[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 3 (Thursday, January 8, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S69-S72]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to S. 1.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 1, S. 1, a bill to
approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Unanimous Consent Agreement--H.R. 26
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following
leader remarks the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 26, the
House-passed TRIA bill; further, that the only amendment in order be an
amendment to be proposed by Senator Warren, which is at the desk, with
the time until 1:45 p.m. equally divided in the usual form. I further
ask that no other amendments or motions be in order, aside from budget
points of order, if applicable, and that if a point of order is raised,
the motion to waive be considered made. I further ask that following
the use or yielding back of time and the disposition of any pending
motions to waive, the Senate vote on adoption of the Warren amendment,
the bill then be read a third time, followed by a vote on passage of
the bill, as amended, if amended; and the votes on the Warren amendment
and passage of the bill, as amended, if amended, be at a 60-vote
affirmative threshold.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. No objection.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Schedule
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, with this agreement we are able to
complete some unfinished business from last Congress and reauthorize
the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program. These votes will occur this
afternoon at 1:45. The Energy Committee is meeting this morning to
report out the Keystone bill. We will begin processing that bill next
week. Those with amendments to Keystone should be working with Chairman
Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell to schedule a time to come and
offer them. I hope that our colleagues on the Democratic side will
allow us to get on the bill and start with a fair and open amendment
process on Monday or Tuesday of next week.
Keystone XL Pipeline
Mr. President, the new Republican majority has pledged to run the
Senate differently and to stop protecting the President from good
ideas. That is why we look forward to the Senate beginning
consideration of a bipartisan job-creating infrastructure project, the
Keystone XL Pipeline. Right now the Keystone jobs bill is being
considered by the committee. The Keystone jobs bill will then be
subject to real debate and amendment on the floor of the Senate. Then
we plan to send the Senate Keystone jobs bill to the President's desk
with bipartisan support.
That may be a departure from what Senators have become used to, but
for Members on both sides, I think the change will certainly be
welcome. I think Senators in both parties are ready to have their
voices and the voices of their constituents heard in the Senate.
Senators understand that Keystone presents a real opportunity for
Washington to finally prove to America that it can prioritize jobs for
them over the demand of powerful special interests. That is what the
voters told us they wanted just last November, and that is just exactly
what Washington should aim for now by passing this bipartisan, job-
creating infrastructure project.
As we consider the Keystone jobs bill, let's keep focused on the real
issues at hand, such as jobs for the middle class and reliable energy
costs for families. Let's also acknowledge that this is not really a
debate about the environment. President Obama's own State Department
has previously said that Keystone's impact on the environment would
basically be negligible. So let's maintain our focus. Let's keep the
voters in mind who sent us here and let's remember what they told us
just last November.
One of the things they told us is they would like to see more team
work across the aisle. So for a President who
[[Page S70]]
said he would like to see more bipartisan cooperation, this, my
colleagues, is a perfect opportunity.
A number of the many Democratic supporters of this bill have already
written to the President urging him to choose jobs, economic
development, and American energy security and approve this pipeline. We
are asking the President again today to do that by working with us to
end the gridlock and get this job-creating infrastructure project
moving. Keystone has been studied endlessly from almost every possible
angle, and the same basic conclusion seems to be coming back. The
conclusion is: Build it. Build it. Keystone construction could support
thousands of jobs. It could invest billions in our economy. That is why
Democrats say build it, Republicans say build it, prominent labor
unions say build it, and most importantly, the American people say
build it.
The President has called for Congress to send him infrastructure
projects to sign. Keystone is the largest shovel-ready infrastructure
project in the country that makes sense. So we are going to send it to
him, and we hope he will sign it. He may ultimately veto an
infrastructure project that would increase workers' wages by $2
billion, a project whose construction alone could, according to the
President's own State Department, support many thousands of jobs. He
may. Or he may decide to try and make divided government work. Either
way, this Congress is determined to do what we can to pass bipartisan
jobs legislation. That is what the American people asked us to do, and
that is just what we are going to do.
Recognition of the Acting Minority Leader
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). The assistant Democratic leader.
Keystone Pipeline
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the majority leader has stated this
morning that we have to stop protecting the President from good ideas
and use this as his exhibit A--the Keystone Pipeline bill--which is
likely to come up for debate before the Senate the beginning of next
week. It is an important measure, an important issue that has been
talked about over a long period of time, and the actual debate on the
Senate floor will commence the beginning of next week.
