saving 
money because the act reduced the amount of discrimination in premiums 
against older Americans by saying that insurance companies can't charge 
older workers more than three times what they charged younger workers.
  For seniors, in particular, we are trying to make it clear that some 
of the

[[Page S1217]]

unnoticed benefits, such as the fact that nobody is asking you for a 
copay when you go in for a Medicare checkup and that you are saving 
money every time you go into the pharmacy--that didn't happen 
magically. That didn't happen because of Republican health care 
policies. It happened because of the Affordable Care Act.
  Finally, before I turn it over to my colleague Senator Stabenow, I 
want to address some of the mythology we have been hearing on the floor 
of the Senate in the past few days about Medicare Advantage.
  There is no doubt that there were reductions in the payment from the 
Federal Government to the Medicare Advantage plans in the Affordable 
Care Act. Why? Because we were overcompensating private health care 
companies for running the Medicare Advantage plan. We were giving them 
13 percent more than it cost Medicare itself to run the Medicare 
program. That just doesn't make a lot of sense.
  Private companies were telling us they could do things for the same 
price or less than the Federal Government. In this case we were paying 
Medicare private insurers a lot more than it costs Medicare to run the 
program. So we decided to eliminate that subsidy.
  Guess what. The news has been pretty remarkable. In fact, 30 percent 
more seniors are on Medicare Advantage plans today than when we passed 
the law, and premiums under Medicare Advantage have come down by 10 
percent during that time. More people are on Medicare Advantage plans, 
there are less costs in premiums, and the average Medicare participant 
has 18 different plans to choose from.
  All of this apocalyptic talk about what was going to happen when we 
passed the Affordable Care Act with respect to Medicare Advantage and 
all this new apocalyptic talk about what will happen when the subsidies 
get further reduced has not come true. We now have cheaper Medicare 
Advantage plans, more seniors on them, and plenty of across-the-board 
availability.
  I am really pleased to have been joined here by about a half dozen of 
our colleagues to tell the story about what the ACA has meant for 
seniors.
  We are going to come to the floor every week. We are going to stand 
with patients and consumers every week to talk about the benefits for 
seniors, cancer patients, women, and taxpayers all in an effort to try 
to prove to the American people what millions of Americans are finding 
out, and that is that the Affordable Care Act works.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first I thank the Senator from 
Connecticut for his advocacy for seniors, children, families, and small 
businesses to have access to affordable and quality health insurance. 
He has been a powerful voice on this issue.
  I also congratulate his State of Connecticut and the Governor of 
Connecticut for all of their hard work. I know they are doing a great 
job on their insurance pool--the health care exchange which is 
providing more affordable health insurance for the citizens in 
Connecticut.
  I thank the Senator for his leadership.
  I also rise today to talk about the fact that millions of American 
families today have access to more affordable health care. Seniors, 
children, small businesses, and others are getting the opportunity to 
have the health care they are paying for and know they can get the 
health care they need even if they have a preexisting condition because 
of the Affordable Care Act.
  I will take a few moments to talk about what this means for our 
senior citizens--for people on Medicare. Obviously, Medicare is a great 
American success story and something that I strongly support, as do my 
colleagues who are speaking today.
  As part of health care reform, we wanted to strengthen Medicare for 
the future. We protect the guaranteed benefits under Medicare. We have 
shored up the program so that the trust fund is now solvent until 2026 
and will be so going forward as other savings occur over the long run. 
It is working because of some very tangible work we have done to put 
more money in the pockets of our senior citizens and to create the 
opportunity for them to have access to affordable health care.
  I often think about the letters and emails I have received from 
people in Michigan prior to our passing health care reform and the 
kinds of stories that people told me all the time before we 
strengthened Medicare.
  I will read one letter from a senior citizen from Warren, MI, who 
wrote to me a letter prior to health care reform talking about the gap 
in coverage in prescription drugs. Under Medicare Part-D, you are 
covered to a certain point, and then there is a gap and you get no 
help. Then if your prescription drug costs are very high, it kicks in 
again. Some people call that the doughnut hole. It is a gap in 
coverage.
  A senior from Warren told me this:

       I cannot afford all of my costly drugs so I have to stop 
     taking one of them (the least risky one) and have to scrounge 
     free samples from my doctor's office for another while paying 
     high retail prices for the other two.

  That was before we passed health reform. Now on average in our 
country, seniors have $1,200 more in their pocket since we passed 
health care reform which helps them with their prescription drug costs. 
Why? Because we are closing that gap. That gap is going to go away. 
There is going to be no more cliff, no more doughnut hole, and no more 
gap in coverage. Right now seniors across the country are saving, on 
average, $1,200, which is more money back in their pocket.
  When we think about it in big terms, there are more than 7.3 million 
seniors and people with disabilities who are on Medicare who found 
themselves in that gap in coverage, and the health care reform law--in 
the big picture--has saved them about $9 billion--on average $1,200 for 
an individual, but all total so far about $9 billion. That is $9 
billion more available to seniors, which puts money back in their 
pocket--to do what? Well, to pay the rent, to pay the electric bill. In 
a State such as Michigan, to pay the high heating bills because of the 
winter we have been having; to put gas in the car. Maybe it is to do 
something fun with the grandkids and pay for that birthday present. 
Maybe it is doing something else that is needed. Whatever it is, the 
idea is the average person who is retired and on Medicare has over 
$1,000 back in their pocket now because of health reform and what we 
have been able to do to strengthen Medicare. It is a great thing.

