[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 98 (Thursday, June 18, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4279-S4281]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
KING V. BURWELL DECISION
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I was so glad to see Senator Stabenow down
on the floor a week ago talking about a pretty simple issue, which is
the tax increase that is going to occur to 6.4 million Americans if the
Supreme Court rules this week, next week, for the plaintiffs in the
case of King v. Burwell. We wanted to come down to the floor and
accentuate this message so people all around this country know what is
at stake.
What is at stake is 6.5 million people losing their health insurance.
That maybe gets the headlines. But the way in which people get
affordable health insurance under the Affordable Care Act is by tax
credits. So the immediate effect of a reversal of subsidies for Federal
exchange States is that 6.5 million Americans are going to have their
taxes dramatically increased by thousands of dollars if this body
refuses to act in the face of a Supreme Court finding for the
plaintiffs.
So we wanted to come down to the floor just to talk a little bit
about what the stakes are for people's tax bills and how this is going
to be a gut punch for millions of American families if the Supreme
Court rules the way we hope they don't.
I think it is, first of all, important to say at the outset that most
of us who have followed the Affordable Care Act and its legal
interpretation think this is a sham of a case. This is a political
attack on the Affordable Care Act masked as a legal case.
There is absolutely no question that the Affordable Care Act is built
in a way to deliver subsidies to both State exchanges and Federal
exchanges. I will not go into all the details as to why that is the
clear case. But though we are talking about what might happen if King
v. Burwell comes down for the plaintiffs, many of us think that would
be an absolutely ludicrous legal result, one that would be a stunning
act of judicial overreach, essentially a political substitution of the
Court for the legislature. But I want to talk about a couple case
studies and then turn the floor over to my colleagues.
I have come down and talked about people from Connecticut. I talked
about Christina, a small business owner from Stratford; Susie, a two-
time breast cancer survivor from North Canaan, CT; and Sean and Emilie,
two freelancers from Weston. All of these people have gotten tax
credits through the Affordable Care Act, and it has allowed them to
have a lower tax bill but also get insurance. Many of them, it was the
first time in their lives or in recent history that they have been able
to afford insurance. But there are stories all over the country that
are parallel to the stories from Connecticut I have been telling on the
floor of the Senate over the course of the last year.
For instance, there are 832,000 Texans who are receiving an average
tax credit of $247 a month. If the Supreme Court strips away these tax
credits, those 800,000 people in Texas are going to see a tax increase
of around $3,000. People like Aurora, a 26-year-old from Houston, got
health insurance coverage through Texas's Federal marketplace. She
works at a small nonprofit where she helps her LGBT peers get the
coverage they need. She is saving $1,500 a year getting insurance she
would have never been able to afford. She says, quite simply:
I wouldn't be able to afford my policy otherwise. It has
really helped me be able to get my well person exam and other
preventions screenings that I'd not had in years.
She is one of 832,000 people in Texas who are going to have their
taxes increased, their insurance stolen away.
I am a big New York Giants fan, so I get to watch a lot of games in
which the Giants are playing in this stadium, which is, as Cowboy fans
know it, AT&T Stadium. You could fill AT&T Stadium 10 different times.
This is a huge stadium. People see the giant jumbotron on the roof of
this stadium.
[[Page S4280]]
You could fill AT&T Stadium 10 times with the number of people in Texas
alone who could lose their health care and lose their tax cut--$3,000,
on average, per person a year in Texas--if King v. Burwell is decided
in favor of the plaintiffs.
But I will tell another story of a young woman named Celia. She is a
self-employed Pilates instructor in Florida. Since 2005, she hasn't
been able to find health care coverage. Since 2005, she has been
uninsured. Now, she has been lucky because she didn't get really sick
during that time, but she only had a $900-a-month plan that she could
find. That was the cheapest. With the Affordable Care Act, Celia
finally has insurance. Celia is able to finally sign up for a health
insurance plan that has meant something to her because last year she
had a minor accident in her home. She had to go to the emergency room.
With her insurance, she received a bill of $57. She said, ``I couldn't
have even imagined what that would have cost me out-of-pocket--more
than I could ever afford.'' This year, Celia has reenrolled in another
silver plan, and for around $200 a month she knows that she is going to
be covered if she gets sick or if she has another minor accident.
In Florida--we think this is a lot of people, 832,000. In Florida,
there are 1.3 million people who are receiving health care tax credits
right now. Now, I root for the University of Connecticut Huskies, and
so we don't necessarily get to play in stadiums this big when you are
playing out of the American Athletic Conference. But everybody in
Florida knows The Swamp, and you could fill The Swamp 15 times over
with the 1.3 million people who could lose their health care tax
credit. Those are more people than attend Gator football games on an
annual basis. Those are more people than attend Gator football games
over a 2-year period of time. So 1.3 million people are going to lose
their coverage in Florida alone.
So let's call a spade a spade. This is about health care. It is about
our belief that for people who are working hard and playing by the
rules, they should have a shot at being healthy, but it is also about
keeping people's tax bills low. If we ever contemplated a bill on the
floor of the U.S. Senate that raised 1.3 million people's taxes in
Florida by an average of $3,500, my friends from the Republican side of
the aisle--our friends would be screaming bloody murder that this was
an unjustifiable, unconscionable, unworkable tax increase on the
American people. But there is largely silence or temporary fixes and
patches that are proposed.
So I am glad to join my colleagues to talk about what this means.
