[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 38 (Thursday, March 6, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1350-S1352]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

               VICTIMS PROTECTION ACT OF 2014--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will resume legislative session.
  The Senator from Hawaii.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1821

  Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, nearly 4 months ago the most powerful 
storm on record struck the Philippines, killing 6,000 people and 
injuring 27,000 people. According to USAID, more than 4 million people 
were displaced, and one out of six people in the country was affected. 
Photographs show the immense destruction caused by Typhoon Haiyan. In 
some areas nearly all of the buildings were destroyed.
  Today, because of the magnitude of the devastation, the Philippines 
has not yet recovered. It will take them a long time. Relief efforts 
continue. These efforts have been aided by direct assistance from the 
U.S. Government to the Philippines, one of our closest allies in Asia. 
Relief efforts have also been funded by charitable donations made by 
individuals in the United States. Many of these donations come from 
Filipino Americans in this country, part of the extensive diaspora here 
that is the foundation of the deep connections between the Philippines 
and the United States.
  I am about to ask unanimous consent to pass legislation that will 
encourage people to continue donating to typhoon relief efforts in the 
Philippines. It has been 4 months since Typhoon Haiyan but help is 
still desperately needed. Four months is a virtual eternity of news 
cycles, and other crises in other parts of the world demand our 
attention. But we should not forget the immense human suffering caused 
by Typhoon Haiyan.
  This legislation, S. 1821, would allow people who make donations 
after the date of enactment to deduct those donations from last year's 
taxes. In other words, they can reduce their 2013 tax bill by 
contributing now. It is a modest step, but it is one we should take.
  This is bipartisan legislation, cosponsored by Senator Heller. This 
legislation is also cosponsored by Senator Menendez and the majority 
leader, Senator Reid. I thank them for their support.
  Identical bipartisan legislation has been introduced in the House of 
Representatives by Representatives Swalwell and Thompson. That bill has 
35 cosponsors, including 9 Republicans: Representatives Calvert, 
Franks, Grimm, Heck, Issa, Miller, Royce, Valadao, and Young. I thank 
them for their support.
  After the earthquake in Haiti in 2010, Congress passed nearly 
identical legislation to encourage donations to that country. That 
legislation passed by unanimous consent in the Senate. The Senate 
companion bill, S. 2936, had 40 cosponsors, 15 of whom were 
Republicans. They included Senators Alexander, Cornyn, Enzi, Grassley, 
Hatch, Johanns, Roberts, and Thune. I hope the Senate will provide the 
same support to the Philippines that it provided to Haiti.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee 
be discharged from further consideration of S. 1821; that the Senate 
proceed to its immediate consideration; that the Hirono-Heller 
amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that the bill, as 
amended, be read a third time and passed; further, that upon passage, 
the bill be held at the desk, and that if the Senate receives from the 
House a bill, the text of which is identical to S. 1821, as passed by 
the Senate, the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill 
be read three times and passed, without any intervening action or 
debate; finally, that passage of the Senate bill be vitiated and the 
bill be indefinitely postponed, and all motions to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, reserving the right to object, first, 
I commend the Senator from Hawaii for her work and her concern over the 
Philippines. That country has suffered dramatically from this typhoon. 
Having lived on the gulf coast and walked in the places where 18 feet 
of water from Hurricane Katrina flooded us, washed away whole 
structures, I can imagine what it was like to have lost 6,000 lives. 
And the country is hurting. It is a great country with great people. 
They are excellent allies of the United States. I am very sympathetic 
to their needs and appreciative of the Senator's efforts in seeking 
this way to further contributions for their relief.
  The legislation has an emergency declaration in it. That requires 
going through the Budget Committee and requires other findings that I 
am not sure are available here. I think the legislation could be 
perhaps drafted slightly differently, I say to the Senator, that would 
avoid the emergency designation part, and maybe we could reach an 
accord to get this done quickly, as I know the Senator wants to move on 
it as soon as possible.
  So, Madam President, I at this time say I will object. But our staffs 
will immediately begin to discuss if we can put this in a little 
slightly different way that would accomplish the Senator's goals 
without offending some of the budget niceties. Being the ranking 
Republican on the Budget Committee, I feel very, very strongly that 
when we make agreements about how we are going to spend money and how 
it should be processed, the more we erode those agreements and the more 
we spend above the amount of money we agreed to spend or get around the 
spending limits we ourselves passed into law, the more we place at risk 
the financial future of the country.
  This is not the most costly measure. It is a step that would help the 
people in the Philippines, I know. But with that explanation, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I thank Senator Sessions very much for 
his agreement regarding the concerns we have for our friends in the 
Philippines, and I look forward to working