  The problem is that is what Republicans want to take away. That is 
what they want to take away. That is what will be taken away if it is 
repealed; if one of the over 40 different repeal votes were actually to 
happen, and what the House of Representatives has already done.
  Let me share another letter from Mary Ann from Rockford who wrote 
last fall to say she is sick of the efforts to repeal health care 
reform. She says:

       The Affordable Care Act has already helped millions of 
     seniors like myself. From free preventive services to lower-
     cost prescription drugs, we're saving money.

  We are saving money.
  Let me talk about another area where seniors are saving money, and 
that is the annual checkup. We always want folks to have the annual 
checkup. That checkup used to have copays and deductibles. Today, under 
Medicare, because of health reform, when a senior walks into a doctor's 
office, how much are they paying for that annual checkup? Zero. Zero, 
because of health reform. We don't want any seniors to feel they can't 
get that checkup, they can't get the mammogram they need, they can't 
get that lovely colonoscopy we all look forward to getting. We don't 
want our seniors to feel they can't get any other kinds of preventive 
care or cancer screens or flu shots, or whatever it is, because of the 
copays or deductibles. Today the cost of that checkup for preventive 
services is zero. If health reform is repealed, that is repealed. That 
is what folks who want repeal are doing; it is what they want to take 
away.
  So I join with my colleagues who feel strongly that we need to make 
sure we are keeping in place those positives that are making a real 
difference in the lives of senior citizens, of children, of families. 
If there are areas going forward that need to be fixed, we need to fix 
them, and we will. But we certainly do not want to go back to the days 
when seniors are spending $1,200 more out of their pocket for their 
medicine, on average, or when they are paying for the cost of an annual 
checkup that is absolutely critical they get for their

[[Page S1218]]

life going forward. I am proud to stand with colleagues saying let's 
talk together about how we make sure things work going forward, but 
let's not go back to the time when all of these important services and 
protections were not in place.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.


                              Free Speech

  Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. President. I come to the floor today to 
also speak about ObamaCare. But before I do so, I feel the need to 
address some comments made on the floor of the Senate yesterday that, 
sadly, I find to be extremely distasteful.
  Yesterday, two prominent citizens were called unpatriotic merely 
because they have engaged--legally, I must say--in their First 
Amendment right to participate in the political process. I was 
saddened, I was dismayed, and I was discouraged to see the floor of the 
Senate used as a venue for such campaign-related attacks.
  In order to further their own agenda, it has become commonplace for 
my colleagues--especially across the aisle--to suppress the free speech 
and rights of certain people and organizations. These are simply people 
with whom they do not agree and who have had the audacity to hold views 
different from this administration.
  Make no mistake, this is all part of a coordinated plan. I call it 
shaping the battlefield to tamp down--maybe that is not the right word; 
make that suppress--political opponents in the runup to the general 
election as of this fall.
  We have seen repeatedly since the Citizens United decision of 2010 
Members of this body trying to rein in conservative groups' ability to 
participate in the political process. This campaign is a direct attack, 
I believe, on the rights of these organizations. This campaign created 
an environment in which the Internal Revenue Service found it necessary 
and possible to single out conservative organizations for extra 
scrutiny. And this has made it impossible for conservative groups to 
participate in the last two elections, and now they are at it again in 
2014. There is a short phrase which describes this, and I think it is 
``abuse of power.''
  This is all troubling and shocking enough, but now we have a very 
direct personal attack against a Kansas company whose political views 
some find very objectionable. What I find even more offensive is 
declaring on the floor the opposing views make them ``liars.'' Our 
Constitution grants every American the fundamental right to engage in 
the political process, and these folks have done so, fully within the 
bounds of the law.
  Nothing Charles and David Koch have done or are doing is illegal. 
Their participation, their statements, their work is very far from un-
American. Quite the opposite. It is the essence of what it means to be 
an American. Nothing is more fundamental to our Constitution, our way 
of governing, than the freedom of speech.
  We should be focused on our role and responsibility of governing to 
make things better for the American people and not using the Senate 
floor to further any political agenda by making personal attacks on 
private citizens.
  That brings me to what I came here to discuss today.
  (The remarks of Mr. Roberts pertaining to the introduction of S. 2064 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. President. It is good to see my long-time 
friend from Massachusetts in the Presiding Officer's chair.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Veterans Benefits

