Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
IN PLACE SENSIBLE REFORMS THAT
TRULY DO BRING DOWN COSTS.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE
FLOOR.
I NOTE THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
QUORUM CALL:
QUORUM CALL:
MADAM PRESIDENT, I
ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE
QUORUM CALL BE SUSPENDED.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I
RISE TODAY TO SPEAK ABOUT THE
SUPREME COURT'S RULING THIS
MORNING IN THE CASE INVOLVING
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT'S INDIVIDUAL
MANDATE.
IN THAT CASE, THE SUPREME COURT
RENDERED A DECISION THAT MAY BE
PERCEIVED BY MANY AS A VICTORY
FOR THE PROPONENTS OF THE
CONTROVERSIAL INDIVIDUAL MANDATE
CONTAINED WITHIN THE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT.
I SUBMIT TODAY, HOWEVER, MADAM
PRESIDENT, THAT THIS VICTORY, IF
IT IS TO BE CALLED THAT, WILL
PROVE TO BE NOT ONLY HOLLOW BUT
ALSO SHORT-LIVED.
I SAY THAT BECAUSE,
SIGNIFICANTLY, THE SUPREME COURT
WAS ABLE TO UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE MANDATE
ONLY BY A SERIES OF GYMNASTICS
THAT ALLOWED THE COURT TO FIND
THAT THIS WAS A TAX.
FIRST, THE COURT ADDRESSED THE
ISSUE AND CONCLUDED FOR ONLY THE
THIRD TIME IN THE LAST 75 YEARS
-- ONLY THE THIRD TIME SINCE
1937 -- THAT CONGRESS HAD IN
FACT EXCEEDED ITS POWER AS
ASSERTED UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
HAVING CONCLUDED THAT CONGRESS
LACKS THE AUTHORITY TO COMPEL
COMMERCE, THE CREATION OF
COMMERCE, SO THAT IT COULD THEN
REGULATE COMMERCE, THE SUPREME
COURT WENT ON TO SHOEHORN THIS
INDIVIDUAL MANDATE PROVISION
INTO THE SUPREME COURT'S
CONCEPTION OF CONGRESS'S TAXING
POWER.
THIS AWKWARD CONSTRUCTION IS ONE
THAT EXPOSES MANY OF THE TRUE
FLAWS OF THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.
THE MANDATE ITSELF, WE MUST
REMEMBER, WAS NOT WILDLY POPULAR
AMONG THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AT THE
TIME IT WAS ENACTED.
IT HAS BECOME EVEN LESS POPULAR
AS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE COME
TO UNDERSTAND IT.
A RECENT POLL REVEALED THAT
ROUGHLY 74% OF AMERICANS DON'T
LIKE THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.
THIS IS EASILY FOR US TO
UNDERSTAND WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT
THE PATH THAT FACT THAT WE, AS AMERICANS,
WERE BORN AS FREE PEOPLE.
IT OFFENDS OUR MOST BASIC SENSE
OF FREEDOM TO HAVE ONE OF THE
MOST PERSONAL DECISIONS MADE FOR
US BY GOVERNMENT, PARTICULARLY
BY THE IMPERSONAL, DISTANT
GOVERNMENT THAT'S BASED IN
WASHINGTON, D.C.
THESE KINDS OF DECISIONS SHOULD
BE MADE BY INDIVIDUALS AND
FAMILIES IN CONSTITUTIONAL CONSULTATION WITH
THEIR DOCTORS, NOT BY GOVERNMENT
BUREAUCRATS IN WASHINGTON,
D.C.,.
SO THE FACT THAT IT'S UNPOPULAR
DOESN'T SURPRISE US.
AND GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE
SUPREME COURT WAS ABLE TO UPHOLD
THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE, ONLY BY
CALLING IT A TAX, IS
SIGNIFICANT.
IT'S ESPECIALLY SIGNIFICANT
GIVEN THE FACT THAT IT WAS
PITCHED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
AS SOMETHING OTHER THAN A TAX.
THE PRESIDENT PROMISED US HE
WOULD NOT RAISE OUR TAXES.
HE PROMISED US THAT THE
INDIVIDUAL MANDATE DID NOT
AMOUNT TO A TAX INCREASE.
HE PROMISED US ALL ALONG THAT HE
WOULD NEVER RAISE THE TAXES OF
ANY AMERICAN EARNING LESS THAN
$250,000 A YEAR.
WELL, THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED IN
CONGRESS, WHO VOTED FOR THIS
PROVISION, ALSO PROMISED US THAT
INCREASE.
THIS WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO A TAX
THEY DID SO FOR ONE SIMPLE
REASON:
THEY KNEW IT COULDN'T PASS.
THEY KNEW IT WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO
GET THE NUMBER OF VOTES
NECESSARY TO MAKE IT BECOME LAW
IF THEY CALLED IT A TAX.
SO THEY DIDN'T.
THEY WENT TO GREAT LENGTHS TO
SURE THAT IT WASN'T
DESCRIBED OR CHARACTERIZED OR
STRUCTURED AS A TAX WITHIN THE
TEXT OF THE STATUTE ITSELF.
