[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3215-3217]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            KING V. BURWELL

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, earlier today the United States Supreme 
Court heard arguments in an important case, a consequential case. It is 
called King v. Burwell. This case was brought on behalf of millions of 
Americans who have been harmed by the President's unlawful expansion of 
his unworkable and unaffordable health care law.
  Sometime before the end of June, the Court will decide if the law 
passed by Congress means what it says or if it means what the President 
wishes it said.
  It looks at one very specific and very important part of the 
President's health care law. The law says that Washington could help 
subsidize the premiums of people buying health insurance coverage 
through exchanges established by the States. President Obama decided 
that wasn't enough. He wanted to use taxpayer dollars on behalf of 
people buying insurance in the Federal exchange as well. That is it. 
That is the legal question.
  The law, written by Democrats in Congress--written behind closed 
doors--only authorized subsidies for one group, but the President paid 
them out for another group. The case is not about the Constitution, it 
is about the rule of law.
  I was at the Court this morning listening to the arguments, and I 
expect that the Justices will strike down the way the President 
expanded the law.
  Time after time this administration has claimed power it did not have 
and taken actions it cannot defend. The way the administration expanded 
the health care law is one of the most blatant of these power grabs, 
because when Democrats passed the law, they got exactly what they 
wanted. They rejected Republican idea after Republican idea that could 
have made this law better. They forced it through Congress with 
absolutely no Republican support.
  It still wasn't good enough for the Obama administration, so it 
expanded the law some more. ObamaCare is a minefield, and the 
administration refused to give people the information they need to help 
them navigate it.
  The Obama administration knew this court case was coming well before 
the

[[Page 3216]]

enrollment period to buy insurance for this year even started. So did 
the American President tell the American people these subsidies might 
not be legal? Did he warn people? What did the President actually say? 
Did he warn anyone signing up in the exchanges that they might not be 
seeing the real price of any insurance they picked? No, the President 
refused to do so.
  He knew he might lose the case. He knew it. He knew the risk he was 
making people take, but the President didn't say a word--people who 
were just trying to make the best choices for their families. The White 
House did not tell people the truth about their options.
  Several Republican Senators wrote to the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services and the Secretary of the Treasury asking them to warn 
people. We said people need this information. There are thousands of 
dollars at stake for families, and the Obama administration should at 
least tell them what might happen.
  The Secretary has refused to level with the American people.
  Just the other day, the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
admitted she had no plan B. Her letter is clear and it is 
consequential. She admits that if the Supreme Court rules against the 
Obama administration, the President does not have the authority--does 
not have the authority--to use administrative actions to undo the 
Supreme Court decision. The administration purposefully waited to admit 
that until after the open enrollment period ended. It didn't want to 
take the chance that warning people might hurt its enrollment numbers.
  Today at the Supreme Court, several Justices were skeptical of the 
administration's legal defense. I expect the Supreme Court to say the 
President must enforce the law Congress has passed, rather than the law 
the President wishes Congress had passed. If it does, it will help rein 
in this out-of-control White House. It will tell the Obama 
administration it must obey the law and that the President cannot keep 
making up the rules as he goes along.
  The health care law is clear. The President was wrong to expand his 
health insurance exchanges beyond what the law allowed. The President 
was wrong to use the IRS to make up rules and penalties. The Obama 
administration was irresponsible for not warning people.
  Republicans will have a plan to protect the people harmed by the 
President's action and to create a path away from ObamaCare. First, our 
plan will help the millions of people who have been hurt by the White 
House's decision to illegally implement its health care law. It would 
be unfair for families to lose their coverage in the middle of the year 
just because they believed the false promises made by Barack Obama. So 
Republicans will help Americans keep their coverage for a transitional 
period.
  Second, it will give States the freedom and flexibility to create 
better, more competitive health insurance markets, offering more 
options and different choices at home where people live, not decisions 
made in Washington.
  We want to allow States to come up with health care systems that work 
for them, not the bureaucrats in the Nation's Capital. We would give 
every State the ability to create a better market, better opportunities 
suited to the needs of that State's citizens. It is time for President 
Obama to stop putting people through all of the pain this law has 
created.
  The President's health care law continues to be unpopular, 
unworkable, and unaffordable. He needs to finally negotiate with 
Republicans to give people the reform they wanted all along, which is 
what people asked for--the care they need from a doctor they choose at 
lower cost.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am pleased to follow my 
distinguished colleague and friend from the State of Wyoming, and I 
rise to talk about exactly the same issue and to differ with him, 
respectfully, that the current law is unworkable, unpopular, and 
unaffordable. In fact, history demonstrates that it is certainly 
working.
  In the State of Connecticut we know well that it is working as it was 
intended because we have a State-run exchange, and we have cut the 
number of uninsured by one-half, while improving health care quality, 
lowering Medicaid spending, and making remarkable achievements across a 
whole range of metrics. That same story is true of our Nation as a 
whole, whether there are State-run exchanges or Federal supervised 
exchanges.
  Today's point, whether it is in the Supreme Court or here, should be 
extraordinarily encouraging about the Congress's approval of the 
Affordable Care Act and the fact that it is working across the country. 
It is succeeding in delivering exactly what was intended, what the 
Congress promised, what its advocates saw, access for all Americans to 
affordable health insurance.
  The ACA is working today to protect Americans from abuses, and I saw 
them literally day in and day out as attorney general: people who lost 
health insurance when they got sick, people who were denied coverage 
because of a preexisting condition, people who were charged more 
because of their gender, people who were denied the basic care they 
needed and deserved for themselves, their children, and their families, 
giving them access not only to health care but also to work and to 
family stability.
  I saw every day as attorney general how imperiled and critical health 
care is in this country and how much we need to do more and do better 
in this area.
  The uninsured rate in this country is the lowest it has been in 7 
years, and we have lowered it a remarkable 25 percent in just 1 year. 
Eight million people have gained health insurance through the exchanges 
who didn't have it before, and I know that States with federally run 
exchanges have made improvements, just as Connecticut has done, which 
is fully in accordance with the absolutely crystal-clear intent of this 
Congress and this law to provide affordable health insurance for all 
Americans, regardless of where they live, what State, what ZIP Code, 
whatever their occupation and background.
  Let's be clear. As with any big law there are kinks that need to be 
ironed out, there are glitches that need to be resolved, but the 
Affordable Care Act is working now and working better every month, 
every year.
  The legal issue before the Court has been debated today in depth, and 
I believe with the great persuasiveness--similar to the Presiding 
Officer, I had the honor to serve as a law clerk to the Supreme Court 
and watch many arguments. To say that today is historic I think is 
true, but in my view almost every argument before the Supreme Court is 
historic in its consequences--some more than others, but every one is 
consequential because cases don't reach the U.S. Supreme Court unless 
they are difficult and consequential, and issues of statutory 
interpretation that are said to be simple often are more complicated 
than they may seem.
  But I know, without a doubt, having read this statute, that the text 
and structure of the Affordable Care Act clearly demonstrate--in fact, 
they unmistakably demand--that Federal tax credits be available to 
every eligible taxpayer in every State in this country.
  I have done arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court, and I had the honor 
to be attorney general of the State of Connecticut as well as a U.S. 
attorney.
  Having looked at this statute as a whole, having read the words that 
need to be interpreted by the Supreme Court, I have reached this 
conclusion: Contrary to the argument of partisan opponents, both the 
act itself and the plainly overwhelming evidence from its consideration 
and passage demonstrate its nationwide scope.
  I wasn't here at the time it was passed, but from the legislative 
history and, most important, from the structure and language of the act 
itself, there seems to be irrefutably and incontrovertibly an 
understanding that tax credits would be available regardless of which 
governmental agency set