[[Page S1351]]

with the Senator to come up with a measure that will accomplish what my 
bill seeks to accomplish.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank the Senator, and I respect so 
much her effort in this cause and will do what we can to be 
cooperative.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                               ObamaCare

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I have come to visit with you today 
and the Members of this body with some concerns I have about people who 
are being impacted by the health care law. By ``impacted'' I mean hurt. 
Their lives are being hurt as a result of the impact of the health care 
law. We are seeing it around the country. As people are trying to 
comply with the law, we are finding that many people are losing their 
jobs or part of their jobs if they are working part time--to be held 
under 30 hours a week because under that criteria, people working less 
than 30 hours a week do not have to be provided with health insurance.
  We have seen stories around the country of municipalities, of public 
employees who are having their hours cut and as a result, obviously, 
their take-home pay is cut, their wages are cut as a result of the 
impact of the health care law, as communities try to comply with all 
the aspects of the law. We have seen it with police forces, with 
teachers, with coaches, busdrivers, custodians, cafeteria workers, 
office clerks, sanitation workers, emergency personnel, university 
faculty--people all around the country who are being hurt as a result 
of the law.
  Members of the Senate come from my side of the aisle to read letters 
of folks who have been harmed by the health care law. The majority 
leader comes to the floor and says these stories are lies. These are 
stories from people at home to whom I talk on weekends. I will be this 
weekend in Buffalo, WY, at the health fair, having a chance to visit 
with folks who are from Wyoming who go to a health fair for low-cost 
blood screening; also go to visit booths that are there from the heart 
association, the cancer society, the diabetes association, all taking 
efforts to try to improve the quality of their life, the quality of 
their care, and the quality of their overall health.
  It is interesting to hear from these people, because I do not think 
the President hears from them. When I hear the majority leader say the 
people who come to the floor to talk about them--that these stories are 
lies, it is calling the people of Wyoming who have honest concerns 
about the way their lives are being impacted by the health care law as 
being untruthful.
  I have come to the floor with more letters today and to talk about 
some things. It does make me wonder, when the majority leader comes and 
says these things are not truthful if he is not hearing the stories 
from the police officers and the teachers, the coaches and the bus 
drivers, the custodians, the cafeteria workers, the office clerks, the 
sanitation workers, the emergency personnel, the university faculty in 
States all around the country who have their lives impacted by the 
health care law.
  What I do think is that other Senators, Senators who perhaps go home 
more often than the majority leader, Senators who maybe listen to their 
constituents more and read the letters, are seeing the damage that is 
being done by the health care law because the President is responding 
to their claims, their concerns, and to the point that the President 
himself has unilaterally delayed many components of the health care 
law.
  These are the delays from 2013. Here is the calendar for the year. 
All of the X's are different days when there have been different 
delays. There have been dozens of delays as a result of the health care 
law impact on families across the country. I wish to read a couple of 
emails about the impact on lives of people in Wyoming.
  This is from a gentleman from Casper, my hometown. I was there 
Monday. I will be there again tomorrow.
  He writes:

       My wife and I just received our new monthly premium 
     information for our health insurance. As of March 1, 2014 it 
     will go from $505 a month to $1,045 a month, an increase of 
     over double. This is for a Bronze level plan with a high 
     deductible and high out of pocket.

  You know, I wish the President would actually kind of understand what 
the impact of this law has been on American families. I wish people who 
supported it, campaigned for it, would realize the impact on people's 
lives. He has gotten his premiums going from $505 to over $1,000, 
double increase, Bronze level plan, what the President wants people to 
have. It is the minimum level. It has a high deductible and a high out-
of-pocket.
  He said:

       It is also the cheapest plan I have found so far for us 
     that is available in Wyoming and complies with the ACA.

  Because the law says this man needs a lot of insurance. Maybe he does 
not need it. The President does not know this man, does not know his 
life, does not know his history, does not know what he actually needs 
in terms of insurance. But the President claims and the Democrats who 
voted for this health care law believe they know better than this man 
what he needs.
  But you know what we do find out, when he wants to comply with the 
law, his insurance premiums more than double, for the cheapest plan 
which has the highest deductible and the highest out-of-pocket.
  He says:

       This increase will mean that money we would probably have 
     spent elsewhere will now need to be budgeted for the 
     insurance increase.