NOW, AFTER THE FACT, THE SUPREME
COURT HAS TAKEN THE STEP OF
SHOEHORNING THIS REGULATION INTO
CONGRESS'S TAXING AUTHORITY, AND
IT'S CALLING IT A TAX,
EFFECTIVELY INSULTING THOSE
MEMBERS OF -- EFFECTIVELY
INSULATING THOSE MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS WHO VOTED FOR IT.
IT'S NOT JUST ANY TAX CONTRARY,
BUT A TAX INCREASE THAT THE
JOINT TAX THAT WILL BE BORNE BY
HARDWORKING, MIDDLE-INCOME
WORKERS.
THEY'VE CONCLUDED THAT OVER 75%
OF THE BURDEN ASSOCIATED WITH
THIS THING THAT HAS NOW BEEN
DEEMED A TAX WILL BE PAID BY
THOSE EARNING LESS THAN $250,000
A YEAR.
IT WAS UNPOPULAR BEFORE WE WERE
TOLD IT WOULD BE DEEMED A TAX.
NOW THAT IT'S A TAX, WE CAN'T
EXPECT THAT ITS STATUS AS A TAX
WILL ENHANCE ITS POPULARITY.
IF ANYTHING, WE CAN EXPECT THAT
IT WILL BECOME EVEN LESS POPULAR
WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
FOR THAT REASON, I'M -- I'M
ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED THAT FOR
THOSE WHO CALL THIS A VICTORY
FOR THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE, IT
WILL PROVE TO BE ANYTHING BUT A
VICTORY.
IT WILL PROVE TO BE SOMETHING
THAT WILL RESULT IN A
GROUNDSWELL OF PEOPLE CONTACTING
THEIR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS,
TELLING THEM THAT THEY DON'T
WANT THEIR TAXES RAISED, TELLING
THEM THAT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
WHO VOTED FOR THIS PROMISED THEM
THAT IT WOULDN'T BE A TAX
INCREASE, ASKING THEM, FOR
INSTANCE, TO VOTE ON IT, TO
DECIDE ONCE AND FOR ALL WHETHER
THEY'RE WILLING NOW TO CALL IT A
TAX, GIVE THAN THAT WAS THE ONLY
WAY IT COULD BE UPHELD AS A
CONGRESS'S
POWER.
NOW, AS WE MOVE FORWARD TO THE
NOVEMBER ELECTIONS, WE'RE GOING
TO HEAR A LOT ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE
DON'T WANT OUT OF THEIR NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT.
WE'LL CONTINUE TO HEAR A LOT
FROM THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE
OFFENDED BY THIS NOTION THAT THE
GOVERNMENT CAN TELL THEM WHERE
TO GO TO THE DOCTOR AND HOW TO
PAY FOR IT, WHO ARE OFFENDED BY
THE NOTION THAT GOVERNMENT WOULD
HAVE TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE,
STEP IN AND TELL AMERICANS, YOU
NOT JUST ANY HEALTH INSURANCE,
BUT THAT HEALTH INSURANCE WHICH
CONGRESS IN ITS INFINITE WISDOM
HAS DEEMED NECESSARY FOR EVERY
AMERICAN TO PURCHASE.
AND IF YOU DON'T, YOU'RE GOING
TO BE PENALIZED, IF YOU DON'T,
YOU'RE GOING TO BE TAXED.
PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE UPSET
ABOUT THIS.
THEY'RE GOING TO COMPLAIN TO
CONGRESS AND TO CANDIDATES FOR
CONGRESS.
THEY'RE GOING TO COMPLAIN TO THE
PRESIDENT AND TO OTHER
CANDIDATES FOR THE PRESIDENCY.
THIS IS NOT THE KIND OF
GOVERNMENT THAT THEY WANT.
AFTER THEY DO THAT, THEY'LL
PROCEED AND THEY'LL START
TALKING ABOUT WHAT KIND OF
GOVERNMENT THEY DO WANT.
THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE TO MOVE,
AWAY FROM THE KIND OF GOVERNMENT
WE DON'T WANT TOWARD THE KIND OF
GOVERNMENT THAT WE DO WANT, THE
KIND OF GOVERNMENT THAT WE DO
WANT --
THE KIND OF GOVERNMENT THAT WE
DO WANT IS THE KIND OF
GOVERNMENT THAT WE AS AMERICANS
HAVE ALWAYS WANTED, EVER SINCE
OUR FOUNDING.
THE KIND OF GOVERNMENT THAT
RECOGNIZES LIMITS TO ITS POWER,
AFFECTING OUR INDIVIDUAL
WHEN IT ACTS, IT DOES SO WITHOUT
LIBERTY, AND IT DOES SO AT THE
EXPENSE OF OUR STATE
GOVERNMENTS.
THIS IS NOT SIMPLY A
TECHNICALITY UPON WHICH WE ARE
INVOLVED IN A DISCUSSION.
THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF
THE POLITICAL PROCESS.
