for 170 years, one religious society after another came to america so that they could live their faith -- puritans, congregationalists, roman catholics, quakers, baptists and methodists have all found refuge in the british colonies by the time the united states was born. roger williams founded rhode island as a haven for religious dissenters. william penn established in the colony that bears his name. religious freedom in america has been freedom not only in belief but also of behavior. in addition to our nation's early heritage, four key documents established the same understanding of religious freedom as encompassing both relief -- belief, excuse me, and behavior in both private and public spheres. the first document is the united

states constitution. the first amendment protects -- quote -- "the free exercise of religion" -- unquote, a phrase that on its face includes conduct as well as belief. it is a phrase that had been in use for more than a century when america's founders placed it in the first amendment. the plain meaning of this phrase as well as its history is simply incompatible with the view that our constitutional freedom of religion is limited to the profession of belief and somehow excludes religious conduct. as professor michael mcconnell, director of the constitutional law center at stanford and perhaps america's leading scholar of religious liberty has shown, such and artificial and cramped view is unsupportable. by its own terms, our first amendment protects both religious faith and action. mr. president, the second document is the universal declaration of human rights, which the united states signed in 1948.

article 18 states that every person has a fundamental right to -- quote -- "freedom of thought, conscience, and religion" -- unquote, and that "this right includes freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observan observance." religious liberty by its very nature encompasses both belief and behavior. in articulating broad principles of basic human rights, the authors of the universal declaration acknowledge that it is meaningless to have one without the other. mr. president, the third document is the religious freedom restoration act. in 1990 the u.s. supreme court held that government needs only a rational basis for laws that burden but do not target the free exercise of religion. that decision changed decades of

supreme court precedent that had required a compelling reason for laws that burden the exercise of religion. this shift was not just some seinsemantic exercise. if government must have a compelling reason, it must respect the fundamental liberty and may burden it only when absolutely necessary. by shifting from one standard to the other, the supreme court made it dramatically easier for government to burden the free exercise of religion. congress responded to the supreme court's decision with the religious freedom restoration act, or rfra, which established the compelling standard. it passed the house unanimously by voice vote and the senate by a vote of 97-3.

it was the primary republican -- i was the primary republican cosponsor of the religious freedom restoration act here in the senate. in all of our discussions about rifrfra, both democrats and republicans were united on one fundamental principle: the right of all americans to the free exercise of religion should be equally protected. i remember when i went to ted kennedy. i said, you're going to be on this bill with me? he said, no. i said, yes, you are. and to his credit, he came on the bill, and by the time we articulated on the floor and afterwards when it was signed by president clinton at the white house, on the white house lawn, south lawn, one of the biggest boosters was my friend ted kennedy. well, the fact is i'll make that point again, it', as the primary

sponsor of the religious freedom restoration act here in the senate, in all of our discussions here in the senate, both republicans and democrats were united on one fundamental principle: the right of all americans to the free exercise of religion should be equally protected. each religious claim should be judged by the same standard as every other, a standard that reflects the true importance of religious freedom. we rejected amendments that would have excluded some religious claims or favored others. in october 1993 i spoke in favor of rfra here on the senate floor, explaining that the bill would restore to all americans protection for the free exercise of their religious convictions. in fact, i state the directly that exempting anyone from the basic principle of free exercise would set a dangerous precedent. mr. president, the fourth and final document is the international religious freedom act enacted in 1998.

the house passed it by an overwhelming bipartisan majority and the senate followed suit by a vote of 98-0. this law established the u.s. commission on international religious freedom and declared that -- quote -- "the right to freedom of religion une under gs the very existence of the united states." it cited the universal declaration of human rights and reaffirmed, yet again, that religious freedom necessarily includes both belief and practice individually or collectively in public or in private. as the u.s. commission on international religious freedom has explained by its very nature, religious liberty is -- quote -- "a broad, inclusive right, sweeping in scope, imraition the full -- embracing the full range of thought." it is central to human identity and dignity. it is essential to individual

and social well-being. and it is beneficial to political, economic, and civic life. religious freedom is a fundamental constitutional liberty, as well as a universal human right. in america, religious liberty is always included -- has always included both the freedom to believe and the freedom to act on that belief. the protection to do so collectively as well as individually, and the right to do so publicly as well as privately. those basic tenets form the only proper standard by which to assess the state of religious freedom in america today. unfortunately, there is much cause for concern. let me share a few disturbing examples. mr. president, the equal and universal application of religious liberty is now in doubt. congress was united when enacting the religious freedom

