[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 13613-13615]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            HEALTH INSURANCE

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let's talk for a minute about the Vitter 
amendment that is on the floor. One-half of all Americans have a common 
experience. The experience is this: They get health insurance where 
they work--one-half of all Americans. For virtually all of them, their 
employer pays for part of their health insurance premium and the 
employer gets a tax break. If you own a company and offer health 
insurance to your employees, we have what we call the employer's 
exclusion for health care benefits. In other words, what you pay for 
your employees' health insurance is excluded from your income for tax 
purposes. It is one of the most expensive exclusions in the Tax Code, 
but it is a valuable one because it encourages businesses to offer 
health insurance to their employees, which is important for those 
families, important for our Nation.
  Of course, when it comes to the Federal Government, the same rule 
applies. The employer--the Federal Government--offers health insurance 
to its employees under what is known as the Federal Employees' Health 
Benefits Program. Eight million Americans, representing Federal 
employees and their families, get their health insurance through the 
Federal Employees' Health Benefits Program. It includes Members of 
Congress. We do not have a special health insurance plan. We have the 
same plan that millions of Federal employees have. And our staff enjoy 
those same privileges.
  Well, now we are in a period of transition because of the new 
Affordable Care Act.
  This Affordable Care Act says that from this point forward Members of 
Congress as well as their staff members will no longer be insured by 
the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program but instead will become 
part of the insurance exchanges that were created. These exchanges, 
which are going to be in virtually every State because of State 
sponsorship, Federal sponsorship, or shared responsibility, will offer 
health insurance plans across America so that those who currently do 
not have health insurance today will be able to apply for a plan under 
the insurance exchange. If they are extremely low-income individuals, 
they will get help--subsidies and tax treatment that will help them pay 
for their premiums. The notion is that no matter where you live you 
will have access to health insurance.
  The health insurance offered by these exchanges and by every other 
company in America will change because this law--change for the better. 
Senator Reid spoke about it earlier.
  Preexisting conditions. How many of us do not have a preexisting 
condition or somebody in our family with a preexisting condition? 
Perhaps someone in our family was treated for cancer or diabetes or 
even a mental illness. In the past health insurance companies could 
discriminate against you and say: Sorry, we do not offer health care 
plans to cancer survivors. Well, that is no longer the case. This new 
law, the Affordable Care Act--so-called ObamaCare--says that health 
insurance policies from this point forward have to cover preexisting 
conditions not just in children but adults as well. The Republicans are 
saying: We want to repeal that. We do not want to put that new 
provision in the law. We do not want to require insurance companies to 
cover those with preexisting conditions.
  There is another change in the law. Some insurance policies today 
have limits on how much they will pay. Well, I can tell you, be 
careful. If your health insurance plan says: We will cover your bills, 
say, up to $100,000, be careful. You could go in tomorrow--or someone 
in your family--and be diagnosed with a cancer condition requiring 
extensive medical care that far exceeds the $100,000. Under ObamaCare 
there are no limits on health insurance protection. If you have a 
terrible illness or if someone in your family does, the insurance 
policy will cover you. The Republicans want to repeal this provision so 
that they can set limits on health insurance policy limits, which could 
literally bankrupt a family with a terrible medical condition with 
which they are trying to deal. That is one of the provisions in 
ObamaCare that the Republicans want to repeal.
  The issue on the floor today is the Vitter amendment. Senator Vitter 
is from Louisiana. He came to the floor last week and he said: Since 
Members of Congress and their staffs are now going into these insurance 
exchanges, it is time for us to eliminate the employer contribution for 
Members of Congress and their staffs. They have to pay it all, 100 
percent of the premium, unlike 150 million Americans who get insurance 
through their employer and the employee pays a portion of it.
  When it comes to congressional staff and Members of Congress, no 
employer contribution, pay it all. Well, it turns out that is exactly 
the opposite of the way Senator Vitter voted on the floor of the Senate 
on an amendment offered by Senator Grassley, No. 3564 on the Affordable 
Care Act. Senator Vitter voted, during the debate on this issue, to 
protect the right of congressional employees and others on the employer 
contributions. Now he has reversed himself. Now he says: No employer 
contribution. This is unfair. It is unfair to do this to the employees 
of the Senate as well as the Members. All we are asking is that this 
group of individuals be treated the same as every other American with 
health insurance through their employment.
  My fear is that this is not the end of Senator Vitter's crusade 
against health insurance by employers. I think this is a first step. 
The next step could be to eliminate the employers' contribution for 
health insurance across the board. That would be devastating, 
absolutely devastating and fundamentally unfair to see workers across 
America--not just congressional employees, Federal workers, workers in 
the private sector--paying the entire premium with no employer 
contribution. That is a good way to eliminate coverage, not to expand 
it. We should be expanding health insurance coverage.
  I listened to the Senator from Louisiana describe the employer 
contribution to health insurance as a Federal subsidy--a Federal 
subsidy. Well, I guess technically he is right because the Tax Code 
says to employers: We will give you special positive tax treatment if 
you offer health insurance. So the Tax Code does, in fact, give a 
subsidy to all employers who offer to pay