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, President Kennedy, from the Presiding 
Officer's home State said, if I could paraphrase a bit: A nation 
reveals itself not only by the men and women it produces but also by 
the men and women it honors, the men and women it remembers.
  It is our duty to take care of those who served in uniform. Today, 
this Nation has revealed itself, and the image is shameful. This body 
failed to consider the important veterans legislation of this 
Congress--the most important veterans legislation of this Congress: the 
Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay 
Restoration Act of 2014.
  I sit on the Senate Veterans Affairs' Committee. I am the first 
Senator from my State ever to sit on that committee for a full term. I 
consider that an honor. I consider it a privilege to serve those who 
served us in this Nation.
  I have worked alongside Republicans and Democrats, as has Chairman 
Sanders and Ranking Member Burr. We have produced good legislation 
here. Next to the post-9/11 GI bill, which Senator Webb worked on 4 or 
5 years ago, it is the most important advancement in veterans 
legislation and assistance to our Nation's veterans at my time in the 
Senate. That is the good news.
  The bad news is this debate has been about politics, not about 
veterans. Again, people in Washington want to score political points by 
filibuster, by obstruction, by blocking good bipartisan legislation, 
supported by a whole panoply of veterans organizations and community 
groups.
  There are those who have concerns who want to add to this bill, 
concerns that are not related to veterans. To hold up this bill with 
something unrelated to veterans is unconscionable.
  Whether you are in Marblehead, MA, or Mansfield, OH, we all have 
heard our constituents say: Why do they attach these unrelated things 
to legislation instead of voting them up or down on their merits? That 
is what people want to do here. Those who want to filibuster this bill 
are the people who want to add things to the bill that have nothing to 
do with serving our veterans.
  This legislation by itself improves vital programs to honor our 
commitment to those who served in uniform and for those who care for 
our veterans. Whether it is a community-based outpatient clinic in 
Zanesville or Chillicothe or Springfield, whether it is a VA center in 
Dayton or Chillicothe or Cleveland, we care about those who care for 
our veterans, many of whom are veterans themselves, and we take care of 
those veterans.
  This corrects errors in programs and benefits and, as I said, has 
widespread support in the veterans community. The American Legion, 
Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, Vietnam Veterans 
of America, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America all support this 
legislation.
  I will not go through a lot of the details we have discussed before 
that Senator Sanders brought to the floor, but I want to talk about a 
couple.
  This bill renews our VOW to Hire Heroes Act by reauthorizing 
provisions such as the VRAP, the Veterans Retraining Assistance 
Program. This program retrains unemployed veterans for high-demand 
occupations.
  I traveled across Ohio throughout 2012 spreading the word about VRAP, 
encouraging our veterans to apply. Ohio veterans applied in larger 
numbers than our State's population would suggest because of the 
outreach of so many in encouraging people to sign up for VRAP.
  I met veterans such as Everett Chambers in Cleveland, who used VRAP 
funds to get retrained as an electrical engineering technician at 
Cuyahoga Community College, or Tri-C.
  I remember meeting a veteran in Youngstown who went back to school 
because of VRAP and got the opportunity to work at a health care center 
in information technology.
  We know VRAP works. It helps our veterans get back to work. It lowers 
the unacceptably high unemployment rate for recently separated 
servicemembers who have so much to offer employers.
  This program is aimed for those veterans who are a little bit older 
who are no longer eligible for the GI bill and those veterans who have 
been out of the service for a while. But it does not stop there. It 
adds other important improvements in education benefits, in 
reproductive health, in the delivery of care and benefits to veterans 
who experienced sexual trauma while serving in the military.
  Too many Members in this body will say they support the programs in 
this bill but that finding the money to do so is not possible. So they 
are for the bill,

[[Page S1219]]

they say, until they are not. Well, there is a disconnect between what 
they say and what they do. Those same elected leaders--those same 
elected leaders who say: I am for this bill, but we can't pay for it, 
so we can't pass it--those same people want to give tax breaks to 
companies that take jobs and factories overseas when we say we cannot 
find the money to provide a caregiver the support he needs to care for 
his wife, a veteran. We fight a decade-long war in Afghanistan that 
goes unpaid for and we cannot find the resources to ensure the very 
people who fought that war will be cared for.
  It would be a little more simple than that. When a company closes 
down in Springfield, or Springfield, MA, and moves to Wuhan, China, or 
Shihan, China, they can deduct the cost of the plant shutdown in one of 
the Springfields and they can deduct the cost of building the new plant 
in Wuhan, China. That is a loophole we could close. It would mean more 
companies would stay in Springfield, OH, or Springfield, MA, helping 
our communities, helping our tax base, and it would mean those 
companies would not be deducting that move and that money could then be 
used for these veterans programs. But no, they say: We can't find the 
money.
  It is important to end this filibuster and pass this bill.


                           Buying Government

  Mr. President, I heard my friend from Kansas talk about what he calls 
the personal attacks on two I believe he said great Americans, but 
Americans nonetheless, which they are, and prominent businesspeople in 
Kansas and around the country.
  These two Americans--and this is not personal to me--these two 
Americans have spent millions of dollars trying to defeat me, as they 
have tried to defeat a number of people in this Chamber who think 
government has a role in preserving Medicare and government should 
provide funds for Head Start and government should give tax breaks to 
low-income people, not just rich people, and government should play a 
role, as the Presiding Officer has, in a cleaner environment and deal 
with climate change. But I disagree with these two Americans. I do not 
personally dislike them or personally know them. But I do know they 
have spent millions of dollars in ads, millions of dollars in an 
unprecedented way--they and a small number of people--to try to hijack 
our political system.
  People are sick and tired, first, of the TV ads; second, of the lies 
in the TV ads; and, third, that there are people--a few billionaires--
who are trying to buy elections in this country, billionaires who are 
looking for tax breaks for themselves, billionaires who are looking for 
the opportunity to weaken environmental laws, billionaires who want to 
kill the union movement in this country.
  I want to read from one editorial that was printed in, I believe, 
Roll Call or The Hill newspaper talking about some of these ads. Here 
is what this editorial said:

       Were this an ad for Stainmaster carpet, a Koch product-- 
     Koch, this is the family, the brothers--
       Were this an ad for Stainmaster carpet, a Koch product, 
     Federal Trade Commission guidelines would require the ad to 
     ``conspicuously disclose that the persons in such 
     advertisements are not actual consumers.'' Moreover, the FTC 
     would require them to either demonstrate that these results 
     of ObamaCare are typical or make clear in the ad that they 
     are not.
       Needless to say, the ad meets none of these requirements, 
     thereby conforming to the legal definition of false 
     advertising.