  We go across the State to Moran, WY. Another resident of Wyoming 
writes:

       I am a resident of Wyoming and about half of my income 
     comes from Social Security. My benefits total $958 a month. 
     In addition to that, I work part time at a ranch. It is a 
     seasonal job from May to October. I make about the same 
     amount there as I do from Social Security. I have recently 
     managed to submit an application for health care through the 
     healthcare.gov Web site. The cost to me with my current 
     income would be a low end of $837 a month with a $4,000 
     deductible. With the high end, it would be over $1,300 a 
     month with a $1,000 deductible.
       Neither of those amounts are possible with my income range. 
     I would not be able to afford to live. Now I refigured this 
     with only my Social Security income and found that it would 
     be very affordable, lower deductible, lower premiums, but I 
     wouldn't have the income. I could possibly afford that but 
     would have to live in a very substandard poverty lifestyle by 
     quitting working.

  So he has these options: He can continue what he does, but he cannot 
afford the insurance, or he can get affordable insurance by quitting 
working but then cannot afford to live. This is what the President of 
the United States and the Democrats have given the people of America.
  He said:

       I would like to work and contribute as long as I'm able but 
     things are looking pretty bleak for me.

  This is a man who wants to work. This is a man who wants to work, but 
the health care law is making it a lot harder for him to do so. He 
said:

       I am giving you this information in the hope that it will 
     be of some value in combating the unfairness of the 
     Affordable Care Act.

  The unfairness of the Affordable Care Act. I have to believe that 
Senators on both sides of the aisle who actually go home and listen to 
their constituents hear about this, hear these stories, hear these 
stories all around the country, of the unfairness of the Affordable 
Care Act.
  He then goes on and says:

       Thank you so much for your service to your country and the 
     great State of Wyoming.

  So here we have dozens of delays--and this is last year. Now it has 
happened again. Just yesterday the President came up with another 
delay. It is interesting the way it has made the front page of the New 
York Times, a paper that has supported the President, supported the 
law, front page, above the fold, story by Robert Pear.

       The Obama administration, grappling with continued 
     political fallout over its health care law, said Wednesday 
     that it would allow consumers to renew health insurance 
     policies that did not comply with the new law for two more 
     years--

  This is the New York Times speaking, front page, above the fold. This 
is not me. But they are repeating the kind of things I have been 
saying.

     pushing the issue well beyond this fall's midterm elections.

  So what is the idea here? Push it out beyond the elections, make 
people not see the reality and the danger and the damage that is coming 
their way until after they vote.
  The article goes on, front page above the fold, today's New York 
Times:


[[Page S1352]]


       The reprieve was the latest in a series of waivers, 
     deadline extensions and unilateral actions by the 
     administration--

  Here you have them. This is just in 2013. Now we have more in 2014.

     --unilateral actions by the administration that have drawn 
     criticism from the law's opponents and supporters, many 
     saying President Obama was testing the limits of his powers.

  I believe that. I believe the President has gone way beyond the 
limits of his powers.

       The action reflects the difficulties Mr. Obama--

  The President of the United States, who told the American people, if 
they like what they have they can keep it; if they like their doctor, 
they can keep their doctor; who said insurance premiums would go down--
all of which are untrue, one called the ``lie of the year.''

       The action reflects the difficulties Mr. Obama has faced in 
     trying to build support for the Affordable Care Act and the 
     uproar over his promise--which he later acknowledged has been 
     overstated--that people who liked their insurance plans could 
     keep them, no matter what.

  Over 5 million Americans got letters of cancellation, 3,500 in the 
State of Wyoming. A woman with a wonderful policy that worked for her, 
worked for her family, lost her insurance because it did not cover 
maternity care. She writes to me as a doctor and says:

       Dr. Barrasso, please explain to the President of the United 
     States that I have had a hysterectomy. I don't need maternity 
     coverage.

  You would think the President would understand that. You would think 
the Democrats who shoved this health care law down the throats of the 
American people would understand that as well.
  This is interesting. Still on the front page of this morning's New 
York Times:

       Under pressure from Democratic candidates who are 
     struggling to defend the President's signature domestic 
     policy, Mr. Obama in November announced a one-year reprieve 
     for insurance plans that did not meet the minimum coverage 
     requirements of the 2010 health care law.
       Wednesday's action goes much further, essentially stalling 
     for two more years one of the central tenets of the much-
     debated law, which was supposed to eliminate what White House 
     officials called substandard insurance and junk policies.