IT'S ESSENTIAL THAT ANY TIME WE
RAISE TAXES WE DO SO IN A WAY
THAT IS CLEAR TO THE PEOPLE THAT
WE STAND ACCOUNTABLE FOR RAISING
TAXES TO THE PEOPLE.
THE COURTS DON'T HAVE THE
EXPERTISE TO DO THAT, AND YET
THEY EXERCISED THAT POWER TODAY.
AS THE MAJORITY OPINION TODAY
REMINDED, THE COURT -- THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES POSSESSES NEITHER THE
EXPERTISE NOR THE PREROGATIVE TO
MAKE POLICY JUDGMENTS.
THOSE DECISIONS ARE ENTRUSTED TO
OUR NATION'S ELECTED LEADERS WHO
CAN BE THROWN OUT OF OFFICE IF
THE PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH THEM.
THIS REMINDS ME OF ONE OF MY
FAVORITE QUOTES FROM OUR
COUNTRY'S GREATEST FOUNDING
FATHER, GEORGE WASHINGTON, WHO
SAID SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR WAY
BACK IN 1789 WHEN HE EXPLAINED,
"THE POWER UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION WILL ALWAYS BE IN
THE PEOPLE.
IT IS ENTRUSTED FOR CERTAIN
DEFINED PURPOSES AND FOR A
LIMITED PERIOD TO THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN
CHOOSING, AND WHENEVER IT IS
EXECUTED CONTRARY TO THEIR
INTEREST OR NOT AGREEABLE TO
THEIR WISHES, THEIR SERVANTS CAN
AND UNDOUBTEDLY WILL BE
RECALLED."
THIS REMINDS US OF THE FACT THAT
WE, AS AMERICANS, ARE IN CONTROL
OF OUR OWN DESTINY AS A NATION.
WE, AS AMERICANS, ARE HERE AND
HAVE THE PREROGATIVE TO EXPLAIN
WHAT WE WANT AND WHAT WE DON'T
WANT OUT OF OUR GOVERNMENT.
THE GOVERNMENT EXISTS TO SERVE
AROUND.
THE PEOPLE AND NOT THE OTHER WAY
THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE
SUPREME COURT TODAY, WHILE
SOMETHING I DISAGREE WITH IN
MANY RESPECTS, IS ONE THAT I
PREDICT WILL USHER IN A NEW ERA
OF ROBUST DEBATE AND DISCUSSION
OVER ISSUES OF FEDERALISM AND
INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM.
THAT DEBATE, I'M CONVINCED, WILL
LEAD INEXORABLY TO THE RESULT
THAT WE AS AMERICANS WILL BECOME
MORE FREE, LESS CAPTIVE TO A
GOVERNMENT THAT TELLS US WHERE
TO GO TO THE DOCTOR AND HOW TO
PAY 0 FOR IT, THAT WE AS A
PEOPLE WILL PROSPER AS WE REGAIN
OUR GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO
CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED
GOVERNMENT.
THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT.
MADAM PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM MARYLAND.
MADAM PRESIDENT,
I RISE TO SPEAK ON THE
AFFORDABLE CAREAGE OFACT.
MADAM PRESIDENT, TODAY I AM SO
RELIEVED THAT THE SUPREME COURT
HAS UPHELD THE AFFORDABLE CARE
ACT AS CONSTITUTIONAL.
WITH THIS RULING, OUR NATION'S
HIGHEST COURT HAS MADE IT CLEAR
THAT NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE, A
MAN OR A WOMAN, A SENIOR FACING
CANCER, A CHILD WITH JUVENILE
DIABETES, YOU WILL HAVE HEALTH
CARE THAT'S AVAILABLE, RELIABLE,
AND UNDENIABLE.
HEALTH CARE REFORM HAS ACHIEVED
MANY GOALS THAT THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE WANTED US TO DO.
ONE, EXPANDING UNIVERSAL ACCESS.
NOW 32 MILLION PEOPLE WILL HAVE
HEALTH CARE THAT THEY DIDN'T
HAVE BEFORE.
SECOND, IT BREAKS THE
STRANGLEHOLD OF INSURANCE
COMPANIES, ENDING THEIR PUNITIVE
PRACTICES, PARTICULARLY IN THOSE
AREAS OF PREEXISTING CONDITIONS
WHERE THEY DENIED HEALTH CARE
BECAUSE A CHILD MIGHT HAVE
AUTISM OR ASTHMA OR FOR WE WOMEN
THEY HAD A PARTICULAR APPROACH
WHERE THEY CHARGED US MORE, 30%
MORE, AND THEN THEY SIMPLY
TREATED A WOMAN AS BEING A
PREEXISTING CONDITION.
PACKERS SOMETIMES FOR THESOMETIMES BEING A VICTIM OF
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WAS CONSIDERED
A PREEXISTING CONDITION.
WE ENDED THAT PROGRAM WE ALSO
SAVED AND STRENGTHENED MEDICARE
AND WE EXERCISED PREVENTION,
EARLY DETECTION AND SCREENING
THAT WILL SAVING LIVES, IMPROVE
LIVES AND ALSO SAVE MONEY.
