Protecting Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders Act of 2014
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Madam President, I start by commending my colleague from Vermont.
What happened today across the street at the Supreme Court will be lost on most Americans. They can't understand why they should even care about it.
The Supreme Court was asked whether it was proper under the law to limit the number of Federal campaigns and the total dollars an individual can give to candidates. To no one's surprise, the Supreme Court said there should be no limitation. People can give as much money as they want to as many Federal candidates they want with no limitation.
Most Americans will say: So what? You know, these politicians run against one another. During the campaign both sides spend too much money. I am sick and tired of their ads. I don't care how you pay for it; it is all bad.
But I have to say, Senator Sanders put his finger on it. What is at issue here is not just how we finance campaigns. It is who we elect. What we are faced with is a Supreme Court across the street which celebrates oligarchs. They happen to believe that the wealthiest people in America deserve the strongest voice in American politics. I couldn't disagree more.
Sadly, many of us are caught up in this system of campaign financing where we literally have to raise millions of dollars to run for election and reelection. In my State multimillionaires are running for the highest offices against what I consider to be mere mortals--those of us who aren't in the multimillionaire class--trying to compete with them, always wondering if tomorrow the Koch brothers--with an $80 billion net worth--will say: Spend $10 million there; spend $20 million there.
I say to my friend from Vermont, as best we can count, in the last election cycle the Koch brothers--not to be confused with the soft drink--spent over $250 million in ad campaigns. I think the figure, frankly, is much higher, and the suggestion is they are going to double that spending this time. They have already spent $10 million in the State of North Carolina with negative television advertising for 12 months against the Democratic incumbent Senator Kay Hagan, trying to beat her down, so they can defeat her in November.
Make no mistake. There is a lot of money being spent on both sides. But Sheldon Adelson, who--as the Senator from Vermont said--runs one of the biggest gambling operations and maybe is the wealthiest man when it comes to that in the United States, maybe in the world, has become a player. Can you imagine if those who want to run for the Republican nomination for President come hat in hand, land at the Las Vegas airport, walk into a room and see if they can say something that appeals to this man who is worth billions of dollars? Last time he fell in love with Newt Gingrich, and he was going to make Newt Gingrich President. People in many of the Republican primaries saw it differently. Well, this time he wants to pick another horse to run.
Why are the richest people in America so intent on owning our political process? Because they have an agenda. It isn't just because they love the Constitution. They have an agenda--an agenda which makes the Tax Code work for them, an agenda which makes sure that government spending and things that aren't priorities for them are reduced.
We saw some of that yesterday, when Congressman Paul Ryan in the House of Representatives introduced his budget, his vision of what America should look like. What is it? It is a budget amendment which
cuts back on some basic things. One thing the Ryan budget cuts back on that everybody listening to this debate ought to take note of is domestic discretionary spending for medical research--seriously.
Today happens to be World Autism Awareness Day. Do you know a family with an autistic child? Do you have any idea what they are going through? I know a few. Sadly, the number of people suffering from autism and the autism spectrum disorder seems to be growing by the day. We look at these families struggling to give their son or daughter a chance and think: If we only knew a little bit more about this disease, if we only knew a little bit more about the human brain, if we only could see this coming and do something to avoid it, if we could find a way to treat it, what a difference it would make for all of these families on World Autism Awareness Day. But the answer from Congressman Ryan is to cut back on medical research. That is not the answer. It is not the answer for any of us.
God forbid we go to the doctor's office tomorrow with a child, and the doctor says something awful has happened. But the first question we would ask the doctor is: Is there something you can do? Is there a medicine? Is there a procedure?
How many families have been in that position where they have asked that physician, praying to God that the answer is yes? The answer will not be yes when we cut back on medical research. The answer is going to be no.
That is why we have to really reflect on our priorities--not only in Congress but in elections. If we are going to let people take over the American political scene through the Citizens United case across the street or the McCutcheon case which was decided today, we are going to turn our government over to people who are totally out of touch with the reality of American families and American working families. That would be a serious mistake.