  That tells you a lot. I rest my case in just those terms. It is never 
personal. It should never be. It is whom you fight for in this body and 
what you fight against. But there are people in this country who think 
they can buy our government. We have seen that throughout our history. 
We have seen the oil companies try to do everything they can to at 
least if not buy government take a long-term lease. We saw the robber 
barons 100 years ago, including one from my State, Mark Hanna, who used 
to try to control the legislature. They used to say that he wore 
President McKinley like a watchfob when he was Governor of Ohio.
  So we have seen this in the past. We have never seen it in such an 
incredibly big way as we have seen it in the last few election cycles.


                              Minimum Wage

  Mr. President, I want to speak about the minimum wage, something this 
Chamber, frankly, needs to do. The Presiding Officer in his time in the 
House saw, as I did, a number of Members of Congress who would vote to 
raise their own pay but then vote against a minimum-wage increase, 
which I find morally inconsistent or worse. But let me make a couple 
comments about that.
  In 1991, the average price of gas was $1.15 a gallon, a loaf of bread 
around 70 cents, a dozen eggs about $1. The tipped minimum wage--that 
is the minimum wage for people who work in a diner who get tips, people 
who push a wheelchair in an airport who rely on tips, a valet, someone 
who does nail manicures, people who work in jobs where they are 
receiving tips--the minimum wage in 1991 for those workers at the local 
diner or the local airport was $2.13 an hour--in 1991.
  Today, the average price of gas is $3.30 a gallon; a loaf of bread 
costs $1.35, more or less; eggs are about $2. The tipped minimum wage 
is still $2.13. Its value has fallen by 36 percent in real terms. Think 
about that--$2.13 an hour.
  Americans who work hard and take responsibility should be able to 
take care of their families. That is why I support the Fair Minimum 
Wage Act, which would raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour in three 
95-cent increments and then provide annual cost-of-living increases 
linked to changes in the cost of living. The bill would also gradually 
raise the Federal minimum wage for tipped workers at the diner, the 
valet, the person doing the manicure from $2.13 an hour to 70 percent 
of the regular minimum wage.
  In 1980 the minimum wage for tipped workers was 60 percent of the 
regular minimum wage. It is now less than 30 percent of the regular 
minimum wage. In Canada the minimum wage in Ontario is $11; the tipped 
minimum wage is $8.90. The United States is the only industrialized 
nation in the world--except for Canada--where a large number of workers 
must depend on tips for a large share of their income. So in Canada the 
tipped minimum wage is only slightly less than the minimum wage. In the 
United States it is less than 30 percent of the minimum wage. In the 
rest of the world it is 100 percent of the minimum wage.
  Interestingly, servers in the United States, people who work at 
diners or restaurants in the United States--when a European comes 
across the ocean and eats at a restaurant in Cleveland or in 
Cincinnati, the European will usually leave a really small tip because 
they are not used to tipping. The American worker relies on those tips 
for any kind of a decent wage.
  Ohio's current tipped minimum wage is a little higher; it is $3.98. 
That is still not enough. These are men and women who have bills to pay 
and families to support.
  Most tipped workers do not work at fine dining establishments where 
the average bill is $50, $60, or $70, so someone is making pretty good 
money on tips. A server in a high-class restaurant, an expensive 
restaurant, can make hundreds of dollars in a night. But for a server 
who works in a diner where four people come in, get coffee, spend an 
hour there, and have a bill of $6, the tip might be $1. That person has 
worked for an hour. They are not getting to the minimum wage with the 
tipped wage, and, often, neither is the valet or the person at the 
airport who is getting someone off the plane and pushing their 
wheelchair to their connecting flight. They often do not even receive 
tips because so often the person in the wheelchair never thinks about 
it, does not know that these are tipped workers, that they are only 
making $2, $3, or $4 an hour. They are working hard.
  We work hard for the money we make. We are very well paid here. It is 
a privilege to serve in the Senate. But when you think about those 
workers who are working very hard, their minimum wage is $2.13 an hour. 
There is something not right about that.
  One more point. The Center for American Progress completed an 
analysis of 20 years' worth of minimum wage increases in States across 
the country. They conclude that there is no clear evidence that the 
minimum wage leads to further job loss during periods of high 
unemployment.
  The opponents of raising the minimum wage say that it is going to

[[Page S1220]]

cause price increases and that there are going to be layoffs. But what 
is interesting is that every time there is a minimum wage bill we are 
debating, the opponents say: You know, these businesses are going to 
have to raise their prices or lay people off to pay the minimum wage. 
But when an executive gets a $1 million bonus, when a CEO gets paid $12 
million and gets a raise to $16 million the next year, I never hear 
them say: Boy, they are going to have to lay people off to pay those 
executive salaries. It is only when it is low-wage workers that my 
friends on that side of the aisle stand and say: This is going to hurt 
business. This is going to hurt commerce. This is going to hurt 
employment.
  Their arguments are weak. Their arguments are, in many cases, a bit 
hardhearted. I wish my colleagues would do what Pope Francis said. 
Recently, Pope Francis exhorted his parish priests to go out and smell 
like the flock; go out among your parishioners and listen to them and 
try to understand their lives and try to live like them.
  Well, a lot of those parishioners are minimum wage workers or 
slightly above minimum wage. Smelling like the flock might help some of 
my colleagues come to the conclusion that raising the minimum wage is 
important to do, is humane, is right for our country.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              The Ukraine