I'M PROUD OF WHAT WE DID IN
CONGRESS WITH THE UNIVERSAL
COVERAGE.
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OUR
HISTORY, WE ARE COMMITTED TO
COVERING EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN
WITH HEALTH CARE.
AND IT HELPS YOUNG FAMILIES,
FAMILIES BE ABLE TO LOOK OUT FOR
THEIR CHILDREN.
IT HELPS YOUNG ADULTS --
RECENTLY GRADUATED FROM COLLEGE
-- SOME LOOKING FOR A JOB, SOME
THERE'S NO HEALTH INSURANCE,
WORKING IN START-UPS WHERE
BECAUSE OF HEALTH CARE REFORM,
52,000 YOUNG ADULTS IN MARYLAND
WILL HAVE COVERAGE ON THEIR
PARENTS' POLICY WHILE THEY GO
BACK TO SCHOOL, LOOK FOR A JOB,
OR GET THAT ENTREPRENEURIAL
SPIRIT GOING.
THEN THERE'S THESE PUNITIVE
PRACTICES OF THE INSURANCE
COMPANY.
MUCH IS BEING SAID ABOUT HOW WE
INTERFERE WITH YOUR RIGHT TO SEE
THE DOCTOR, YOUR DOCTOR OF YOUR
CHOICE OR GET HEALTH CARE.
THAT'S WHAT INSURANCE COMPANIES
HAVE BEEN FORGE YEARS, PEOPLE IN
PINSTRIPES I THINK ISING IN
BOARDROOMS MADE DECISIONS ON WHO
COULD GET HEALTH CARE AND WHO
COULDN'T.
SO WE'VE STOPPED THEM FROM
DENYING FAMILY HEALTH INSURANCE.
WE STOPPED INSURANCE COMPANIES
FROM DENYING CHILDREN'S COVERAGE
AND CONGRESS ENDED, AS I SAID,
-- WOMEN.
THE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST I WOMEN
I REMEMBER WHEN THEY TRIED TO
TAKE OUR MAMMOGRAMS AWAY, AND I
JUST SAID NO AND ORGANIZED THE
PREVENTATIVE HEALTH CARE
AMENDMENT, BUT WHEN WE FOUGHT
FOR -- WE WOMEN FOUGHT TO HAVE
ACCESS TO MAMMOGRAMS AND OTHER
THINGS RELATED TO OUR PARTICULAR
LIFE NEEDS, THE FACT IS THAT WE
WANTED IT FOR THE MEN, TOO.
SO WHEN WE ORGANIZED FOR THE
PREVENTION AMENDMENT SO THAT WE
COULD LIMB THE NEED ON CO-PAYS
FOR THIS, IT WAS SO WE WOMEN
COULD HAVE ACCESS TO MAMMOGRAMS,
SO THAT THE MEN COULD HAVE
ACCESS TO SCREENING FOR PROSTATE
CANCER, SO ALL AMERICANS COULD
THAT SCREENING FOR THE
DREADED C WORDS LIKE COLON
CANCER, HOW ABOUT DIABETES AND
HEART DISEASE?
THESE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS
THAT IF YOU CAN HAVE EARLY
DETECTION AND EARLY SCREENING
WILL SAVE LIVES AND ALSO SAVE
THE SPREAD OR THE DISEASE
GETTING WORSE.
IT DETECTS THE TERRIBLE
SITUATION OF DIABETES.
UNDETECTED, UNCONTROLLED AND
UNMANAGED, DIABETES CAN RESULT
IN THE LOSS OF AN EYE, THE LOSS
OF A KIDNEY, THE LOSS OF A LEG
ALL BECAUSE YOU HAVE LOST YOUR
HEALTH INSURANCE.
BUT BECAUSE OF WHAT WE'VE DONE
IN THE AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE
ACT, NOT ONLY WILL YOU HAVE
HEALTH CARE BUT YOU WILL HAVE
THE PREVENTATIVE SERVICES WHERE
EARLY ON YOU WILL BE ABLE TO
EXAMINE EXACTLY WHERE YOU ARE,
HAVE ACCESS TO A DIABETIC
EDUCATOR, HAVE THE KIND OF
MONITORING, COACHING THAT YOU
AND HOPEFULLY DIABETES
COMES UNDER CONTROL, AND GUESS
WHAT?
OUR HEALTH CARE COSTS COMES
UNDER CONTROL.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT WE DID IN
THIS BILL, AND I'M REALLY,
REALLY PROUD OF IT.
I TRAVEL MY STATE A LOT, AND AS
I WENT FROM DINER TO DINER, OUT
THERE IN THE COMMUNITY WHERE I
COULD JUST TALK TO THE PEOPLE
UNFETTERED, UNPROGRAMMED,
UNCHOREOGRAPHED, YOU KNOW WHAT
THEY SAID TO ME WAS BARB, I NOT
ONLY WORRY ABOUT LOSING MY JOB
BUT I WORRY ABOUT LOSING MY
HEALTH INSURANCE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO
MY FAMILY.