The majority leader has moved a bill through the rule XIV process,
which under the Senate rules is an effort to bring a bill directly to
the floor and not through the committee. At the same time there is a
parallel effort under way in the newly formed energy committee of the
Senate--formed as of yesterday, I might add--to consider this bill, as
well, to mark it up. So I am not sure which bill will come to the
floor. Perhaps the effort will be merged at some point. But there is no
delay from our point of view from any of the motions or objections that
we have raised. We ask only that the committee structures be
established so that the bill could go through the orderly process of
committee. That happened yesterday and now it is in the hands of the
energy committee. If their markup is going to be perhaps later this
week or next week, then we will be prepared to bring this measure to
the floor after the regular order process of committee consideration of
this bill.
This bill, of course, is going to be subject to the new approach of
the new majority--amendments on the floor. I welcome that. I have been
looking forward to that and a return to that for a long time. We have
already said that although we plan on being in the minority for a short
period of time, while in the minority we will not be obstructionist. We
are going to do our best to work in a constructive fashion toward
bipartisan solutions. There will come moments of disagreement, and
Members will assert their rights and privileges as Members of the
Senate and will follow the traditions in the rules of the Senate in
that regard.
I will state that when this measure comes to the floor, there are
some important questions that need to be answered. I listened to
Republican Senators Blunt and Thune yesterday come to the floor and say
something which puzzled me. I thought there was a question--at least a
question was raised earlier--as to whether the oil that is flowing
through this pipeline is ever going to be sold as a product in the
United States. I don't know the answer to that as I stand here.
For the longest time, the companies that wanted to develop this
pipeline and the refinery have not agreed that their product would be
sold in the United States. Yet I have heard Senator after Senator come
to the floor and say we have to have more oil in the United States.
Initially, as I understand it, this pipeline was to end at a refinery
in Texas where it could be exported overseas, meaning that the actual
oil product may not benefit American consumers of gasoline and diesel
fuel.
So during the course of this debate on this Keystone Pipeline,
amendments are going to be offered to give Members an opportunity to go
on the record as to whether the ultimate product from the Keystone
Pipeline is going to be sold in the United States and ultimately
whether there will be jobs created in the United States as a result of
it. These are worthy policy questions, and I think they will come up
during the course of our amendments.
I also take exception to the majority leader's suggestion that this
particular measure, the Keystone Pipeline, has been studied endlessly
and stranded because of the efforts of the President. Let me say, as we
stand here today discussing the Keystone Pipeline, the court system in
the State of Nebraska is still trying to resolve some questions about
the location of this pipeline--sensitive questions to our environment.
There is an aquifer in this area that they don't want to jeopardize
by placing the pipeline in the wrong location. They are fighting it out
in the courts of Nebraska as to the right location and the authority of
officials in Nebraska to choose that location. That goes on as we
debate it on the Senate floor. So to suggest that this is so-called
shovel ready and all we need is a green light from Congress and the
President to move forward oversimplifies and overstates the case. I
wanted to clarify that for the record.
Affordable Care Act
Mr. President, there is an effort under way in the House of
Representatives today to amend the Affordable Care Act. For those of us
who voted for it and proudly support the Affordable Care Act, this is
no surprise. Many of the people who did not vote for it and those on
the other side of the aisle have opposed the Affordable Care Act since
it was signed into law by President Obama. Some believe that opposition
is grounded in this notion that this is President Obama's Affordable
Care Act, the so-called ObamaCare. I would say that opposition is not
grounded in the reality of what has happened since we passed the
Affordable Care Act.
There are Members of the Senate--Republican Members--who have said
they want to veto and eliminate every single word of the Affordable
Care Act--every single word. One of the Senators from Texas on the
Republican side said that the other day. Well, if they do this, it will
be disastrous.
Let me state the record of the Affordable Care Act to date. The
Affordable Care Act has given millions of Americans access to health
insurance--many of them for the first time in their lives. I have met
them in the city of Chicago and around my State. At the same time it
has reined in insurance companies and has lowered health care cost
increases. Because of this law a person no longer needs to stay in a
job simply to have health insurance or be denied coverage because of a
preexisting condition.
Who among us does not have a family Member or friend with a
preexisting condition? Almost anything qualifies as a preexisting
condition under the old law. Under the Affordable Care Act you cannot
be discriminated against because of a preexisting condition that you
suffered from or someone in your family did. When the Republican
Senator from Texas says he wants to repeal every single word of the
Affordable Care Act, he is repealing the protection of those with
preexisting conditions and families with children with preexisting
conditions from having access to health insurance they can afford.
That was the reality of the situation facing America before the
passage of this bill.