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to share with my 
colleagues the tragic events that unfolded these past few weeks in the 
Ukraine. Ukraine is an incredibly important country. The recent events 
are tragic, the result of a corrupt government and loss of life.
  I remember the Orange Revolution that took place in Ukraine, starting 
in November 2004, ending in January 2005. Hundreds of thousands of 
Ukrainians took to that protest to protest the corrupt election. They 
did it in a peaceful way.
  They not only got the attention of the people of Ukraine but the 
attention of the world. As a result of that peaceful revolution, the 
government stood for new elections, free and fair elections. Democratic 
leadership was elected, and all of us thought the future for Ukraine 
was very positive.
  I was in Kiev not long after that Orange Revolution. I had a chance 
to talk to people who were involved, and I talked to the new leaders. I 
saw that sense of hope that Ukraine at long last would be an 
independent country without the domination of any other country and 
that the proud people would have a country that would respect their 
rights, that would transition into full membership in Europe and 
provide the greatest hope for future generations.
  They started moving in that direction. As the Presiding Officer 
knows, there were agreements with Europe on immigration. They have been 
involved in military operations in close conjunction with NATO. Ukraine 
was and is an important partner of the United States and for Europe.
  Then Victor Yanukovych came into power for a second time. Mr. 
Yanukovych took the country in a different direction. He was a corrupt 
leader. He had a close involvement with Russia.
  Today there is some hope. The Parliament has brought in a new interim 
government. Presidential elections are now scheduled for May 25. But 
there are certain matters that are still very much in doubt. In the 
Crimea, which is a part of the Ukraine which has a large Russian 
population, it is unclear as to what is happening there. Pro-Russian 
sympathizers have taken over government buildings. It is not clear of 
Russia's involvement.
  It is critically important that the international community have 
access to what is happening in the Crimea and make it clear that Russia 
must allow the Ukraine to control its own destiny. It is time for the 
international community to mobilize its resources to assist Ukraine's 
transition to a democratic, secure, and prosperous country.
  The people of Ukraine have had an incredibly difficult history and 
over the last century have been subjected to two World Wars, 70 years 
of Soviet domination, including Stalin's genocidal famine.
  Our assistance at this time will be a concrete manifestation that we 
do indeed stand by the people of Ukraine as they manifest their 
historic choice for freedom and democracy. Moreover, we need to help 
Ukraine succeed to realize the vision of a Europe whole, free, and at 
peace.
  That is our desire and that is the desire of the people of Ukraine. 
They are moving on the right path. They critically need our help and 
that of the international community to make sure Russia does not try to 
dominate this country; that its desire to become part of Europe is 
realized; that free and fair elections can take place, and the rights 
of their people can be respected by their government.
  Yesterday I heard from Swiss President and OSCE Chair-in-Office 
Burkhalter and welcomed his engagement and the important role the OSCE 
can play in Ukraine.
  As a member of the Commission, I had the honor of chairing the 
Helsinki Commission, which is our implementing arm to the Organization 
for Security and Co-operation in Europe. A Foreign Minister from one of 
the member states usually acts as our Chair-in-Office, and this year 
Mr. Burkhalter is not only the Foreign Minister of Switzerland, he is 
also the President of Switzerland. He is the person responsible for the 
direction of the organization. We had a hearing with him and Ukraine 
took a good part of our discussions.
  The guiding principles of the OSCE is if they are going to have a 
prosperous country, if they are going to have a secure country, they 
have to have a country that respects the rights of its citizens. 
Respecting the rights of its citizens means they are entitled to good 
governance. They are entitled to a country that does not depend upon 
corruption in order to finance its way of life. Those are the 
principles of the OSCE. A country with good governance, respect for 
human rights, that takes on corruption, is a country in which there 
will be economic prosperity and a country which will enjoy security. 
That has been our chief function, to try to help other countries.
  The meeting yesterday underscored the importance OSCE can play in the 
future of Ukraine, and we hope they will utilize those resources so 
Ukraine can come out of this crisis as a strong, democratic, and 
independent country.
  There has to be accountability. There has to be accountability for 
those who are responsible for the deaths in Kiev. I mention that 
because, yes, there is a moral reason for that. Those who commit amoral 
atrocities should be held accountable. That is just a matter of basic 
rights. But there is also the situation when they don't bring closure 
here, it offers little hope that these circumstances will not be 
repeated in the future. If future government leaders believe they could 
do whatever they want and there will be no consequences for their 
actions, they are more likely to take the irresponsible actions we saw 
on Ukraine.
  So, yes, it is important we restore a democratic government in 
Ukraine. It is important that government be independent and able to 
become a full member of Europe. It is important that government respect 
the human rights of its citizens, but it is also important they hold 
those responsible for these atrocities accountable for their actions.
  The Obama administration took some action this past week. They did 
deny visas to certain members who were responsible for the Government 
of Ukraine, and they did freeze bank accounts of those who were 
involved in the corrupt practices in Ukraine. That was a good first 
step and I applaud their actions.
  I remind my colleagues we passed the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law 
Accountability Act as part of the Russia PNTR legislation. I was proud 
to be the sponsor of the Sergei Magnitsky Rule