[[Page 13614]]

a part of their employees' health insurance premiums.
  OK. I will accept that definition. But that is a worthy subsidy. Even 
though it is the most expensive provision in the Tax Code, it is a 
worthy subsidy because it encourages more health insurance. It makes it 
more affordable for working families in Louisiana, Illinois, 
Massachusetts, Michigan, and across the United States.
  If Senator Vitter is going to attack an employer's contribution to 
health insurance as a Federal subsidy we can no longer afford, then say 
it on the floor of the Senate. Let's have an up-or-down vote. I 
challenge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for 
working families across America--in the private sector, in the public 
sector, our congressional employees, even Members of Congress--to be 
treated the same. No special preference for Members of Congress but 
have employer contributions protected under the law regardless of 
whether you buy the plan in the private sector or in the public sector.
  This is an important vote. I think some of my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle are so determined to end ObamaCare, so determined to 
put an end to this effort to reduce the cost of health insurance 
premiums and to make health insurance more available to people across 
America and basically a sound investment for your health insurance 
future--I think those Republicans who are determined to eliminate that 
have some questions to answer.
  They want to eliminate the provision in ObamaCare that says parents 
can keep their kid under their health insurance policy until that young 
man or woman reaches the age of 26. Is it important? Well, do you have 
a son or daughter graduating college soon who cannot find a full-time 
job? Are you worried about whether they are going to have health 
insurance? They can stay on your policy, mom and dad, until they reach 
the age of 26. The Republicans want to repeal it.
  Also, we have a prescription drug program for seniors. It is very 
popular. Part D says: We are going to help seniors pay for medicine so 
they can stay well and healthy and independent and strong and not end 
up in a hospital or convalescent senior center or a nursing home. In 
the ObamaCare bill, we extend the protection of this prescription 
program for Medicare recipients. The Republicans want to repeal that. 
How in the world can that be in our best interest for seniors--many of 
them on fixed incomes with limited savings--to have to pay more for 
their prescription drugs? Is that the Republican answer? It is not a 
good one if that is what they are proposing.
  When it comes to quality health insurance that will not discriminate 
against people with preexisting conditions, when it comes to quality 
health insurance that has to offer maternity benefits--hard to believe, 
isn't it, that health insurance plans before ObamaCare could exclude 
maternity benefits? One of our Senators this morning said that up to 60 
percent of the policies do not cover the birth of a child. They have to 
now under ObamaCare. But the Republicans would repeal that requirement, 
leaving more women in a situation where they have to pay out of pocket 
for prenatal care and the delivery of a child. How can that be in the 
interest of a healthy America? We want moms, as soon as they know they 
are pregnant, to go see a doctor, go through ordinary prenatal care, 
have those healthy, happy babies who make such a difference in their 
lives. Is it important? I think it is. It is in ObamaCare. The 
Republicans want to repeal it. Why?
  If they want to change some provisions, if they want to debate them 
and amend them, let's do it. You know, when it gets down to it, there 
is not a perfect law that has ever been passed. We can always change it 
for the better if we do it in good faith and in the democratic way. 
That is the way it should happen. But, instead, the House of 
Representatives--which the Presiding Officer served in before joining 
us here in the Senate--has voted 41 times to repeal ObamaCare--41 
times. One time the Republican leader over there tried to change one 
provision, perhaps even improve it. His own Republican caucus turned on 
him and said: No, we do not want to improve it.
  The last thing I want to say is this: Those who ignore history are 
condemned to repeat it. That is etched on the side of one of our 
buildings downtown here. The year was 1935. Franklin Delano Roosevelt 
looked around America and saw that the poorest group of Americans 
turned out to be elderly people, people who could no longer work and 
had nowhere to turn. Sadly, many of them had no choice--they went to 
live among poor people in a poorhouse or if they were lucky enough, 
their kids took them in. If you hear the story of your own family, they 
can remember back when grandma and grandpa moved in that spare bedroom 
because they could not work anymore and they had nowhere to turn.
  So in 1935 Franklin Roosevelt said: Let's do something about it. 
Let's create an insurance plan. Here is what it says: You pay into this 
insurance plan while you are working. When you reach the age of 65, we 
will pay you at least some money each month to get by. They called this 
insurance plan Social Security. It was part of the New Deal under 
Franklin Roosevelt. It was pretty sensible but controversial too.
  Do you know what the Republican reaction was to Social Security in 
1935? Here on the floor of the Senate, there was a Republican 
filibuster to stop Roosevelt from implementing Social Security. They 
would not let him open the Social Security offices he needed across 
America nor give him the staff. A Republican filibuster stopped it.
  In 1936 the Republican candidate for President was Alf Landon, a 
progressive Republican Governor from Kansas. Alf Landon said: If I am 
elected President of the United States in 1936, my first act of office 
will be to repeal Social Security.
  Then, when they started implementing it, the chamber of commerce here 
in Washington sent out notices to employers across America to put a 
notice in the pay envelope. It said: The 1 percent you are paying into 
Social Security, Mr. Worker, is never going to help you. You are never 
going to see a penny of it. The only way to stop it is to vote against 
this fellow named Roosevelt.
  Does any of this sound familiar? Does this playbook sound like 
something you have seen recently? That is exactly what the Republicans 
are doing to the Affordable Care Act, to the effort by this Congress 
and this President to make health insurance more affordable, to make 
the policies more valuable, to help working families, and to try to 
make sure those who are uninsured have a chance to buy insurance 
because uninsured people get sick too. They go to the hospital. They 
get treated. When they cannot pay, we pay for it. We pay for it. 
Everybody in the health insurance plan pays more because those people 
in the hospital cannot afford to. If we bring more and more people into 
insurance coverage under ObamaCare, it is going to mean they accept the 
personal responsibility to buy insurance and their bills do not become 
our bills. Republicans want to repeal that. They are replaying the same 
script and same scenario we saw when they tried to abolish Social 
Security. Let's not let it happen. Let's move forward in a positive way 
on health insurance as more than just some privilege. From my point of 
view, it is one of the most basic rights of this country.
  If you have ever been in a situation with a serious illness in your 
family and you had no health insurance, you will never forget it. It 
happened to me and my wife. We will never forget it as long as we live. 
I do not want to see another family in that situation. Repealing 
ObamaCare could create it. I hope we have the good sense to vote down 
the Vitter amendment and stand for good, affordable health insurance 
for working families whether they work in the private sector, the 
public sector, or Congress, and to make sure they have an employer 
contribution so that health insurance is affordable.
  The Vitter amendment is a step back in time. It is a step back in 
time that will eliminate the protection of health insurance for 
literally thousands if not millions of Americans. That is not the

[[Page 13615]]

way to go. I would say to the Senator from Louisiana it makes no sense 
to the working families of America.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.

                          ____________________