I FEAR THAT I AM ONE HEALTH CARE
BANKRUPTCY.
CATASTROPHE AWAY FROM FAMILY
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT MY
FAMILY IS TAKEN CARE OF.
I TALK TO SMALL BUSINESS.
HOW COULD THEY AFFORD THAT?
THEY NEED PREDICTABILITY.
THEY NEED UNDERSTANDING.
THEY NEED TO HAVE ACCESS THROUGH
SOMETHING CALLED THE HEALTH CARE
EXCHANGE WHERE IT WOULD BE LIKE
AN ECONOMIC MALL WHERE THEY WILL
BE ABLE TO GO TO THE HEALTH
EXCHANGE AND SEE THE WHOLE
LINEUP OF PRIVATE HEALTH
INSURANCE COMPANIES AND THE
BENEFIT THAT THEY OFFER SO SMALL
BUSINESS WILL BE ABLE TO
NAVIGATE THAT AND SEE WHAT DO
THEY NEED, WHAT CAN THEY AFFORD
FOR THE BENEFITS FOR THEIR
WORKERS?
THIS IS THE AMERICAN WAY.
THIS DOES USE MARKET TECHNIQUES
BUT AT THE SAME TIME WE DON'T
USE FREE MARKET TO ENDANGER THE
PEOPLE IN TERMS OF UNIVERSAL
ACCESS AND SOME OF THESE OTHERS.
THERE ARE MANY THINGS IN THIS
BILL, AND ONE OF THE OTHERS THAT
I LIKE SO MUCH IS WE INSIST THAT
80% OF THE PREMIUM YOU PAY GOES
INTO HEALTH CARE, NOT INTO THE
EXECUTIVES' POCKETS FOR PERKS,
PRIVILEGE OR PROFITS.
NOW, I BELIEVE IN THE FREE
ENTERPRISE SYSTEM AND I BELIEVE
IN PROFIT, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE
IN PROFITEERING, SO WE SAID 20%
GOES INTO ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS,
AND IF YOU CAN CONTROL THOSE,
YOU WILL MAKE A BIGGER PROFIT,
BUT 80% HAS TO ACTUALLY GO,
REWARDING PROVIDERS FOR THE
HEALTH CARE THAT THEY DO, FOR
THEIR EDUCATION, FOR THEIR
TRAINING.
I JUST THINK IT'S TERRIFIC.
AND THIS AUGUST, THIS PART OF
THE BILL HAS ALREADY KICKED IN.
MY CONSTITUENTS IN MARYLAND WILL
SEE OVER $5 MILLION RETURNED TO
THEM BECAUSE WE INSISTED ON THIS
PROVISION.
SO WE ARE FOR PROVIDERS GETTING
WHAT THEY NEED IN TERMS OF
REIMBURSEMENT, BUT AT THE SAME
TIME LOOKING -- MAKING SURE IT
GOES INTO THE HEALTH CARE THAT
THEY NEED.
SO TODAY WE HAVE HAD THE RULING
OF THE COURT.
I WAS OUT THERE ON THE STEPS OF
THE SUPREME COURT AND I LOVED
MINUTE OF IT.
MADAM PRESIDENT, AS YOU KNOW, I
GOT INTO POLITICS AS A
NEIGHBORHOOD PROTESTOR.
I FOUGHT A HIGHWAY AND I FOUGHT
THE DOWNTOWN ESTABLISHMENT AND I
FOUGHT THE POLITICAL BOSSES.
AND WHAT I HAVE SAID IS I HAVE
TALKED TO YOUNG PEOPLE AROUND
THE WORLD, PARTICULARLY THOSE
WHO HAVE ASPIRATIONS IN
AUTOCRATIC OR DICTATORIAL
ENVIRONMENTS.
YOU KNOW, IN AMERICA, WHEN
YOU'RE A PROTESTOR, THEY DON'T
PUT YOU IN JAIL.
THEY SEND YOU TO THE SENATE.
I'M HERE BECAUSE OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.
FREE SPEECH, FREEDOM OF
ASSEMBLY.
BUT WHEN I WAS OUT THERE ON THE
STEPS TODAY AND HEARD THE ROAR
OF THE CROWD, WHETHER IT WAS THE
TEA PARTY WHO HAD ACCESS TO A
MICROPHONE, WHETHER IT WAS ME
WHO HAD ACCESS TO A MICROPHONE,
THAT THE FOUNDERS' VISION OF
AMERICA WORKED.
WHAT DID THEY DO?
THEY BELIEVED IN LIMITED
GOVERNMENT.
THEY BELIEVED IN NO -- THEY
BELIEVED IN CHECKS AND BALANCES.
NO PRESIDENT SHOULD HAVE
UNLIMITED POWER, NO CONGRESS
SHOULD HAVE UNBRIDLED POWER, AND
THE SUPREME COURT WOULD HAVE AN
INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY TO ACT AS
THE REFEREE.