restoration act, that the right to exercise religion freely belongs to everyone and should be protected by the same rigorous standard in each case. when balanced against important government interests, some religious claims would win and others would lose, but a rigorous legal standard that creates a high hurdle for government action that burdens religion must be applied universally, since the free exercise of religion is a fundamental right of all americans. that conviction, however, is unraveling. this year marks the 50th anniversary of the civil rights act of 1964. title 7 of that landmark law prohibits workplace discrimination ands requires employers accommodate the religious practices of employees. the supreme court however interpreted the word "reasonably" so broadly that the

exceptions swallowed the rule and workers have been without this legal protection ever since. legislation called the workplace religious freedom act was introduced to establish -- reestablish the legal protection and accommodation for religious workers. originally it applied this protection to all religious claims, just like rfra required it would balance the right to the religious exercise with a legitimate need of employers. but the most recent version of this legislation introduced in the 112th congress abandoned universal applicability and instead would protect some religious claims but not others. rather than allowing religious claims of all varieties to standard or fall under the same standard, some claims were covered and others were excluded from that standard altogether. and this is not the only example

of religious liberty under attack. among its many other mandates -- or should i say "maladies" -- obamacare likewise struck a blow to the religious exercise of religion. although president obama has called religious freedom a universal human right, his administration apparently paid that no regard when drafting obamacare. likewise, the religious freedom restoration act plainly states that it's basic religious protections apply to every future federal statute. yet the obama administration gave no consideration whatsoever to such religious freedom in formulating the president's signature law. as a result, dozens of lawsuits have challenged obamacare's requirement that employers provide no-cost health insurance for abortive devices.

two of those cases are before the supreme court, one from the u.s. court of appeals for the tenth circuit, and one from the third circuit. in the face of its clearly universal requirements, the obama administration nevertheless argues that the religious freedom restoration act does not apply to these plaintiffs. despite the statute's plain text, obama officials insist that the law doesn't really apply to all cases after all. one step at a time, they seek to exclude classes of cases and classes of citizens from the basic protections of religious liberty. mr. president, my final two examples involve recent supreme court decisions. in sdana tabor v. eeo crnchts the supreme court held that the first amendment's protection for the free exercise of religion allows a church to choose its

own ministers. the obama administration argued instead that civil rights statutes trump the constitution and allow judges to dictate to churches who may serve as ministers. in fact, as the supreme court described it, obama administration lawyers were so dismissive of religious freedom that they argued churches were no different in this regard than labor unions or social clubs. can you imagine that? to the obama administration, the first amendment and its protection for the free exercise of religion apparently offers no real protection at all. thankfully, the supreme court responded this way. quote -- "we cannot accept the remarkable view that the religious clauses have mog to say about a religious organization's freedom to select its own ministers." finally, mr. president, just two weeks ago the supreme court held that allowing citizens to offer

a prayer of their choice to open a town meeting is not an establishment of religion. the four justices joined a dissenting opinion arguing that only certain prayers using certain language in a certain pattern would achieve a certain level of diversity and therefore be permissible. four justices actually believe that federal judges may dictate the content and presentation of prayers offered by private citizens. i could offer many more examples of how our nation's cherished religion freedom is under attack. with forces seeking to regulate, manipulate, and undermine the most basic natural and constitutional right we possess. i mentioned at the outset that three-quarters of the world's population live under 1257bgs religious restrictions. here at home the same percentage of americans believe that

religious is losing its influence in american life. liberal politicians, is he queue already a activists and even more judges are seeking to reduce religion to what justice antonin scalia described as "a purely personal evo indication that can be indulged entirely in secret like pornography in the privacy of one's room." it's no wonder in a nearly one-quarter of americans say that religious freedom is more threatened than any other first amendment freedom. theithese recent efforts mark a radical departure from the freedom that took root in our colonial subpoenas, was nourished by the declaration of independence, earn add primary place around our constitutional liberties and has been generously applied by generations of americans. the notion that religious freedom belongs only to some,

even then only in private, stands in direct opposition to our traditions, laws, and our beloved constitution. some peoples throughout the world may be bound by apressive governments that -- oppressive governments that strictly regulate who may express their religious faith, when they may practice their faiths, and where they may act according to their religious convictions. but that is not america's heritage, and it must not be our future. instead, america must once again be a beacon of religious freedom for all, protecting rights of conscious at home and promoting religious liberty throughout the world. and i expect it to be that. and i'm hopeful that our courts will come to our senses, the ones that aren't there, and realize this was listed as the first freedom in the bill of

