[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.

                          ____________________