PRESIDENT OBAMA PROPOSED THE
BILL.
WE DUKED IT OUT IN THE CONGRESS.
WE PASSED IT AND SENT IT OUT TO
THE LAND, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN
LEGAL CHALLENGES.
IT WENT TO THE SUPREME COURT.
THE SUPREME COURT LOOKED AT THE
BILL, NOT FOR UTILITY OR EVEN
DESIRABILITY.
THEY LOOKED AT IT FOR
CONSTITUTIONALITY.
AND TODAY THEY RULED THAT THE
BILL WAS CONSTITUTIONAL.
I'M SURE SOMEWHERE THERE IS TOM
JEFFERSON, JOHN ADAMS AND HIS
WIFE ABIGAIL WHO SAID THEY LIVED
THE CONSTITUTION AND IN THAT
HEALTH CARE BILL, BY THE WAY,
JOHN, THEY DIDN'T FORGET THE
LADIES.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE
FLOOR.
I NOTE THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE ROLL.
CALL:
A SENATOR: MADAM PRESIDENT?
THE
I ASK UNANIMOUS
SENATOR FROM MARYLAND.
CONSENT THAT THE QUORUM CALL BE
DISPENSED WITH.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I
ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO SPEAK
AS IF IN MORNING BUSINESS.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I
TAKE THIS TIME TO COMMENT ON THE
SUPREME COURT DECISION ON THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
I THINK THIS WAS A GOOD DAY FOR
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
IT ALLOWS US TO MOVE FORWARD
WITH PROVIDING UNIVERSAL HEALTH
CARE COVERAGE FOR ALL AMERICANS,
AFFORDABLE, QUALITY HEALTH CARE.
I WANT TO QUOTE FROM A FORMER
MEMBER OF THIS BODY WHEN HE SAID
FOR ME, THIS IS A SEASON OF
HOPE, NEW HOPE FOR A JUSTICE AND
FAIR PROSPERITY FOR THE MANY AND
NOT JUST THE FEW, NEW HOPE, AND
THIS IS THE CAUSE OF MY LIFE,
NEW HOPE THAT WILL BREAK THE OLD
GRIDLOCK AND GUARANTEE THAT
EVERY AMERICAN, NORTH, SOUTH,
EAST, WEST, YOUNG, OLD, WILL
HAVE DECENT QUALITY HEALTH CARE
AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, NOT A
PRIVILEGE.
THAT WAS A STATEMENT FROM OUR
FORMER COLLEAGUE, THE LATE
SENATOR TED KENNEDY, ON
AUGUST 26, 2008.
THIS CONGRESS ACTED AND DID WHAT
WAS RIGHT TO MOVE THIS NATION
FORWARD, TO JOIN ALL THE OTHER
INDUSTRIAL NATIONS IN THE WORLD
TO SAY HEALTH CARE IS A RIGHT,
NOT A PRIVILEGE.
AND THE SUPREME COURT TODAY
RECOGNIZED THAT IT WAS CONGRESS'
RESPONSIBILITY AND THAT CONGRESS
HAD THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO MOVE
FORWARD.
AS A RESULT OF THAT DECISION,
WE'RE GOING TO FIND THAT
$10.7 BILLION HAS BEEN RECOVERED
ALREADY TODAY BY DEALING WITH
WASTE, FRAUD AND ABUSE IN THE
MEDICARE SYSTEM.
WE'LL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE WITH
THOSE PROGRAMS THAT MAKE OUR
HEALTH CARE SYSTEM MORE
AFFORDABLE.
WE'LL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE HEALTH
CARE COVERAGE FOR THOSE BETWEEN
AGES OF 19-25 THAT ARE NOW
ON THEIR PARENTS' HEALTH
INSURANCE POLICY.
3.1 MILLION YOUNG ADULTS HAVE
BENEFITED FROM THAT PROVISION OF
THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT THAT WAS
UPHELD BY THE SUPREME COURT
TODAY.
17 MILLION CHILDREN WITH
PREEXISTING CONDITIONS CAN NO
LONGER BE DENIED COVERAGE BY
THEIR INSURERS.
THAT PROVISION IS NOW SAFE AS A
RESULT OF THE SUPREME COURT
DECISION.
5.3 MILLION AMERICANS ON
MEDICARE SAVED ON AVERAGE $600
ON THEIR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.
MADAM PRESIDENT, AS YOU KNOW, WE
WORKED IN THIS AFFORDABLE CARE
ACT TO CLOSE THE COVERAGE GAP,
THE SO-CALLED DOUGHNUT HOLE ON
PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE FOR
OUR SENIORS.
IN UPHOLDING THE AFFORDABLE CARE
ACT, THE SUPREME COURT ALLOWS US
TO CONTINUE TO MAKE SURE THAT
THAT COVERAGE GAP IS ELIMINATED.
70,000 AMERICANS WITH
PREEXISTING CONDITIONS NOW HAVE
COVERAGE IS SAFE.
