[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4112-4113]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to talk about a number of subjects 
starting, of course, with the fact that millions of Americans have lost 
their health insurances because of the unintended consequences of the 
Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare.
  We also know that in addition to losing the coverage they had, which 
they were told they could keep, many have now been forced to pay higher 
premiums. The sticker shock from that has been something we have been 
reading a lot about. But whether there is sticker shock because of the 
higher premiums, many people have been finding that their deductibles 
are huge, making them effectively self-insured up to $5,000 for their 
health care costs, definitely not something they were promised as a 
result of ObamaCare.
  We also know that roughly 10 million people, about 10\1/2\ million 
people, remain unemployed in America and that 3.8 million of them have 
been unemployed for more than 6 months. Since the recession has ended--
and, of course, a recession is, technically speaking, two consecutive 
quarters of negative growth--I think, if asked, most Americans today 
feel as though we are still in a recession because of what is happening 
to them personally. We know that since the recession ended, median 
household income--one measure of economic health in the country--has 
gone down by $2,500. So at the same time people are experiencing higher 
costs for health care, for groceries, for gasoline, and other 
necessities of life, they are seeing that their median household income 
has declined by $2,500--a double whammy.
  According to a Joint Economic Committee analysis, if the Obama 
economic recovery had been as strong as an average post-1960 recovery, 
we would currently have millions more private sector jobs.
  I had the pleasure this last weekend of hearing a fascinating debate 
with Larry Summers, economic adviser and former president of Harvard 
University--a brilliant economist--and another brilliant economist, 
Senator Phil Gramm, who taught at Texas A&M. Senator Gramm was making 
the point that if we had had a typical recovery after a recession, it 
would have been a V-shaped recovery. We did not get that. The economy 
continues to grow slowly, unusually slowly, and they were both 
exploring the reasons for that. A lot has to do with uncertainty about 
the role of the Federal Government when it comes to taxes, when it 
comes to regulation, and when it comes to our escalating national 
debt--now over $17 trillion--and what that might mean in the future.
  But add all this up and Americans are continuing to feel increasingly 
pessimistic about the state of our economy, the state of their personal 
health care relationships with their doctors and hospitals, and the 
future of the country. That is something all of us ought to be 
profoundly concerned about.
  Yet rather than promote real health care reform that actually deals 
with the unaffordability of health coverage or something that will get 
the economy growing again, my friends across the aisle, many of them, 
spent last night--all night--talking about climate change. That is 
right, climate change.
  So the message to millions of people out of work or who have lost 
their health coverage or to people who are living from paycheck to 
paycheck because median household income has actually declined is that 
what America really needs right now is more taxes and more regulation 
and the big government that goes along with it.
  It is easy to see why many people think Washington is just out of 
touch with the concerns of average hardworking American families, and 
last night was an example. It is hard to square the message with the 
genuine concern for the middle class and middle-class prosperity. I 
mean, if we are really concerned about hardworking American families 
working from paycheck to paycheck just to make ends meet, I doubt we 
would have an all-night debate on climate change.
  If my friends across the aisle really did believe that job creation 
should be our top priority, they wouldn't have wasted precious time 
with last night's political stunt. For that matter, they wouldn't be 
opposing the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would single-handedly create 
thousands of well-paying American jobs.
  I realize that many people have good-faith concerns about the long-
term implications of rising greenhouse gas emissions. Over the next 
three decades worldwide emissions are indeed projected to surge. But 
that has almost nothing to do with the United States and almost 
everything to do with developing countries such as China. As a matter 
of fact, the ranking member of the energy committee, the Senator from 
Alaska, and certainly the Senator from Wyoming know this very well. One 
of the reasons why carbon emissions in the United States are going down 
is because of the natural gas renaissance we have seen--because of 
unconventional shale gas exploration in places such as Texas and all 
around the country. So we are finding ways to reduce carbon emissions 
for those who are worried about those, as a result of taking advantage 
of the resources we have here in the United States, together with the 
innovative technology that is used to develop it.
  Those of us who oppose bigger, more intrusive government in the form 
of cap and trade legislation or higher taxes such as carbon taxes or 
other job-killing greenhouse gas regulations are not denialists. I 
prefer to say we are realists.
  We understand America's contributions to global emissions over the 
coming decades will be relatively minuscule. We understand the economic 
costs of President Obama's regulations through the Environmental 
Protection Agency would vastly outweigh the environmental benefit.
  So why do they want to put a big wet blanket on the economy and on 
the aspirations and dreams of hard-working families in order to pursue 
policies in which the negative will vastly outweigh the positive 
benefit to American families?
  In fact, the Obama EPA itself has admitted its proposed greenhouse 
gas rule would not have a notable impact on U.S. carbon dioxide 
emissions until the year 2022.
  I would also note, despite having Members of his party talk about 
climate change all night--which is all it was, talk--there is no 
legislation they are offering, nor will the majority leader, who 
controls the agenda of the Senate, bring legislation to the floor to 
actually vote on it. So it is just talk or, perhaps I can say, it was 
just a lot of hot air.
  Our colleagues across the aisle--including the majority leader who 
controls the agenda of the floor in the Senate--seem to be content 
letting the President use his pen and phone, skirting the legislative 
process, not engaging with Congress to try to do things which actually 
are the priorities of the American people but instead to rely on 
unelected EPA bureaucrats. I could be surprised, but I would be 
surprised to learn if the consensus in America wouldn't be that we 
should be focusing on policies which create jobs, rather