  If this is what the President believes, why is he now coming out and 
having a delay announced--not coming to Congress, not saying: Hey, 
let's try to do something a little differently. Let me propose this. 
Let's have a bipartisan agreement to come up with some solutions to 
actually help people get what they wanted in the beginning with health 
care reform, the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower 
costs.
  The letters I am reading show people not being able to do that. They 
are paying much higher rates for things they do not need, will never 
use. We are hearing from people all across the country who are losing 
their doctor, can't keep their doctor, higher out-of-pocket costs.
  We hear now the President wants to do some things unilaterally 
because a group of Democratic Senators who are up for reelection are 
worried about their political future, not about the future of the 
American people and the health care of the American people. That is why 
they are doing this.

  You say: No, that seems like an exaggeration.
  Well, let's go on. This next paragraph in the New York Times this 
morning:

       The extension could help Democrats in tight midterm 
     election races because it may avoid the cancellation of 
     policies that would otherwise have occurred at the height of 
     the political campaign season this fall.

  So the cancellations are still going to happen, people are still 
going to continue to be hurt. We have over 5 million people who have 
gotten letters of cancellation. It is not saying: Oh, the cancellations 
are never going to happen. It is saying: It will push them out until 
after the election, so people will not be so irritated, angry, and 
aggravated at the Democrats who voted for it, in an effort to try to 
save their elections, try to save their Senate seats, but not to help 
the American people.
  This goes on:

       In announcing the new transition policy, the Department of 
     Health and Human Services said it had been devised ``in close 
     consultation with members of Congress,'' and it gave credit 
     to a number of Democrats in competitive races, including 
     Senators Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, Jeanne Shaheen of New 
     Hampshire and Mark Udall of Colorado.

  So the reason that the White House goes time after time, all these 
delays, all this and that, is not to help the American people; it is 
not to help patients; it is not to help the providers of health care; 
it is not to help the taxpayers; it is to help a couple of Democratic 
Senators whom they name--whom the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services names as recipients of the help because the President is 
worried about Democrats losing elections this fall.
  The Hill newspaper yesterday. ``New ObamaCare delay to help midterm 
Dems.'' Not to help Americans, not to help the people from my State who 
write letters about the concerns of their lives, not to help all of 
those people about whom my colleagues and I continue to come to the 
floor with letters to tell their stories, to tell about their lives, to 
tell about the pain they are suffering because of the health care law.
  It is not about the failed Web site. We all know the Web site. The 
President said: It will be as easy to use as Amazon, cheaper than your 
cell phone bill. You will be able to keep your doctor--several days 
before the Web site opened and crashed. No, it is more than about the 
Web site. It is about people's lives. It is about if they are able to 
keep their doctor. It is about cuts to Medicare Advantage and hurting 
our seniors who are having a harder time getting doctors. It is about 
people paying higher premiums. It is about people having higher out-of-
pocket costs, higher copays, higher deductibles. It is all of those 
things.
  It is about hospitals in States that are not part of any of these 
exchanges, people in the communities cannot go there, they have to 
travel further distances. Nope, the President is not doing this for any 
of those reasons, not to help any of those people, he is doing it to 
help midterm Democrats because they are afraid they are going to lose 
their States, their majority, afraid they are going to be impacted and 
thrown out of office for absolutely reckless behavior on the part of a 
Congress that did not work in a bipartisan way, shoved the health care 
law down the throats of the American people in a way not to improve 
their lives, but to say that Congress knows better than people back 
home.
  I am going to continue to come to the floor with letters and stories. 
I will be at the health fair in Buffalo, WY, on Saturday morning 
talking to folks in my community, seeing what they have to say about 
their lives, their families, their jobs, their wages, those of them who 
are losing jobs or losing hours as a result of the health care law, 
those who cannot afford new insurance under the exchanges even though 
they had insurance they liked--even though they did not like the price, 
it was cheaper than it is now. The President said it wasn't good enough 
for them.

  I am going to continue to work for solutions to help patients all 
across this country have patient-centered care--not government-centered 
care or insurance company-centered care--to help patients get the care 
they need from a doctor they chose at lower cost--a complete failure by 
this administration and by this health care law.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________