[[Page 3217]]

up an exchange. The act simply would not have worked any other way and 
courts have an obligation to read statutes in a way that makes the most 
sense in terms of the overriding intent and purpose of the Congress.
  The financial support simply, for universal coverage, would not be 
there without this interpretation, a commonsense interpretation that 
makes sense of congressional intent, purpose, and the law as a whole.
  The law has given so many families across the country access to care 
for the first time. There has been an effort to repeal this act 
legislatively. There has been an effort to overturn it in the courts. 
Both have failed because it is working and because it is 
constitutional.
  A ruling for the plaintiffs in this case that is now before the Court 
would not only be contrary to law, it would be catastrophic to millions 
of families who owe their health insurance to the structure the ACA has 
established. It would be, in fact, a human tragedy as well as a legal 
travesty.
  There is simply no alternative that has been offered by opponents to 
this law. It is difficult therefore to see how this misguided lawsuit 
is anything other than one more cynical attempt to repeal or overturn 
this law--or torpedo it by any means necessary, regardless of the 
collateral damage to millions of innocent people who would suffer loss 
of health care insurance and health care. And the tragedy would be not 
only for them but for our entire Nation because the cost would ripple 
throughout our society--the cost in lost work; the cost in families 
suffering from the consequences of bankruptcy, which is caused most 
frequently by health care-related financial issues; the cost in the 
ability of our workforce to function at the height of efficiency that 
we all need; and the cost ultimately in diseases that have to be 
treated and ailments that have to be addressed and preventable health 
care consequences for our children. Prevention is one of the most cost-
effective goals of the Affordable Care Act.
  So I will work with my colleagues to support this act and to 
determine what other efforts can make progress toward the ultimate goal 
that we all should share--an America that is free from disease or 
injury that will bankrupt our families, an America that is healthier 
and better able to afford health care, and quality and timely health 
treatment.
  The lack of standing on the part of these plaintiffs seems clear, but 
putting aside all of the technical issues and the legal debate, the 
Affordable Care Act has allowed America to make huge, exciting strides 
in the direction of better health care. So we should be proud of the 
act passed by this body. Even many of us perhaps who were not here at 
the time can look forward to how much further we can go, and America 
has that fundamental obligation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________