[[Page S1221]]

of Law Accountability Act. What it does--and it says it was amended to 
apply only to Russia--those who are involved in gross violations of 
internationally recognized human rights will be denied the privilege of 
being able to come to America, to get a visa and we will deny them the 
opportunity to use our banking system.
  Why is that important? Because we found those corrupt officials want 
to keep their properties outside of their host country. They want to 
visit America. They want to use our banking system. They want their 
corrupt ways to be in dollars, not in rubles. Denying them that 
opportunity is an effective remedy for making sure they can't profit 
from all of their corruption.
  That legislation was limited to Russia not by our design. The Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Finance Committee approved 
the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act as a global act 
applying beyond Russia.
  Sergei Magnitsky was a young lawyer who discovered corruption in 
Russia. He did what he should have done--told the authorities about it. 
As a result, he was arrested, tortured, and killed because he did the 
right thing.
  We took action to make sure those responsible could not benefit from 
that corruption. That was the Sergei Magnitsky bill. We felt, though, 
it should be a tool available universally. We had to compromise on 
that, and it was limited to Russia.
  It is time to change that. Along with Senator McCain, I have 
introduced the Global Human Rights Accountability Act, S. 1933. It has 
several bipartisan sponsors. It would apply globally. So, yes, it would 
apply to Ukraine. It would have congressional sanctions to the use of 
tools for denying visa applications and our banking privileges to those 
who are responsible for these atrocities. I believe our colleagues 
understand how important that is for us to do.
  It is interesting that today the State Department issued its Human 
Rights Practices for 2013. This is a required report that we request. 
It gives the status of human rights records throughout the world, 
talking about problems.
  I am sure my colleagues recognize that human rights problems are not 
limited to solely Russia or Ukraine, from Bahrain to China, to 
Bangladesh, from Belarus to Ethiopia, to Venezuela, from the Sudan to 
South Sudan, Syria, the list goes on and on and on.
  The report lists all of the gross violations of human rights that 
have occurred. Unfortunately, this list is too long. I can name another 
dozen countries that are spelled out in this report. Human rights are 
universal, and it is our responsibility to act and show international 
leadership.
  It takes time to pass good laws, as it should, which is why we must 
act with urgency now. The measures contemplated in my legislation have 
great corrective power, but they are strongest when deployed in a 
timely manner, preferably before the outbreak of violence.
  The year 2013 was a particularly challenging year for human rights 
and we cannot afford to be silent. The Global Human Rights 
Accountability Act serves as an encouragement for champions of 
democracy, promoters of civil rights, and advocates of free speech 
across the globe.
  As the great human rights defender Nelson Mandela once said: ``There 
are times when a leader must move ahead of the flock, go off in a new 
direction, confident that he is leading his people the right way.''
  In this great body, the Senate, we have a responsibility to lead the 
way in accountability for human rights. We have done that in the past. 
We have shown through our own example and we have shown through our 
interest in all corners of the world that this country will stand for 
the protection of basic human rights for all the people. We now have a 
chance to act by the passage of the global Magnitsky law. I hope my 
colleagues will join me in helping enact this new chapter and the next 
chapter in America's commitment to international human rights.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the 
roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Affordable Care Act

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, yesterday, while relaying to the Senate 
some anecdotes he believed proved the success of ObamaCare, the 
majority leader stated this:

       Despite all the good news, there are plenty of horror 
     stories being told. All of them are untrue, but they are 
     being told all over America.

  Well, that statement, quite frankly, shocked me, and I am sure it 
would have shocked millions of Americans, if they had heard it, who are 
feeling the detrimental effects of this very unpopular law, the 
Affordable Care Act.
  I have heard directly from countless Kansans about the devastating 
effects ObamaCare has had on them and their families. Most of the 
Kansans I speak with are concerned primarily about what the future will 
hold for their children and grandchildren. What type of life will we as 
parents and grandparents be passing on to future generations?
  I can assure the majority leader that Kansans are salt-of-the-earth 
people. They are, most assuredly, not liars. They do not deserve to be 
called liars by any Member of this body.
  Take Philip and his wife from Lenexa who are in their midfifties. 
Philip has been self-employed for the last 20 years but had maintained 
coverage through his wife's employer for most of that time. She now 
works for a much smaller company which can only pay a fraction of the 
cost of their insurance, so it was much cheaper for him to purchase 
insurance in the individual market starting in 2013. Finding affordable 
coverage now, in 2014, has been a much greater challenge. He writes:

       With the changes in health insurance due to implementation 
     of the ACA for the next year, we shopped the Kansas exchange 
     for 2014 plans. What we found was shocking.

  They found that for the same level of coverage, they would now have 
to pay a premium more than double what they paid in 2013. On top of the 
higher premium, they would be faced with double the deductible and 
nearly double the out-of-pocket maximum.
  In his letter Philip says:

       Frankly, we anticipate a decline in income for the next two 
     years, but still won't qualify for subsidies; this simply 
     makes the ``Affordable Health Care'' unaffordable for us.

  He continues:

       The icing on the cake--my wife's employer has told her they 
     expect to drop their health care coverage for their employees 
     altogether in 2015 because of the added expenses of the ACA! 
     I honestly don't know what we will do; we are not wealthy by 
     any means and have not been able to fund our retirement plan 
     for a couple of years now. We do not have sufficient money to 
     retire at any time soon and ACA will take everything we could 
     afford to save. We hope Congress can come up with a logical 
     and truly affordable option to the ACA soon!