THE SECURITY TO KNOW THAT THEIR
IN ADDITION, IN 2011,
32.5 MILLION SENIORS RECEIVED
OR MORE FREE PREVENTATIVE
SERVICES.
SO FAR IN 2012, 14 MILLION
SENIORS HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED
THESE SERVICES.
THE EXPANSION OF BENEFITS IN
MEDICARE THAT WAS UNDER THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, PROVIDING
THE WELLNESS EXAM, ELIMINATING
THE CO-PAYMENTS ON PREVENTATIVE
HEALTH SERVICES, THAT WILL ALSO
NOW BE SAFE AND OUR SENIORS WILL
CONTINUE TO BE ABLE TO ENJOY
THOSE BENEFITS.
ON THE DOUGHNUT HOLE THAT I
ALREADY MENTIONED, THE COVERAGE
GAP ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS WILL
SAVE $3.7 BILLION FOR
5.2 MILLION SENIORS FOR AN
AVERAGE OF $651.
THIS IS REAL MONEY.
THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
SOME SENIORS BEING ABLE TO TAKE
THEIR MEDICINES OR HAVING TO
DESK.
LEAVE THEM ON THE PHARMACIST'S
THAT IS NOW ALSO PROTECTED.
INSURANCE COMPANIES WILL PROVIDE
ALMOST 13 MILLION AMERICANS WITH
OVER A BILLION DOLLARS IN
REBATES IN 2012.
WE PUT INTO THE HEALTH CARE
REFORM PROPOSALS PROTECTIONS
AGAINST EXCESSIVE PREMIUMS BY
PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES.
WELL, THAT'S GOING TO SAVE THE
CONSUMERS IN AMERICA OVER A
BILLION DOLLARS.
105 MILLION AMERICANS NO LONGER
WILL HAVE LIFETIME LIMITS ON
THEIR COVERAGE.
INSURANCE SHOULD BE THERE THAT
PROTECTS YOU.
BEFORE THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT,
WE HAD LIMITS THAT MAY NOT HAVE
COVERED YOUR EXTRAORDINARY
COSTS, YOUR CATASTROPHIC COSTS.
WE NOW HAVE THAT PROTECTION AS A
RESULT OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE
ACT AND THE SUPREME COURT
UPHOLDING THAT DECISION TODAY.
IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT FOR SMALL
BUSINESSES, SMALL BUSINESSES,
360,000, TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE
TAX CREDIT THAT HELPS SMALL
COMPANIES AFFORD TO BUY HEALTH
INSURANCE FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES,
AND WHEN WE FULLY IMPLEMENT THIS
BILL IN 2014, SMALL COMPANIES
WILL ENJOY THE SAME LARGER POOLS
AND LOWER PREMIUMS THAT LARGER
COMPANIES ENJOY TODAY IN
COVERING THEIR EMPLOYEES.
THAT TODAY IS HELPING COVER
AROUND TWO MILLION WORKERS.
WE ALREADY MADE A SIGNIFICANT
AMOUNT OF PROGRESS AS A RESULT
OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND
THE SUPREME COURT UPHOLDING THAT
LAW TODAY.
I'D LIKE TO JUST TALK A MINUTE
ABOUT THE PATIENTS' BILL OF
RIGHTS.
ONE OF THE MAJOR PARTS OF THE
BILL WAS TO TAKE ON THE ABUSIVE
PRACTICES OF PRIVATE INSURANCE
COMPANIES.
WE ALL KNOW THAT THAT WAS AT
RISK IF THE SUPREME COURT DID
NOT UPHOLD THE ACTIONS OF
CONGRESS.
AS A RESULT OF UPHOLDING THE
ACTIONS OF CONGRESS, WE NOW
FIND, FOR EXAMPLE, ACCESS TO
EMERGENCY CARE, A PROVISION THAT
I WORKED ON, THAT SAYS THAT IT
EMERGENCY ROOM.
IS PRUDENT FOR YOU TO GO TO AN
LET'S SAY THAT YOU'RE HAVING
SHORTNESS OF BREATH AND YOU HAVE
CHEST PAINS AND THE RIGHT THING
FOR YOU TO DO IS TO GO TO AN
EMERGENCY ROOM, THAT YOUR
INSURANCE COMPANY IS GOING TO
PAY FOR THAT VISIT.
DIAGNOSIS.
YOU CAN'T GO BY YOUR FINAL
IT MAY NOT BE A HEART ATTACK.
IF YOU GET YOUR BILL AND IT'S
NOT PAID FOR BY YOUR INSURANCE
ATTACK.
COMPANY, YOU MIGHT HAVE A HEART
THIS BILL PROTECTS US TO MAKE
SURE THE INSURANCE COMPANIES DO
NOT USE ABUSIVE PRACTICES
AGAINST YOU.
THE ACCESS OF WOMEN'S HEALTH
CARE IS GUARANTEED UNDER THE
PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS.
ACCESS TO PEDIATRIC CARE, CHOICE
OF HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS AS
YOUR PRIMARY CARE.