Now, I am from Connecticut and we have a State exchange. We have a
State exchange. Conventional wisdom is that those of us who have State
exchanges are going to be protected because we will continue to get
subsidies. But this is going to be a death spiral nationally. We have
no idea how this will actually play out. When you have all of these
subsidies ripped away with the insurance reforms still baked in, even
in States such as Connecticut, where you have a State exchange, we are
not immune. Nobody is immune. The primary victims here are going to be
the people in States such as Florida and Texas, as I mentioned. But
this is going to be a national catastrophe.
We hope we don't ever have to have a conversation on the floor of the
Senate as to how to fix this. But we better be clear ahead of time as
to what the implications are.
I yield the floor.
I know my colleague will seek recognition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first I want to thank my friend from
Connecticut, not only for those very powerful words but for his ongoing
advocacy and leadership in the whole realm of health care and the
importance of something as basic as being able to take the kids to the
doctor, to make sure that you have the health care and the affordable
health insurance that you need. I want to thank Senator Murphy, and I
also want to thank Senator Baldwin as well, my partner and neighbor
from Wisconsin. Senator Baldwin is also a champion as it relates to
quality, affordable health care for every American. Both of them are
very important voices and leaders on what we call the HELP Committee. I
am their partner on the other committee that does the financing of
health care, which is, in fact, the Finance Committee.
As the ranking Democrat--the lead Democrat--on the Health Care
Subcommittee and someone deeply involved through the Finance Committee
as we were putting together the Affordable Care Act, I think it is
appropriate for me to be able to talk about legislative intent. That is
what I want to do for a moment. We knew that in putting together a way
for everyone to be able to purchase affordable health insurance and
indicating the expectation that we would, it had to be affordable.
I worked very hard to make sure that we had a tax credit system that
would essentially lower people's taxes so they could take those funds
and be able to use those to be able to afford health insurance. In
fact, at the time, Senator Baucus, the chairman of the committee, would
razz me and call me ``Senator Affordability'' in all the meetings.
We spent a lot of time focusing on how to make sure health insurance
was affordable. What is happening, as Senator Murphy said, is that if
the Supreme Court sides with the Republican position, 6.4 million
Americans are going to see tax credits go away and their taxes go up.
The worst part is that their taxes are going to go up and their health
care is going to go down. It is not a good deal for anybody.
Unfortunately, one of those States is my State of Michigan.
But let me talk a little bit more, first, about the broad picture,
because we are looking at $1.7 billion in tax increases to people all
over America if the Supreme Court sides with the Republican position.
Basically, somehow we would have to say it is rational that Members
from all of these States actually voted for a system that didn't help
their own people, which makes absolutely no sense.
I can't believe anybody would do that. People wouldn't do that.
Basically, we are saying that Members of Congress said that people in
Massachusetts, where there is a State exchange, can have a tax cut, but
if you live in Oklahoma you can't. Or if you live in the District of
Columbia, right here, you can have a tax cut, but if you live in
Louisiana, you can't. Or if you live in New York, you can have a tax
cut, but if you live in Texas, you can't.
We can go right around looking at some of the numbers. I will not go
through all of the charts that I did last week. I am very grateful for
Senator Murphy for pointing out two very important States.
Let me talk about my State of Michigan. I happen to be a baseball
fan. I am a big Detroit Tigers fan. When we look at Comerica Park in
Detroit, it is a beautiful stadium. Mr. President, we welcome you to
come and watch a game and get our folks engaged in what they do best at
winning games. The fact of the matter is that you would have to fill up
Comerica Park five times--that is what it would take--to get the number
of people who are going to lose their health care tax credits if the
Supreme Court sides with the Republican position--228,388 people.
A couple of other States: In Illinois, 232,371 people will see their
taxes go up. In New Jersey, 172,000-plus will see their taxes go up. In
Ohio, another State right down from the great State of Michigan,
161,011 people will see their taxes go up. Finally, in Pennsylvania, it
is 348,823 people.
When we look at all of this, all of the States together, 6.4 million
people are going to see tax increases. It makes no sense that people
who represent these States would have voted for a system that raises
taxes on their people and doesn't give them the health care they need
while other people, in fact, see lower taxes--tax credits that allow
them to pay for their health care and get affordable health care. It
makes absolutely no sense.
Let me also say this. When we look at the Chairman of the Finance
Committee in the Senate, the former distinguished chairman, Senator Max
Baucus from Montana, all the time we were debating the Affordable Care
Act, it was clear that Montana had absolutely no plan to set up their
own exchange. They indicated that. In order for the Court to side with
Republicans, we would have to somehow believe that Senator Baucus would
write a health
[[Page S4281]]
care bill with tax cuts for other States and not his own State of
Montana, which I can assure you he did not do. The same can be said for
myself.
The legislative intent is absolutely clear on this. What the Court is
deciding, in my opinion, is something that I can't believe they are
even bringing in front of the U.S. Supreme Court because on the face of
it, it makes no sense. Unfortunately, depending on how they rule,
millions of Americans--millions of Americans--will see their taxes go
up and their health care go away.
The intent is very real. It is very clear in the Affordable Care Act.
Title I, page 1: Quality, affordable health care for all Americans.
What was true 5 years ago when we wrote this bill is true today: The
right to get the tax cuts has nothing to do with the State in which you
live. If you are in America, then you deserve the opportunity to
receive tax cuts that will make your health care affordable, whether
you get your plan on an exchange run by the State or through
healthcare.gov.
This is about moms and dads in Michigan and across the country being
able to go to bed at night without having to say a prayer that says:
Please, God, don't let the kids get sick because what am I going to do?
The Affordable Care Act has provided an answer and the peace of mind
for millions of Americans. We certainly hope that the Supreme Court
will not take that away.
I would now like to yield the floor to the great Senator from
Wisconsin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
____________________