rights for a very good reason, and that is because our founding fathers knew how important religion really is to a nation that wants to be free. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, there has been a number of inquiries, statements made today, one by the chamber of commerce, saying that the reason that stanley fischer, the vice chair of the board of governors of the federal reserve system hasn't been done is because of me. try that one on for size. so, mr. president, that's what happens around here. here is a man who has been approved with a very strong vote, bipartisan vote, to be a member of the board of governors of the federal reserve system, eminently qualified, nationally and internationally, and can't become vice chair until you become a member of the board. janet yellen has called, the chairman of the federal reserve,

and said it would really be important. we have administrative duties that we need his help with. so i made inquiry with my republican colleagues, why don't we do it? but, mr. president, we have a situation around here where no one gets approved. they eat up time, hours, wasted time, and then we approve him. in the meantime all we do is eat up the taxpayers' time here. so, anyway, without further dialogue here from me, i would simply say that the chamber of commerce and others should understand every person on this side of the aisle would approve him in a second. we would do it by unanimous consent. we would have a vote as soon as we can which without having filed cloture, wouldn't be until we get back a week from monday. i now ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session to consider the

nomination of stanley fischer to be vice chair of the board of governors federal reserve system for a term of six years, that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, and no further motions be in order and any related statements be printed in the record and president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action, the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. hatch mr. president, on behalf of senator paul, i will have to object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. reid: mr. president, may the record be spread that harry reid, who is being blamed for this nomination not being put forward, it's not my fault. i don't mind taking the fault for some things. i deserve a few things, but not this. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: mr. hatch: i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president, i note for the record that i support mr. fischer for this position, but there is a legitimate objection by one of our side that i had to advance. i hope we can resolve these problems. but i appreciate the distinguished majority leader and his attempt to do this today. with that, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. murphy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: i would ask that we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you, madam president. i want to tell my colleagues the story of charlene dill for a moment if i could. on march 21 of -- march 21, charlene dill was supposed to bring her three children over to the south orlando home of her best friend, cathleen. the two friends had cultivated really close relationships since 2008. they shared every resource they had, from debit card pins to transportation to baby sitting to house keys. they helped one another out. they essentially had become each other's safety net. as cathleen describes it, they hustled, they picked up

short-term work. they went to every event that they could get free tickets to for her kids. they lived a high life on the low-down, cleaning houses for friends just so they could afford daily necessities of life. they were the quintessential working poor, and they existed in the shadows of this economic recovery that has yet to reach a lot of average people out there. so on march 21, when dill never showed up with her three kids who often came over to play with cathleen's nine-year-old daughter, cathleen was surprised that she didn't even get a phone call from her friend, charlene. she shot her a text message, something along the lines of thanks for ditching me, not knowing what had really happened. charlene, who is estranged from her husband, had been raising her three children alone: ages three, seven and nine.

she had picked up another odd job to try to pay the bills. she was selling vacuums on commission for rainbow vacuums. and on that day, in order to make enough money to survive, as you'll understand, to keep hearse alive -- to keep herself alive, she made two last-minute appointments. at one of those apappointments in -- appointments she collapsed and died on a stranger's floor. she had a documented heart condition for which she took medication, but she often couldn't afford the medication and her friend cathleen had to turn to crowdfunding web sites to raise money that her friend charlene needed for heart medication. charlene was the working poor but she was also amongst the uninsured. after her death, her friend cathleen used that same crowdfunding method that she used to occasionally pay for her

friend's medication to pay for charlene's funeral. florida has made the decision to not expand medicaid coverage under the affordable care act. they have made a decision for political reasons to keep hundreds of thousands of people like charlene amongst the ranks of the uninsured. the consequences are for many like charlene absolutely deathly. charlene died because she was on the outside of our health care system, occasionally getting to see a doctor, occasionally getting the medication she needed for her condition, in part because she had one good friend who went out of her way to try to help charlene. the reality is, madam president, that there's 5.7 million people all across this country who have been denied the chance to get health care through medicaid simply because their governors