I might add that because of the Affordable Care Act, preventive care
is free and the cost of prescription drugs
[[Page S71]]
for senior citizens is substantially lower. Those who want to repeal
the Affordable Care Act are really putting at risk preventive care,
which eliminates some of the worst and most expensive medical
conditions, and at the same time, they are suggesting that we ought to
say to seniors: Pay more for your prescriptions.
If you repeal the Affordable Care Act, you will be repealing
provisions that help make seniors' prescription drugs affordable.
Out of the gate, House Republicans are pursuing an extreme bill that
they are considering this week that undermines the Affordable Care Act
and that is likely to come to the Senate soon and we are told is a high
priority by the new majority in the Senate.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the House Republican
bill would increase our Nation's deficit by $45 billion. What happened
to all these deficit hawks who have been preaching to us day after day
and week after week about our Nation's deficit? Apparently, when it
comes to the Affordable Care Act, they are going to ignore the reality
that the bill being considered by the House will add $45 billion to the
Nation's deficit.
That bill would also cause 1 million people in America to lose their
employer-based health insurance. The purpose of this effort on the
Affordable Care Act was to give more people insurance coverage. The
first action by the Republican Congress is to take up to 1 million
people off of health care coverage from their own employers.
This action by House Republicans--soon to be brought to the floor of
the Senate--would increase Medicaid and CHIP enrollment by 500,000 to 1
million people. It will take people off of their coverage where they
work and move them into government health insurance programs. Does that
sound consistent with what we are told over and over is the Republican
philosophy? I don't think so.
We have had 8 million Americans enroll in private health insurance
plans since October 1. That is the enrollment. Over 9 million people
have gained coverage through Medicaid and CHIP. In Illinois more than
800,000 people now have health insurance because of the Affordable Care
Act. Over 217,000 people purchased plans through the Illinois
marketplace. My wife and I purchased our plan through a marketplace
that was created by the Affordable Care Act. An additional 530,000
people have enrolled in Medicaid in my State.
In Illinois, 125,000 young adults have been able to join their
parents' plan. Any parent with a child in college who is about to
graduate knows that this change in the law is dramatic and helpful.
Those of us who have had kids graduate from college and have worried
about their health insurance coverage once they were out of school--
this Affordable Care Act says these young people can stay on their
parents' health insurance policy until they reach the age of 26. While
they are looking for a job--internships, travel, part-time jobs--they
are covered by their parents. It is peace of mind for parents. When
Republican Senators say they want to repeal every single word of the
Affordable Care Act, they want to repeal this provision, which in my
State is providing coverage for 125,000 young people who can stay under
their parents' plan.
According to a Gallup poll released yesterday, the uninsured rate has
dropped over 4 points since the Affordable Care Act went into effect a
year ago. That was our goal--more and more people with health insurance
coverage. The uninsured rate that they now report is 12.9 percent. That
is the lowest point since Gallup began to track this measure of health
insurance coverage.
The Affordable Care Act includes several changes that are meant to
help slow the growth of health care costs, and they are working.
Instead of paying hospitals for the services they provide--the old fee-
for-service program--hospitals are paid on the basis of making patients
better. If their patients have to go back into the hospital, the
hospitals are paid less. There is an incentive to take care of people
and to make sure that when they are finally released, they are ready to
go home and not likely to return. Despite climbing readmission rates
since 2007, those hospital readmission rates are now falling since the
passage of the Affordable Care Act and our change in outlook when it
comes to health care. Hospitals are responding in a positive way to the
incentives in the Affordable Care Act, and more of their patients are
going home in better and stronger condition and staying at home.
Health care spending per enrollee has slowed in the private insurance
market, in Medicare, and in Medicaid. For the first time in years we
are seeing the rate of growth in health care costs slow down. That is a
dramatic increase in opportunity, not just for individuals and
businesses that pay health insurance premiums, but it means less
expense for our government. It helps to reduce our deficit.
The solvency of the Medicare Part A trust fund is now 13 years longer
than it was prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, which the
trustees in 2010 said had substantially improved the financial status
of the trust fund.
As I mentioned earlier, the law is also helping seniors with the cost
of their prescription drugs by closing the so-called doughnut hole.
Remember that crazy provision? It said that if you are getting
prescription drugs as a senior under Medicare, it would cover the
purchase of drugs up to a certain point and then you had to pay out-of-
pocket for a certain period of time and then it came back and covered
again. We closed the so-called doughnut hole with the Affordable Care
Act. The Republican Senators, who have vowed to repeal every single
word of the Affordable Care Act, are going to reopen that doughnut
hole, which means seniors will have more out-of-pocket expenses for
prescription drugs.