  This is common criticism I have heard many times, and I can assure 
the majority leader that Philip's story is true.
  I have also heard from members of the Kansas Disabled American 
Veterans service organization who have shared the difficulty and 
struggle of veterans having to relinquish their preferred health care 
plans due to cost increases caused by ObamaCare. They are now pursuing 
care through the VA, which presents a whole other host of new obstacles 
to receiving the care they deserve. So we have veterans who are unable 
to afford health care under the Affordable Care Act now coming to the 
veterans system and being unable to, anytime soon, enroll. In fact, 
their biggest concern is they will now have to wait 3 months to 6 
months to get their first appointment.
  The bottom line is that veterans will either pay more for their 
health benefits through ObamaCare and lose their preferred doctors or 
be forced to join the backlog of veterans seeking care. Neither is a 
good option for our veterans. Veterans in Kansas and across the Nation 
are feeling the burdens of ObamaCare. They have sacrificed so much for 
our country, and I can assure the majority leader that they are telling 
the truth.
  Another example of how ObamaCare is hurting Kansans is from Salina, a 
town in the middle of our State. The nonprofit YMCA in Salina will be 
capping the schedules of part-time employees at 25 hours per week to 
avoid having to provide them health insurance benefits as part of 
ObamaCare. The administrator says:


[[Page S1222]]


       It is unfortunate. We have a lot of good people who you'd 
     love to have working more hours that we're going to have to 
     make the cut. This is hitting nonprofits hard. A for-profit 
     company, this cuts into their profits, but we don't have 
     profits to cut into.

  This YMCA is not alone in their efforts to trim costs. Numerous 
companies and organizations across Kansas are having to cut back the 
hours of part-time employees because of ObamaCare. And I can tell the 
majority leader once again that those people and those organizations 
are telling the truth.
  Yesterday afternoon the majority leader came to the floor once again 
and read an opinion column from The Hill newspaper. This article, 
authored by Mark Mellman, supported the majority leaders' efforts to 
discredit the stories being told of Americans who are having very real 
struggles and those who have lost their health care coverage as a 
result of ObamaCare. The majority leader read this column on the Senate 
floor literally word for word; however, he stopped just short of the 
end of the column, and I wanted to finish reading the footnote of the 
column which he chose not to read. It was about the author.

       Mellman is president of The Mellman Group and has worked 
     for Democratic candidates and causes since 1982. Current 
     clients include the Majority Leader of the Senate and the 
     Democrat whip in the House.

  I just wanted to complete the record, that the majority leader is 
reading an article by a Democratic consultant, employed by the majority 
leader, to furnish evidence that what he is saying about the untruths 
of people who are complaining about ObamaCare is based upon fact. Mark 
Mellman really is not the person to be quoting as to whether the 
Affordable Care Act is working.
  I would also point out that ObamaCare has been heavily debated for 
years now. For 5 years we have been talking about the Affordable Care 
Act. During this time there have been so many broken promises, so many 
falsehoods, and so many direct lies. We heard them all.
  ``ObamaCare will lower all of our health care costs.''
  ``ObamaCare won't cut Medicare.''
  ``ObamaCare will create jobs.''
  And who can forget ``If you like your doctor or health plan, you can 
keep them.''
  These were lies. These were untruths. They were promises made and 
summarily broken. This is why so many Americans are outraged. It is 
time for Washington to stop dismissing their concerns and start 
listening to them.
  Another disturbing moment--in fact, I think perhaps the most 
disturbing part of what the majority leader said--after he read the 
column from The Hill, he said this:

       It is time the American people spoke out against this 
     terrible dishonesty and about those two brothers who are 
     about as un-American as anyone I can imagine.

  This really bothers me. Accusations about who is un-American are 
deeply troubling, and to me that is an unfortunate comment when we 
refer to anyone. From the earliest days of our Republic, it has been a 
tactic exerted by those in power to humiliate and discredit those who 
come from different backgrounds or have a different point of view that 
challenges the people in power, and it is part of a strategy to 
convince ordinary Americans that sinister forces are working to 
undermine our country and our institutions. Ironically, by charging 
some person or group with being un-American or disloyal, the effort to 
stifle an exchange of ideas erodes the very foundation of our 
democratic government.
  These accusations have been leveled during times of war, but they are 
just as prevalent during times of peace. We know of the Alien and 
Sedition Acts of 1797, the Know-Nothing Party taking aim at immigrants 
in the 1800s, and the Red Scare after the First World War.
  In the process leading up to women's suffrage, critics of giving 
women the vote belittled them. One even suggested that women were too 
emotionally delicate to take on the task of voting. Thankfully, these 
ridiculous assertions could not derail the passage of the 19th 
Amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote.
  Yet perhaps the most famous example is a Senator using his position 
to charge people as diverse as Hollywood actors and Army generals and 
Secretary of State George C. Marshall of political views which differed 
with the Senator's. In fact, the Senator believed their views were 
traitorous. He referred to such people as ``enemies from within.'' Why 
would a Senator reach such a conclusion? Because those political views 
disagreed with his own. Maybe it was also for the headlines and 
attention he craved or perhaps he was just paranoid, in search of a 
bogeyman. For more than 5 years this Senator leveled the charges of 
``disloyalty'' without any real evidence. Because of his flippant 
claims, he did untold damage to so many lives, with very little 
consequence to himself. Not until enough of his colleagues had enough 
and put an end to his campaign against other citizens did this 
unfortunate episode in our Nation's history come to an end. This tactic 
didn't end in 1950 and, indeed, it continues today.