or their state legislatures have decided to score a political point against the president that they don't like by refusing federal dollars in order to expand medicaid. that's what this is all about. this isn't about good policy. this isn't about health care. this certainly isn't about finances. this is just about a bunch of really angry republicans that don't want to participate in a health care reform law passed by democrats, even though they are essentially giving away the money of their constituents. the first reason you should do this is because it keeps people like charlene alive. a 2002 harvard study of three states that expanded medicaid -- arizona and maine and new york -- showed that the expansion of medicaid in those states were responsible for a 6% reduction in mortality as

compared to other states. it found that for every 500,000 adults that gained medicaid coverage, we prevent 3,000 deaths a year. i'm not really good with quick math, madam president, but that's 3,000 deaths prevented for 500,000 people covered by medicaid. we're talking about 5.7 million adults that are being denied medicaid because of these political decisions. that's a lot of people who are dying every year needlessly. so that's the first reason you should do it, is because it's just the right compassionate thing to do. the second reason you should do it is for people in these states like virginia or texas -- texas got 1.2 million people alone in texas, 1.2 million people who could have health care insurance and don't have health care insurance in one state because the governor and the legislature just don't like president obama. this is also about those

constituents essentially giving their money away to other states. that should be the message to people in states like florida and virginia and texas, is that you are funding people getting insurance in other states because the federal government is contributing almost the entire cost of this medicaid expansion -- its texas and florida's dollars going to washington to subsidize the health care of somebody else. it doesn't make any sense from a health care standpoint. it certainly doesn't make any sense from a fiscal standpoint. it's not just the taxpayers that are getting hurt. it's not just the patients who are getting hurt. but it's all the health care providers as well. an urban institute study found that hospitals across the country are being denied $294 billion because of this refusal to expand medicaid.

and, madam president, you know this because you've worked in and around health care policy your entire life. this idea that denying people health care insurance denies them health care is patently false. they get health care. they just don't get it until they're so sick that they show up at the emergency room door, their condition is at a crisis point, and then that costs infinitely more. and so all of this money that we're spending, we could just be spending in a different place. on preventive care instead of on crisis care. now, with a new secretary of h.h.s., there's an opportunity for these states to think differently. from the beginning, h.h.s. has been incredibly willing to be flexible with governors who aren't quite sure about the politics of joining in the a.c.a. but know that it's the right thing to do. states like arkansas and iowa and pennsylvania have come up with innovative programs in which they take the medicaid expansion dollars and instead of

using them to expand state-based medicaid, use those dollars to help people buy private coverage. it seems to make a lot of sense to me. at her confirmation hearings, ms. burwell said she was willing to be as flexible as she possibly could with states that want to explore these innovative methods. so hopefully with a new secretary coming through the doors at h.h.s., maybe this is a new moment for these states to take another look at medicaid expansion, because this is just a matter of conscience. 5.7 million people are going without health care, are potentially dying, as charlene dill did, simply because of politics. david from virginia wrote this. he said, "i am the coverage gap. i'm a single 41-year-old male.

i save medicaid thousands of dollars per month by caring for my 99-year-old grandmother at home without pay, rather than place her in a nursing home at medicaid's expense. i do not qualify for medicaid, even though i have zero income. i have to cross the state line into kentucky to receive potentially lifesaving cancer screenings and hopefully receive treatment if i get bad news. virginia republicans hate the president and our governor so much that they're willing to let thousands of us die. it's high time that these delegates place human lives ahead of party politics and do what is right for a change." madam president, eight million people have signed up through the exchanges. despite these decisions by governors and republican state legislatures, five million to six million more have been added to medicaid. three million young adults have coverage for the first time. prices to the federal government

are falling. we're spending trillions less than we thought we were going to spend on health care because of the affordable care act. quality is increasing. the number of readmissions to hospitals and hospital-acquired infections are decreasing because we're starting to pay for outcomes instead of paying for performance. people are figuring out that the affordable care act works. that's why there's less republicans coming down to the floor of the senate and the house. that is why the koch brothers stopped running ads about the affordable care act. the affordable care act works, but it only works if leaders try to implement it. it doesn't work if you ignore it for political spite. and that is what is happening in state legislatures and governors' mansions all across the country. we have with a new secretary of h.h.s. coming in and a new willingness of a lot of republican governors, including mike pence in indiana to take a look at trying to reverse this