Despite all of the successes, some Governors have decided not to
expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, thereby denying health
insurance coverage for millions of people in their States. The
Affordable Care Act has already given about 9 million Americans access
to Medicaid. By not expanding Medicaid in these other States, these
Governors are leaving billions of dollars on the table that could be
used to cover people in their States, dollars that could be used for
health care for people who need it the most. I met those people. One of
them is Ray Romanowski--a great Chicago name. He is a big, barrel-
chested Polish musician who has played at wedding receptions and
different events with his band all of his life. That is what he has
done for a living. Until now he has never ever had health insurance. He
qualifies for Medicaid. He has that coverage and carries it in his
pocket proudly, and at age 62 he is glad to have it so he can deal with
some of the issues that folks face as they get a little older.
Unfortunately, when these Governors decide not to expand Medicaid to
cover people in their States, everybody pays. People who would
otherwise qualify for Medicaid still need health care. They still get
sick, they still show up in the emergency room, and basically they get
the services at the hospital and the rest of us pay for it. Isn't it
more responsible to say that individuals should have their own
responsibility to have their own insurance and show up for preventive
care to avoid terrible medical conditions?
One of the things I worry about is that the proposal before us, which
Senator McConnell has said is a high priority, will address one of the
issues regarding when employers have to provide health insurance
coverage. It is an issue which was addressed in the bill but has been
controversial.
Senator McConnell said: ``Making the switch from 30 to 40 hours is at
the top of the GOP's Obamacare priorities.'' This is a provision being
considered by the House of Representatives now, and it is one we ought
to reflect on for a moment. It may seem simple to some that if you
raise the requirement to 40 hours of work before the employer has to
pay for health insurance, that it will mean fewer people are going to
be disadvantaged. Exactly the opposite is true. The workweek bill
affects how many people are covered by the employer mandate--the
requirement that an employer pay for health insurance which went into
effect January 1 for businesses with 50 workers or more. These
businesses with more than 50 workers have to offer insurance to 70
percent of their full-time workforce this year or pay penalties. Under
the law, full time is defined as 30 hours.
Critics of this 30-hour rule say it will force employers to slash
workers'
[[Page S72]]
hours to escape the penalties. Many Democrats and even some prominent
conservative policy experts say that the change being considered by the
House of Representatives now will do more harm than good. Millions more
people work a traditional 40-hour workweek than a 30-hour workweek, so
putting the cutoff at 40 hours gives employers an incentive to game the
hours of their workers--a much larger group of workers. In other words,
if you are not required to provide health insurance unless an employee
is working 40 hours, the House action creates an incentive for
employers to avoid the mandate by reducing the hours worked by those
who are currently working 40 hours.
The Cato Institute is no liberal think tank; it is one of the most
conservative. Cato Institute scholar Michael Cannon wrote Wednesday
that the bill now being considered by the House might lighten
ObamaCare's business burden but drive up government spending by making
more people eligible for health care subsidies. He wrote, ``How is that
a policy victory?'' and added that it is a wrongheaded strategy. He
said, ``This proposed change would actually do a lot of harm, not just
to the Affordable Care Act but to a substantial number of people across
the country.''
Our leader on this issue is Senator Patty Murray. Senator Murray is
the ranking member of the Senate HELP Committee, and she issued a
statement this week which really is spot-on when it comes to the
wrongheaded approach being considered by House Republicans and soon to
be brought up here. The Senate HELP Committee may take up the bill as
soon as the end of this month.
The Senate HELP Committee ranking Democrat, Patty Murray, pledged to
fight the change. Here is what she said:
It's deeply disappointing that as one of their first
priorities, Republicans are putting forward a proposal that
would not only hurt workers by denying them the health care
coverage they depend on, but would actually encourage
companies to cut many workers' hours across the country.
The independent Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday that the
House bill would add $53.2 billion to our Nation's deficit from 2015 to
2025 because fewer businesses would pay the fines and because some of
the employees who would have been covered at work are now going to be
covered by government programs. The CBO estimates that 1 million
Americans would lose the health care coverage they currently have at
work if the Republicans proposal prevails and up to 1 million will end
up on government programs as result of it. This is the wrong approach.
I say to my friends in the retail and restaurant industry, the offer
that I made and that I am sure many others have made is still there.
Let's sit down on a bipartisan basis and find the right solution. This
effort to stop the progress of the Affordable Care Act, increase the
deficit, push more people into government coverage, and eliminate
health coverage for millions of Americans across the country is the
wrong way to approach it at this point.
I yield the floor.
____________________