Nomination of Kent Yoshiho Hirozawa to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board -- Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise in support of parents, families, students, employees, taxpayers, and other hard-working Americans, who, as of January 1, 2014, will find themselves unfairly impacted by ObamaCare. ObamaCare is an ill-conceived, poorly crafted, and economically damaging piece of legislation.

We have known for some time now that ObamaCare would create a set of circumstances that would make health care unaffordable. It is unaffordable from several standpoints: No. 1, for the country and for the U.S. Government. The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan entity, recently reported that this law is likely to cost the U.S. Government about $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years. That is significantly more--some would say roughly double--than the initial estimates given to Congress when this law was passed.

This is an enormous amount of money. It is an especially enormous amount of money for a government that is now $17 trillion in debt and is adding to that debt at a rate of about $1 trillion every single year. It is not as though we have an overabundance of money within the Federal Government. It is not as though we can afford to take on newer, more expensive programs, such as this one, especially when they run pricetags that are substantially above and beyond what was presented to us.

It is also proving to be unaffordable for American families. There are a number of studies that have been conducted in recent months which tell us that premiums are going to become more expensive. The name of the law, of course, was the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This implies, of course, this would protect patients and make health care more affordable, not less. What we found is that this is a misnomer. What we have found through the studies that have been released recently is that it is going to make health care less affordable for American families, not more affordable.

The interesting thing about these studies is that they are all over the map. We don't know exactly how much health care is going to cost us. We don't know exactly how much less affordable health care will become under the Affordable Care Act because there are so many uncertainties created by this law. The 2,700-page bill that became ObamaCare has been modified and will continue to be modified by countless pages--tens of thousands of pages of regulations.

This act has also been modified in significant ways on a couple of occasions, which we will get to in a minute. All of these modifications have created additional uncertainty that is a source of a lot of concern to a lot of Americans. What we do know is that it is likely to result in premium increases.

One study concluded that even on the low end, the increased premiums families would be paying in a small group premium context would go up between 13 and 23 percent, on average. Other studies--including one that was conducted in the State of Indiana--suggested that premiums would go up in that State by 72 percent for those with individual plans. I am told Maryland's biggest health insurance provider has proposed raising premiums for individual policies by an average of 25 percent next year.

In many instances, these numbers are even worse for young people. There are also numbers which suggest that there is a lot of uncertainty, and we truly don't know. It is almost impossible to know. An analysis of more than 30 studies has shown that premiums are likely to increase between 145 and 189 percent for young people seeking health insurance. In Utah, my State, there is a study suggesting that for young people seeking health insurance, their premiums are likely to increase between 56 and 90 percent with respect to individual policies.

This law is also bad for America's workers. Businesses are cutting hours, moving workers to part-time, and in many cases they are not hiring at all.

According to a recent U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey, 74 percent of businesses will fire employees or cut hours; 61 percent will not hire next year.

Daniel Kessler, who is a professor of law and business at Stanford University, has predicted that 30 to 40 million Americans will be directly harmed by ObamaCare through higher premiums, stiff penalties, cutbacks in hours, and job losses.

We have known for some time--as a result of these studies--that ObamaCare was going to make health care unaffordable. We now know it is also going to be fundamentally unfair. The President recently admitted the law is not ready for prime time. He admitted he is not ready to implement the law as it has been written. Because ObamaCare was so poorly crafted, he simply is not going to enforce it the way it was crafted. He is going to selectively enforce its provisions.

Most important, the President of the United States has said that while he is going to require hard-working Americans, individuals, to comply with the law's individual mandate. According to one recent study, only 12 percent of the American people actually support that provision today. However, he is going to implement and enforce that provision, but at least for the first year of the law's full effect next year, he will not be implementing or enforcing the employer mandate. So hard-working Americans have to comply but big business does not have to comply.

This is significant because the law doesn't give the President of the United States the power to rewrite the law. The law sets forth a specific set of timelines, a specific set of deadlines that cause the law's various provisions to kick in. This did not give the President the authority or the discretion to decide which among the law's several provisions could be favored or disfavored by the President of the United States.

So we have hard-working Americans, individuals, and families on the hook, and we have big business being thrown a big bone. This is not fair. This is not something that is consistent with the rule of law. This is not something the American people ought to tolerate.

The Affordable Care Act, as it is called, will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but in many instances it will destroy the foundation of the 40-hour workweek that has become the backbone of the American middle class. It will do all of this in a way that will contribute to or be part of a system of selective unfair enforcement.