reality for 5.5 million people who if not for the political actions of their state leaders, could also figure out as millions and millions of others are on a daily basis across the country that the affordable care act works. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. stiewk that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: i come to the floor having just heard my friend and colleague from connecticut talk about the health care law and as a doctor, i am always happy to hear about people who are getting better care. my concern is that there are so many people across this country who have been hurt as a result of this health care law that i

feel compelled to speak about so many of the side effects of the president's health care law and families who are seeing government waste massive amounts of money. it's not going for care. not helping people actually get better. not giving them the care that they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost, which is what the president promised when he said premiums would drop by $2,500, i heard the president as well as my colleague here today say that this law will help keep people out of emergency rooms and go to primary care doctors instead, so i feel compelled, madam president, to come to share with my colleagues the study that just came out wednesday and perhaps some members of the senate who are -- who aren't aware of this would be made aware that the emergency room visits actually, actually, have been going up,

not down. despite the law. that's the headline in "the wall street journal" this past wednesday, may 21, e.r. visits rise despite the law. the health act isn't cutting volume, they say, and just to point out a couple of things mentioned in this article, it says -- it starts off early evidence suggests that emergency rooms have become busier since the affordable care act expanded insurance coverage this year, despite the law's goal of reducing unnecessary care in e.r.'s. so my colleague said, oh, emergency rooms aren't needed as much. here we have despite the law's goal of reducing unnecessary care in e.r.'s, what we see here is an expensive side effect of the president's health care law. it goes on to say democrats who designed the 2010 health care law hoped it would do the

opposite. they wanted to give the uninsured better access to primary care doctors, who could treat routine ailments and prevent chronic diseases with the intent of keeping patients out of the emergency room. the median e.r. charge was more than $1,200 for the most frequent outpatient diagnosis in a study of over 8,000 e.r. visits in the year 2006 to 2008 said a 2013 report funded in part by the national institutes of health. this is a report by the n.i.h. madam president. instead, the e.r. doctor group researched and several other recent studies suggested people who gained private and government insurance are more likely to seek emergency care, not more likely to get to a family physician, to their own internist, more likely to go to the emergency room, the most expensive place for care in spite of what the president of the united states told the american people. among the reasons is it is a

shortage of primary care providers in some regions has made it difficult for patients to get appointments. so why is there a shortage? perhaps if the president's health care law actually focused on training physicians, putting money into educating and training more providers, instead of putting all this money into hiring i.r.s. atle to -- agents to examine americans' tax returns to make sure they checked the box that said they had insurance and could provide proof of that, perhaps we wouldn't have these problems. but now you're seeing a very expensive side effect of the president's health care law. and while we can celebrate people that are helped by the law, there are so many people being hurt by the law in every state around this great country. we heard about a family from connecticut who benefited from the law. there are many who have been hurt. there is a couple in sharing, connecticut according to nbc connecticut, they were dropped

according to the headline from their health care plan. so the sharon couple says they are running out of options after being dropped from their obamacare insurance plan. john demarco signed up through the state insurance during open enrollment. they go on to say they received their insurance card, they were covered but their bill was thousands of dollars more than advertised. what could happen there, madam president? it says they spent weeks going back and forth to various state agencies to try to get an answer. then this month -- this is dated may 13 of this year -- then this month their carrier, anthem blue cross/blue shield sent them a cancellation notice. a cancellation notice. the dark mos -- demarcos have been so frustrated they posted a sign outside their home in connecticut, we have no insurance because access health has a computer glitch. it's stressful, says

mr. demarco, it's overwhelming. why did this happen? nbc connecticut contacted the access health connecticut and they told them it had to do with a computer issue with a vendor and when this gentlemen changed information during the enrollment process a new form was sent to the insurance company but that form didn't include the couple's subsidy. so the form was wrong. well, could this happen, is this just one demarco couple in connecticut? not according to a front page story in "the washington post." the headline is federal health care subsidies may be too high or too low for more than one million americans. paying incorrect subsidies to more than a million americans for their health plans and the government has been unable so far to fix the errors. the president of the united states goes on tv and says that the democrats forciblifully

defend and be proud, madam president, who in america can be proud of the mess that the president and his administration have made of the web site and this health care bill, where once again, we see as "the washington post" points out, important aspects of the web site remain defective. they cannot fix this and actually i'm not even sure how hard they're trying. people have been sending in paperwork, they're expecting perhaps by the end of this summer to be able to address the problem but there are a million americans whose federal health care subsidies may be either too high or too low. forcefully defend and be proud. where are they? where are these defenders? it's sad, madam president, because the idea this is to actually help people get care, what people have gotten is headaches and heartaches and one problem after another. it's interesting, madam president, as a doctor who has been very involved with