While we are on the subject, these are the first people in line who want to eliminate the Affordable Care Act. I was in the Rose Garden yesterday, invited by the President with a large group to celebrate the announcement that more than 7.1 million Americans have now enrolled by the deadline under the Affordable Care Act, and more than 3 million young people, fresh out of college, looking for jobs are covered by their mom and dad's health insurance while they are looking for work. Then add another 8 million people across America who now have health insurance protection through Medicaid--meaning their income is so low that they qualify for this basic health insurance. Add those numbers up, and they come to somewhere in the range of 15 million to 18 million people who benefited by the Affordable Care Act--people, who until they had this opportunity, some of them, many of them had no insurance. I have met them. I have met them across my State. I have met those in downstate Illinois who worked all their lives. They are 62 years old.
A friend of mine never had health insurance one day in her life, never missed a day of work in her life. Now she has the protection of health insurance at age 62 for the first time--and thank God she does. She has just been diagnosed with diabetes. She has a chance now because she has health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. So what is the response from the other side? Repeal it. Get rid of it. We don't need it. It is a waste--too much government.
We are not going back. We're not repealing. We can make it better, and we ought to do it on a bipartisan basis. But we are not repealing the Affordable Care Act.
What would repealing the Affordable Care Act mean to the rest of us who have health insurance? The Affordable Care Act guarantees that if you have a child or a spouse with a medical condition--a medical history of asthma, diabetes, survived cancer--you cannot be discriminated against when you buy health insurance. What we are talking about here is giving families a fair shot at affordable health insurance--giving them a fair shot even if their child is born with a serious medical issue.
Secondly, the Affordable Care Act says: When you sell me a health insurance policy, it ought to be worth something when I need it. They used to sell these policies and put limits on them. God forbid tomorrow you are diagnosed with cancer and facing radiation therapy, chemotherapy, surgery, and hospitalizations. But there is a limit on your policy, and pretty soon you bust through the limit, and now it is all coming out of your meager savings. That is the number one reason people declare personal bankruptcy in America--health bills. The Affordable Care Act puts an end to that and says that your health insurance policy has to be there in an amount when you need it.
The third thing it says is if you are a senior citizen getting prescription drugs--there used to be something called the doughnut hole. It was a crazy thing. You couldn't even explain it. I pay for prescriptions--no, wait a minute. I don't pay for prescription drugs for the first 3 months, and then I pay for them for 4 months, and then the government pays for them. It was called the doughnut hole. It made no sense at all. We closed the doughnut hole, saying to seniors: We are going to make sure that your prescription drugs are covered and you don't have to pay out of pocket, and you can get that annual checkup that you need to stay healthy. Those who want to repeal the Affordable Care Act want to do away with that, and that is just plain wrong.
As I mentioned earlier, if you happen to be a family with a child under the age of 26, you can keep that child on your health insurance plan while they are finishing college and looking for a job, maybe getting that first job. It may not be the best, may not have benefits. They are still covered under your policy.
Have you as a parent ever called your 24-year-old daughter and asked her, as I have: Jenny, do you have health insurance?
No, Dad. I'm fine. Don't worry about me.
Right. I will stay up all night worrying about you.
You don't have to do that anymore under the Affordable Care Act. Those who want to repeal it want to go back to those days where young people fresh out of college had no health insurance protection. We are not going back. We can make this bill stronger and better, and I will work to do it. But for the millions of Americans who now have a chance at affordable, accessible health insurance, we are not turning the clock back.
There is one other thing worth mentioning. Not only are millions now on health insurance, the good news is for the last 5 years since we passed this bill, the rate of increase in costs for health insurance has been going down--yes, going down. Not as fast as we want it to, but it used to be trending up in a way we couldn't even manage or control.
Now we are moving in the right direction in terms of health care costs. So for those who come to the floor of the Senate or the floor of the House growling and whining about the Affordable Care Act, the good news is that this debate is over in America. The Affordable Care Act is here to stay.
We could make it better. We should work to make it better. We should do it on a bipartisan basis. But there are 18 million reasons why we are not going to repeal the Affordable Care Act--18 million Americans that have peace of mind with health insurance because of this law.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source