  I am disappointed by those who impugn President Obama, questioning 
his legitimacy and sincerity as he seeks to do what he believes is his 
best for the country. Yet it is undoubtedly a two-way street. The 
President dismissed those who opposed his candidacy in 2008 as people 
who ``cling to guns or religion'' or have ``antipathy toward people who 
are not like them.''
  When I served in the House of Representatives in 2009, Speaker Nancy 
Pelosi said in the town hall meeting in August of that year that those 
with concerns about ObamaCare were ``un-American.''
  No one has the right to determine whose beliefs are American or un-
American--certainly no one in the House of Representatives or the 
Senate.
  It is troubling that there is a reflexive reaction in Congress to 
label political critics as un-American or disloyal. Recognizing 
disagreement is part of the decisionmaking process of our democracy, 
and a respectful dialogue between all Americans is critical to a well-
functioning Republic. Certainly anything short of that is not worthy of 
the Senate floor.
  I'm weary of repeated attempts to distract the American people from 
the rollout and poor performance of ObamaCare.
  This week a New York Times/CBS poll found that only 6 percent of 
Americans believe that ObamaCare is ``working well and should be kept 
in place as is.'' I ask the majority leader: Does that mean that the 
other 94 percent of Americans surveyed are liars?
  In fact, ObamaCare is a disaster to our Nation's health care system, 
and it is a disaster to our country's economy. The American people have 
made their opinions known, and rather than remedy the situation and 
address their concerns, the majority leader and others are trying to 
change the conversation and attack the very Americans who have real, 
life-impacting concerns about their access to health care.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle act as though the majority 
of Americans support ObamaCare. They do not. They never have. We didn't 
listen to them when ObamaCare was passed. We have not listened to them 
since. In fact, the same New York Times/CBS poll found that Americans 
``feel things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track'' by 
a margin of nearly 2 to 1. This poll was comprised of Republicans, 
Democrats, and Independents, of which 63 percent feel things have 
pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track.
  I agree that we are headed in the wrong direction, and I fear--like 
most Americans--that instead of righting the course, we have a Senate 
majority leader who will want to distract the hard-working Americans 
busy with their families, struggling, and living their lives.
  Speaking of dysfunction, the majority leader is speaking about 
dysfunction in the Senate that he alone has the ability to control. The 
pilot of the plane cannot and should not blame the passengers for the 
turbulence.
  I'm glad the majority leader mentioned the Senate feels like 
``Groundhog Day'' or groundhog year. He is absolutely right. Over and 
over, how many times has the majority leader obstructed the Senate 
debate and votes on amendments? Over and over we see the same strategy 
from the majority leader to run the Senate according to his rules and 
his alone. He controls the Senate operations. He controls the ability 
to move past ``Groundhog Day,'' and he controls whether or not his 
colleagues can advocate for amendments and have votes.

[[Page S1223]]

  Republican Senators are not alone in this thinking--although I'm sure 
the majority leader wishes that it was just the Republicans 
complaining. Many Senate Democrats also feel the same way. They too 
have legislation. They too have amendments they would like to see in 
front of the Senate that would see the light of day.
  One such amendment that the majority leader is using in his blame 
game is a bipartisan amendment offered by Senators Menendez and Kirk, a 
Republican and Democrat, with 59 Senate cosponsors. There is an 
overwhelming amount of Senate support for this amendment. So why can't 
we get the issue of Iran's nuclear capabilities to the Senate floor? 
Why does the Senate majority leader continue to obstruct the Senate 
process rather than return to regular order and allow the Senate to 
operate the way it was intended?
  The dysfunction of the Senate ultimately hurts the American people, 
and the majority leader has the ability to change that. My hope is that 
we move beyond this time in the Senate's history, that we move beyond 
the same old, same old, and that we have the opportunity to chart a new 
path forward to restore the Senate to function as it should.
  I have no interest in serving in a Senate that doesn't do its work. 
Neither the majority leader nor any other Member of this body has the 
ability to represent individual Americans' interest at any given 
moment.
  We each represent people from our respective States who have 
different points of view. I understand that people have a different 
point of view depending upon where they live, their background, their 
experience, and their philosophy. This diversity of opinion is what 
makes this country and, by extension, the Senate such a force for good 
in the world.
  These opposing viewpoints are by their very definition American. The 
diversity and disagreement among ourselves is actually American, not 
un-American. Whether it is the Kansas small business owner who fears 
losing health insurance or the brave participants of the Seneca Falls 
Convention, Americans have the right to be heard and the right to play 
a part in the American political process. No one has the right to call 
those people un-American.
  The litmus test for what is or is not American behavior cannot be 
administered or measured in partisan terms. Yet the bulk of the 
comments made by the majority leader attempted to do just that.
  I am disappointed that it is even necessary for me to be on the 
Senate floor to talk about these disparaging comments, but the American 
people deserve an accountable legislature.
  Whether you agree or disagree with the direction of our country--if 
you disagree with the direction it is heading in or you think we are 
doing OK, you are still an American, and you have the right to voice 
that opinion without having your allegiance to the United States called 
into question.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________