preventive care and working on early detection of problems, somebody who has been the medical director of the wyoming health fairs, i think it's important to screen people for problems. it's interesting, though, "the new york times" even reported in an article written on april 30, the problem with the health care law, it says it favors screening over diagnosis. so here's one of the issues that comes to play. and i will say my wife is a breast cancer survivor, she has been through three operations, chemotherapy twice, radiation, the whole thing, she is cancer-free, we are delighted. so i think screening tests are important. but this is a problem with this law that i believe very few democrats read, very few of the people that voted for it read, i believe that about members of the house and members of the senate. i read it cover to cover but i believe many members who voted for it never read it, madam president.

here's -- diagnosis is what we offer to those who have no signs or symptoms of disease. because diagnosis isn't prevention, it is subject to deductibles and co-pay. if somebody has a diagnosis, there's deductibles and co-pays, but if it's just the screening test, no signs or symptoms, it's covered, okay. in other words, "the new york times" goes on, a woman over 40 can have a free screening mammogram, free screening mammogram, says i want a free mammogram. but if she notices a breast lump and then goes to her doctor to have it evaluated, well, then it's not a screening mammogram. then it's not a free test. so she'll pay for the diagnostic mammogram that costs $300. so the woman at the lower risk of cancer, the one with no signs or symptoms of the disease, has an incentive to be tested, while the woman at the higher risk, the one with the lump, faces a disincentive.

so then she goes to the doctor and this goes on, the problem is that they're now pressuring doctors to fraudulently change the paperwork so it complies with the screening thes test, not a diagnostic test. doctors don't want to do that, they want to be honest yet the incentives set up in this program are to discourage the woman who finds a lump from actually going in to have the test while encouraging somebody off the street to go in and have a similar test. ates great concern. so when i see a colleague come to the floor to say that the health care law in his opinion works, i will tell you consumers, this is an associate press story that consumers are frustrated by new health plans as they find their doctors are not included. can't go to their doctor. this is a story out of california, michelle pool is one of those customers before

enrolling in a health plan on california's exchange she checked whether her longtime primary care doctor was covered. this woman, michelle pool, a diabetic, 60 years of age, had a hip replacement, purchased the plan only to find that the insurer was mistaken. the doctor wasn't included. so her 352-dollar a month gold plan was cheaper than what she paid under her husband's insurance, and it seemed like a good deal because of her numerous preexisting conditions. madam president, i understand preexisting conditions as the husband of a woman who has been through breast cancer treatment. so this goes on to say after her insurance card came in the mail, the vista, california, resident learned her doctor wasn't taking her new insurance. this woman says it's not fun when you have had a doctor for years and years that you can confide in and he knows you. she said i'm extremely

discouraged, i'm stuck. this is an american who is stuck and hurt by the health care law. it goes on to say the dilemma undercuts president obama -- this is an associated press article -- the dilemma undercuts president obama's 2009 pledge that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. period. the president said period. but one of the side effects of the president's health care law is that people are continuing to lose their doctors. it goes on to say consumer frustration over losing doctors comes as the obama administration is still celebrating a victory with over eight million enroll east in its first -- enrollees in its first year. there are astronomical concerns that people across the country are expressing about this health care law, and yet, and yet we see one member of the opposite party coming to the floor and saying oh, it's working. the american people don't believe it is.

you know, people get insurance through work, the laws are interesting. this is a story from ohio about the cost, because that's what really people are concerned about when we wanted to do health care reform was to say let's get the cost down. the president promised people would -- families would see $2,500 reduction in the cost of their insurance policies over -- in a year once all this was implemented. but one of the side effects is actually higher premiums. it talks about a man who owns a popular brew pub in cleveland. he has fewer than 50 full-time employees, so he is classified under the health care law as a small business, which means he doesn't actually have to provide health insurance to his employees, but he has been doing so. he has been doing so since he opened this brew pub a number of years ago, and he's done it in spite of some fairly significant jumps in the cost.

of the insurance. he just said they keep seem to be going up every year. he opened this in 2009. the one year he got an increase of 38%. another it was 11%. he said this year under the affordable care act, he saw another hike, this one about 20%. he is seeing higher premiums. he said it just seems odd that we get such a drastic price increase when nothing has really changed with us as far as our employees and health issues. most of the workers at his place are in their 20's and 30's. they are healthy and enthusiastic about their jobs. they like the fact that they get insurance, but they are getting priced out of the market. i mean, that's the concern about this. the health care law is making premiums go up. today, madam president, thursday, may 22, "the hill" newspaper right here in washington, d.c.," premium hike drumbeat before november election day."