[[Page 4113]]

than destroy jobs and punish families in return for meager or 
nonexistent benefits.
  Speaking of destroying jobs and punishing families, the Congressional 
Budget Office--which is the official budgetary scorekeeper for 
Congress--recently estimated the President's proposal to raise the 
minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would actually destroy up to 1 million 
jobs.
  I believe sometimes here in Washington people think those who 
actually create jobs can absorb regulations, taxes, and other economic 
burdens, together with the uncertainty many of those policies cause, 
and it will have no impact on their ability to continue to create jobs, 
grow jobs or to grow the economy. But the Congressional Budget Office 
has stated what should perhaps be intuitive, which is, if you raise the 
cost of doing business on businesses, they are going to have to find 
someplace to cut.
  What that means is they are going to have to cut more people from 
their jobs. They estimated up to 1 million people would lose their job 
if we raised the minimum wage 40 percent to $10.10 an hour.
  Remember, in the President's State of the Union Message he said a 
minimum wage hike like that would help low-income families. It is 
certainly a mystery to me how it would help a low-income family who is 
relying on a wage earner to provide income when they end up losing 
their job as a result of the policy.
  So the President's definition of ``help'' is unique, to say the 
least, because any policy which destroys up to 1 million jobs would be 
an absolute disaster for low-income families.
  The President also made his pitch for a higher minimum wage in the 
context of his concern about income inequality. He claims to be greatly 
concerned about income inequality. Yet his policies actually threaten 
to make it worse.
  But don't take my word for it. A news report from a major labor union 
argues that in its current form, the President's health care law will 
``heighten the inequality that the administration seeks to produce.''
  These are not political adversaries of our President and his party. 
These are supporters of the Affordable Care Act--ObamaCare--who have 
now said in its current form, unless changed, the Affordable Care Act--
or ObamaCare--will heighten the inequality the administration seeks to 
reduce.
  The report also notes that ObamaCare ``threatens the middle class 
with higher premiums, loss of hours, and a shift from part-time work 
and less comprehensive coverage.''
  I think those would be very troubling words to the President and his 
allies who passed the Affordable Care Act--or ObamaCare--but so far 
they have fallen on deaf ears.
  Again, this report just in terms of its credibility was not issued by 
some Republican or conservative organization which was opposed to 
ObamaCare from the beginning. It was issued by a labor union which 
supported ObamaCare which has now found that what was promised has not 
actually been delivered in terms of its implication.
  So what union members and their families are learning the hard way is 
the promise of ObamaCare is very different from the reality. We were 
promised ObamaCare would actually expand coverage, it would reduce 
costs, it would help our economy, all without disrupting existing 
health care arrangements.
  In reality, the law has forced millions to lose their coverage and 
forced millions to pay higher premiums or higher deductibles, 
effectively being self-insured. Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget 
Office projects it will effectively shrink America's labor force by 2.5 
million full-time workers over the next decade.
  Remarkably, the administration now wants us to believe it is actually 
a good thing so many people are reducing their work hours in order to 
keep their government-mandated health care. For example, chief White 
House economist Jason Furman has said working less to keep ObamaCare 
benefits ``might be a better choice and a better option than what they 
had before.''
  Of course, they don't have a choice to keep what they had before 
because they have been forced into ObamaCare. If you don't buy the 
government-mandated insurance, then you are going to be fined by your 
friendly Federal Government.
  But think about it: The White House chief economist is celebrating 
the possibility of a dramatic decline in American work hours. I would 
remind Mr. Furman that America's labor force participation is already 
at historic lows. It is as low as it has been for 30 years. In other 
words, the percentage of people looking for work in America is at a 30-
year low already, and Mr. Furman is celebrating the further depressing 
impact of ObamaCare on work in America.
  All else being equal, a reduction in work hours means a reduction in 
economic growth. It certainly means a reduction in income for the 
people working. We know a further reduction of economic growth will 
make it harder to create new jobs, improve living standards, and 
achieve broad-based prosperity--something I know we all hope for in 
America.
  This is a dangerous cycle, and it is definitely not something we 
should be celebrating. It is something we should be fixing.
  A truly compassionate agenda--not one that focuses on things which 
are largely irrelevant to the lives of Americans working families, but 
a truly compassionate agenda would seek to improve opportunity rather 
than encourage dependency. A truly compassionate agenda would place a 
much higher value on the dignity and self-reliance of American workers 
by making sure they have jobs.
  For that matter, a truly compassionate agenda would aim to dismantle 
ObamaCare and replace it with patient-centered alternatives which 
encourage work and encourage job creation.
  The type of agenda I have described is pretty much the exact opposite 
of what we have seen over the last 5 years, and the results speak for 
themselves. There is absolutely no reason we have to accept the status 
quo. With the right mix of economic policies, America can turn this 
ship around and restore the strong growth rates and robust job creation 
we enjoyed in the 1980s and 1990s. We will on this side of the aisle 
continue to promote such policies, and we look forward to working with 
our colleagues across the aisle when they finally come around to the 
realization the path we are heading on now is not one the American 
people are happy with or that they have to settle for.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

                          ____________________