The American people deserve better. The American people demand better. The American people deserve not to have this law implemented and enforced if, as the President of the United States has told us, it is not ready for prime time. Then it is not ready to be implemented.

I ask of my friend and colleague, the distinguished junior Senator from Florida, how he feels about this and how the people in the State of Florida feel about the selective implementation and enforcement of a law that Americans already knew would be unaffordable and a law they know will also be unfair.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, those of us who share this position feel strongly that it is indisputably, constitutionally the prerogative of the Congress to exercise the power of the purse. This means we don't have to vote to fund something with which we fundamentally disagree.

Some have suggested that because this was passed by Congress 3 years ago, we somehow have an obligation to fund it. Well, I would remind my colleagues who might make that statement that the Congress as it existed then is not the same Congress as it exists today. That was two Congresses ago. The Congress that enacted that law was fundamentally changed in part because it enacted that law.

The law has not been popular. It has not been good to those who voted to enact it. Ever since the majority party in the House of Representatives changed hands after the 2010 election--due in large part to ObamaCare--there have been a lot of people who have suggested that the Republicans in Congress need to defund ObamaCare's implementation and enforcement. For a variety of reasons, that has not happened.

We have continued to pass continuing resolutions with no restrictions on ObamaCare's implementation and enforcement, at least as it relates to the ultimate implementation and enforcement of the exchanges, of the individual mandate, and so forth. Republicans have had reasons for doing this. Some of those reasons have included the statement to the effect that, well, the Supreme Court is going to knock it down. It will strike it down. It will invalidate ObamaCare because it is unconstitutional. Of course it is, and a majority of the Supreme Court concluded that it was unconstitutional as written. But the Supreme Court, rather than invalidating it, instead rewrote the law not just once but twice in order to save it. Some Republicans have also justified continuing to vote for funding bills that contain ObamaCare implementation funding because they believed a Republican would be elected President in 2012 and would stop ObamaCare. Well, that did not happen either.

We have one last opportunity to defund the implementation of this law before these provisions I just mentioned kick in on January 1--one last opportunity--and that is in connection with our current spending bill, our current continuing resolution that is set to expire on September 30--just 62 days from right now.

So what we are saying is that if you agree with us, if you agree with the President that this law is not ready to be implemented as it was written, as it was enacted by Congress, if the President is not going to follow the law, then the American people should not have to fund it. If you do not like it, if you agree it is not ready, do not fund it. We can and we should and we must fund government but not ObamaCare.

So I would ask the Senator from Florida if these are sentiments that are consistent with what he has been thinking, sentiments that are consistent with what he has been hearing from his constituents in Florida.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I do indeed share those thoughts and feelings and the obligation we owe to our constituents to honor our word and put action behind our words.

I would ask the Senator from Utah if he would yield for a series of three short questions?

Mr. LEE. Surely.

Mr. CRUZ. The first question is, There has been much talk of a shutdown. Am I correct that we do not have to hypothesize what a shutdown would look like, that we, in fact, saw that in 1995 with two temporary, partial shutdowns that occurred when Republicans in the House stood up to President Clinton?

When that occurred in 1995, we saw several things. No. 1, we saw that the parade of horribles that was brought out did not occur. Social Security checks continued to flow, the military continued to be funded, interest on the debt continued to be paid, planes did not fall out of the sky.

Indeed, what occurs--if Democrats decide to block a continuing resolution and force a temporary shutdown in order to force ObamaCare on the American people--is a partial, temporary shutdown where nonessential government services get suspended for a period of time, not a shutdown of essential services, such as paying for the men and women who are fighting in the military and providing Social Security checks. We have seen that in the past; is that correct?

Mr. LEE. That is correct. That is correct, and it is how it has happened in the past. This is not something we want. This is not something we have threatened. This is something we think can and should be avoided and we want to avoid. In the unfortunate, completely avoidable event that did happen, it would be largely as the Senator described it.

Mr. CRUZ. A second question I would ask is this: This week we saw the rather stunning news that the IRS employees union--the men and women at the IRS charged with enforcing ObamaCare are asking not to be made subject to ObamaCare. Indeed, the union leaders have said to their union members: Draft letters to send to Members of this body, saying that we, the IRS employees union, do not want to be subject to ObamaCare.