"premium hike drumbeat before november election day." people continue to be shocked by the increases in the cost of their insurance, and they're going to go up again across the country, and a number of reasons for that. we've seen it in north carolina. in north carolina where i expect this is going to be discussed and debated over the next months. bluecross blueshield of south carolina, this comes from the herald sun in north carolina. "obamacare enrollees older and sicker insurer forecast," older and sicker than what the president told -- actually, it wasn't the president. it was kathleen sebelius as secretary of health and human services when she described what she thought would be -- what success would look like in terms of the number of young, healthy people that would sign up. said bluecross blueshield officials in north carolina said -- and this is dated may 8 -- that they found that the people who enrolled in the individual affordable care act plans that sold on the online

health exchange were older and sicker than expected. this may mean higher rates, higher premiums, higher rates for affordable care act plans in the future, and says it's a concern when we think about future premiums. they have great concerns about the amount that things are going to go up. that's not what people want. people wanted affordable care, they wanted access to care, they wanted to get the care from a doctor they choose at lower cost. what they see is waste, money not going to help people get care but money being wasted. and i found it interesting coming out of missouri a story about how an obamacare contractor pays employees to spend their days doing nothing, doing nothing. pay their employees to do nothing. $1 is -- a billion dollar

government contract involving hundreds of local workers at an obamacare processing center. so these are people hired by the government or a contractor to work at an obamacare processing center, hundreds of local workers. now employees on the ?dz are stepping forward asking is this why we're broke? some of them claim to spend most of their day doing nothing. this is reported in st. louis. the contractor is called serco, and local reporters discovered that despite there not being any work to be done, the government contractor is still hiring. why would they be hiring? because they get a percent of the action. that's why they are hiring. they are hiring people not to do anything to take the paychecks. they say the company is still hiring. a current employee wonders why, after providing proof of employment, this employee agreed to speak through the phone with their voice altered. the employee says hundreds of employees spend much of their day staring at computer screens

with little or no work to do. the reporter asked the employee are there some days where the data entry person may not process a single application, not a single application? the person who works there said there are weeks, weeks when a data entry person would not process a single application. the -- the anonymous employee says the contract gets paid by the federal government per employee hired. that's why they are continuing to hire, because the company gets paid by the federal government per employee hired. which is why it's in their interests to have a bunch of employees sitting around all day doing nothing. so, mr. president, i just have to feel an obligation when i hear a statement on the floor being made that says well, a lot fewer people are going to go to the emergency room, it's going to save money. that's not happened. studies from emergency room doctors, work from the n.i.h. said it's not happening.

the exact opposite has happened. a side effect of the health care law. when we see that people aren't able to keep their doctors in spite of the president promising people that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. i feel compelled to come to the floor and share that story with those of us who care about care for patients, who care about finding a way to make sure patients get the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost. that's what people want. they know what they want. they want access to care. they want affordable care. they want care, they want choices, and they want quality care. i just believe, madam president, that this health care law is turning out to be bad for patients, bad for providers, the doctors, the nurses, paramedics, the nurse practitioners who take care of those patients and terrible for the taxpayers. when we hear the stories like this one out of missouri which says the employees are being paid to sit around and do

nothing, when we hear that there is a million people who are just waiting to try to get the government to correct something that should have been fixed in the beginning, when the president four days before the web site opened up in october, he said easier to use than amazon, cheaper than your cell phone. keep your doctor if you like your doctor. there was -- there was so much misleading of the american public. and when then he says stand and forcefully defend and be proud of this health care law, i think it's very hard to defend what the president and the democrats have forced down the throats of the american public and it's very hard to be proud of the kind of abuse and waste in a system that -- with whatever the intentions has proven to the american public to be something

that they don't want, they want to have replaced with an opportunity to have access, affordability, choice and quality. and by adopting proposals in a step-by-step fashion that republicans have been promoting to deal with those sorts of things of access, affordability, choice and quality, we can try to ultimately get the american public what they need and what they asked for in the beginning, the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: