[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9942-9943]
[From the U.S. 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. 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

[[Page 9943]]

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 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.

                          ____________________