Likewise, ObamaCare subjects Members of this body and their staffs to ObamaCare. I am not aware of a single Senate office that is not deeply concerned about that, that is not facing the prospect of staff quitting the congressional offices because the arms of ObamaCare are so significant, and there have been many a panicked discussion among Democrats and Republicans about what to do about subjecting Members and their staff to ObamaCare.

My second question of three short questions is, What does it say to the Senator that the IRS employees union is asking: Let us out from ObamaCare, and that Members and congressional staff are deeply concerned about the harms ObamaCare is going to do to them?

Mr. LEE. Well, first of all, that tells me that those who are part of that union do not want to be subject to the same provisions of the same law they will be enforcing.

What it also tells me in the bigger picture is that above all, this law creates uncertainty. That is why we see so much angst among people right here on Capitol Hill who are facing the very real prospect, the very real future in the next few months of going onto these exchanges because nobody knows what this is going to look like. Nobody has any idea.

One thing Americans really do not like, in this world of a lot of unavoidable uncertainties, is more uncertainties heaped upon them by dictate of the Federal Government. We have enough uncertainties in life. We do not know when somebody is going to get sick. We do not know when accidents are going to happen. So we should be able to avoid those things that government thrusts upon us.

This is one of the many reasons why there is so much angst within the IRS and within the ranks of the Capitol Hill workforce. People do not want to go onto these exchanges because they have absolutely no idea what this is going to look like.

Mr. CRUZ. My third brief question is, For those in this body who have campaigned at home, who have told their constituents they are opposed to ObamaCare, on January 1 the exchanges go up and running, the subsidies begin. And the history of the modern entitlement state is that anytime a subsidy has been put in place, it has proven to be politically virtually impossible to undo. Indeed, no major entitlement that has been implemented in modern times has ever been undone.

For those who say they oppose ObamaCare, what is the alternative to defunding ObamaCare with a continuing resolution? Let me ask it a separate way. If we do not defund it, am I correct that come January 1, Republicans will essentially be surrendering that in all likelihood ObamaCare will be a permanent feature of the economy, hurting the economy, hurting jobs, hurting low-income workers, hurting our health care system? And if that is correct, has any reasonable alternative been proffered by anyone on this side of the Senate to stop that harm other than what you and Senator Rubio and I and others are trying to do?

Mr. LEE. Based on historical precedent, we have every reason to believe that once this new entitlement program kicks in, it is not going away. It is a one-way ratchet. You have death, taxes, and entitlements. Once created, they do not go away.

To answer the second part of that question, I am not aware of any plan among any Republicans--aside from this one; aside from the plan that says: Do not fund ObamaCare, fund government but not ObamaCare--that would address this issue. I am not aware of any plan. The only other plan I am aware of would be one that says: Let's just wait and see what happens. Let's wait and see what a horrible disaster this will be. Let's wait and see how awful this will be for the American people, how utterly intolerable they will find it. And let's just hope that will provide enough political momentum for us perhaps to win elections at some unknown point in the future. This is not a good way to run a government. This is not a kind thing to do to an unsuspecting public who hopes and expects that we have their best interests at heart.

So to all those in this body who support ObamaCare, this argument might not be all that persuasive to you, although you ought to look at the fact that the President, who signed this into law, has said he himself is not ready, is not willing, is not able to enforce and implement the law evenhandedly as it was written. So maybe that ought to give you pause as to whether you should fund it.

But for those of you in this body who are, in fact, opposed to ObamaCare, I ask you: How can you oppose it, be against it, and yet fund it? So I would invite you to consider the possibility that what you are doing in thinking about funding it is not really where you want to go. Consider what might be said about this. Defund it or own it. If you fund it, you are for it.

This law was enacted without a meaningful opportunity for the Members voting on it to read it. It is 2,700 pages long. After it was enacted into law, it was rewritten a total of four times: twice by the Supreme Court of the United States, twice more by the President of the United States. The President's rewrite came just a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court's rewrite was over a year ago.

But what the President did was acknowledge that this law is not ready for prime time. This law is not ready to implement. This law is not one that he is willing to implement as written. He is going to implement and enforce it selectively, holding hard-working Americans, individuals and families to the fire, while throwing a big bone to big business.

This is not acceptable. This is un-American. This is not something that those of us who purport to be against ObamaCare can support by funding it. So I invite my colleagues to join me in this cause to vote to fund government but not ObamaCare.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source