ALL OF THAT IS IN THE -- WHAT WE
CALL THE PATIENTS' BILL OF
RIGHTS THAT PROTECTS YOU AGAINST
ABUSIVE PRACTICES OF PRIVATE
INSURANCE COMPANIES.
CLINICAL TRIAL COVERAGE IS ALSO
IN HERE.
THE PROVISION I WORKED ON,
HEALTH DISPARITIES.
WE KNOW THAT WE PAY A HEAVY COST
IN AMERICA BECAUSE OF HEALTH
DISPARITIES.
IN MINORITY ISSUES AND GENDERS
ISSUES.
WE NOW HAVE A NATIONAL INSTITUTE
FOR MINORITY HEALTH AND HEALTH
DISPARITIES AT THE NATIONAL
INSTITUTES OF HEALTH.
THAT WILL HELP US UNDERSTAND WHY
WE HAVE THESE DISPARITIES IN OUR
SYSTEM AND WHAT WE CAN DO TO
REDUCE THOSE DISPARITIES FOR THE
THE -- BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT
POLICY FOR AMERICA AND WILL ALSO
SAVE US MONEY.
THAT LAW NOW IS PROTECTED.
THAT -- THAT INSTITUTE IS
PROTECTED AND IS NO LONGER IN
JEOPARDY AS A RESULT OF THE
SUPREME COURT UPHOLDING THE --
THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
AND LET ME TALK ABOUT ORAL
HEALTH CARE.
WE TALKED FREQUENTLY ON THE
FLOOR HERE ABOUT MONTE DRIVER,
THE 12-YEAR-OLD IN MARYLAND IN
2007 HAD NO HEALTH INSURANCE AND
COULD NOT GET ACCESS TO DENTAL
CARE, LOST HIS LIFE.
WE -- WE SAID THAT'S NOT GOING
TO HAPPEN AGAIN IN OUR STATE OR
ANY PLACE IN THE NATION.
AND WE'RE PROUD THAT -- THAT
CHILDREN'S ACCESS TO PEDIATRIC
HEALTH CARE, DENTAL CARE IS
PROTECTED UNDER THE ESSENTIAL
BENEFIT PROVISIONS IN THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT THAT WAS
UPHELD BY THE SUPREME COURT
TODAY.
I ALSO JUST WANT TO COMMENT ON
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE LEGAL
DECISION BEYOND HEALTH CARE.
TO ME, IT SHOWS THAT THE SUPREME
COURT WAS ABLE TO FIND A WAY TO
ADVANCE THE RULE OF LAW AND TO
FOLLOW THE PRECEDENT THAT WE'VE
SEEN IN UPHOLDING PROGRAMS SUCH
AS SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE,
WHICH ARE MANDATORY INSURANCE
PROGRAMS.
IT'S THE RIGHT DECISION ON THE
RULE OF LAW.
IT'S THE RIGHT LEGACY FOR THIS
COURT TO FIND A WAY IN A -- IN A
HAS NINE DIFFERENT
JUSTICES --
DIFFERENT JUSTICES WITH
IN A SUPREME COURT THAT HAS NINE
DIFFERENT VIEWS, THEY WERE ABLE
TO COME TOGETHER WITH AN OPINION
THAT UPHELD THE AUTHORITY OF
CONGRESS TO ACT ON A MAJOR
NATIONAL PROBLEM.
MADAM PRESIDENT, NOW IT'S TIME
FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD.
THIS ISSUE'S BEEN LITIGATED.
THE SUPREME COURT IS THE FINAL
ARBITER OF THIS DECISION.
IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES, BOTH
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, LET'S
WORK TOGETHER TO IMPLEMENT THIS
BILL IN THE BEST MANNER FOR THE
PEOPLE OF THIS NATION.
WE KNOW THAT WE'RE SAVING MONEY.
WE KNOW THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL
BUDGET OFFICE SAYS THAT THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT WILL SAVE HUNDREDS OF
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OVER THE
FIRST TEN YEARS AND THEN
TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS BEYOND THAT
IN OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
LET'S WORK TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE
IT WORKS.
LET'S WORK TOGETHER IN THE
INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
LET'S PUT OUR PARTISAN FIGHTS
ASIDE, LET'S ACCEPT WHAT THE
SUPREME COURT HAS DONE AND NOW
LET'S MOVE FORWARD TO GET THIS
LAW IMPLEMENTED IN THE MOST
COST-EFFECTIVE WAY SO THAT WE
CAN, INDEED, ACHIEVE THE GOAL
THAT SENATOR KENNEDY WAS TALKING
ABOUT, THAT EVERY AMERICAN
SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO
AFFORDABLE, QUALITY CARE IN THE
RICHEST NATION IN THE WORLD.
AND WITH THAT, MADAM PRESIDENT,
I WOULD SUGGEST THE ABSENCE OF A
QUORUM.
THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
LAUTENBERG: LAUTENBERG: MADAM PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY.
THANK YOU,
MADAM PRESIDENT.
THE
SENATE IS IN A QUORUM CALL.
I ASK UNANIMOUS