place of healing, a major employer, and of course the potential end result of what's happening now with the changes we made and how hospitals are treated, particularly hospitals in rural areas, hospitals in underserved inner city areas. the programs that were in place are basically going away. and why did they go away? because the president assumed, and the members of congress, i'm sure, that voted for this piece of legislation sphaoufpld -- assumed that everybody would be covered. everybody would have insurance, so we didn't need to have special programs for people that dealt with people who didn't have insurance, hospitals who dealt with people who didn't have insurance. we didn't need special programs for underserved areas, and clearly that is not the case. if we look back at that debate, many people were saying this will not work out the way the well-intended proponents of this law think it will work out. we're

going to continue to have people without insurance. the congressional budget office reiterated just recently that at the end of the ten years, how many people won't have insurance? 30 million. how many people didn't have insurance when we started? 40 million. to disrupt the entire health care tableau of the country -- and i think we're going to have people lose insurance at work, who had insurance at work. that will be one of the consequences this aa thisconseqe end of this year. i am talking to many missourians. there is a place to go now. we've struggled with this for a long time. even though we're not covered by the law, even though we don't have 50 employees, we're going to no longer provide the insurance at work that many of these employers have provided for decades, others have provided all the time they're in

birks even ibusiness, even if in decades. norman from warrensburg, missouri, is concerned about what will happen with medicare and medicare advantage. he said, i was struck with a disease in 2005, which left me disabled as well as with other resulting health issues. we expended around $3,000 oust pocket annually just for my prescriptions alone. that was under a medicare advantage plan. this plus the medicare premiums and the physicians care takes almost all of our social security benefits. we live in a small community. he described warrensburg as a small community of around 18,000 -- and would probably be one of those communities to lose the medicare advantage-type of insurance. the gap that he thinks allows his family -- and i would suspect that's right -- to have the health care that they've had and would like to continue to

have. plawl from o'fallon, missouri, says she believes a lot of people are going to leave their jobs as spouses because spouses are going to look at who has the better insurance and try to benefit from that better snuns. according to her, her husband's company is paying a large fine because their good insurance is better thank obamacare. i imagine more realistic what i that letter might have said is that their insurance isn't exactly what the department of health and human services believe is the right kind of insurance. when the government makes these decisions instead of people or people closest to them, their employs -- you know, one of the benefits of the employer-provided system was that people didn't have to worry about this. in fact, almost everybody looked at their insurance, they talked to their employer, they decided they'd get more information when they needed it.

and when they needed it, usually the information they got was pretty good information for them to have. now we have people trying to figure out, if they have choices, a complexity they have never had to deal with before. i think one of the other unintended consequences of thisw is that people are going to say, i know that a government-run program wouldn't be as good as the health care i ice yo used tt i don't want to be responsible for it anymore. what we're probably doing here is building a groundswell of people who don't want to be forced into making decisions. because 85% of people who had insurance had insurance at work. and 90% of them thought the insurance they had at work really met their needs. i think we'd be really lucky if 90% of the people that had insurance think that the insurance they have moving

forward meets their needs. angela from dexter, missouri, said her aunt and uncle are searching for a new doctor, after their doctor moved out of state. they're having trouble finding a physician in the dexter area that will take new medicare patients. another unintended consequence. we cut medicare in this bill -- those people who voted for it the law itself that i wasn't for, but it's the law. one of the reasons i said i wasn't for it is because we're cutting a frahm we alread progre already know is challenged -- medicare -- by $500 billion to form a new program. there was no city council, there was no county government, nowhere else in america that if they came to the meeting and said, okay, we've got a program that's in real trouble, so what we're going to do is cut that program to start a new program. and particularly a program like medicare that people have been

led to believe that they could rely on. when you cut medicare by $500 billion over ten years, something happens. and what angela's aunt and uncle are seeing is one of the things that hangars people try to find -- that happens, people try to find a doctor that takes medicare, only to find doctor after doctor that says we're going to continue to serve the medicare patients we have but we're not serving new medicare paicialghpatients. jo anna tio's son goes to colle. the insurance that he gets through the scroll school increases 40% this year. premiums and his prescription drug costs have increased and he's concerned that that's because of all the new requirements that you have to meet. he said the future does not look good from where i stand as a

small business owner and a farmer. donna in napoleon, missouri, says her insurance has gone from $93 twice a month to $156 twice a month. then this was, i thought, the interesting thing about her letter. she said her insurance would go up even more if she gets a chance to work more. you know, it is -- there is a lot to be said for assisting people to get health insurance who can't otherwise afford to get health insurance. but one of the thichtion that i- bufnt things that i never -- but one of the things that i never heard debated is what if people are on the edge of moving to a new level at work gets them to a lower benefit? that's what doin in a is saying here. if she gets to work more hours, she will have less assistance buying their health insurance. the government should not be in the business of looking for ways to encourage people not to work.

just like the part-time work we see all over the country now. one of the great workplace impacts of the health care play was the government for the first time said to most employers, employers of more than 50 people, you have to provide health insurance to anybody that works 30 40urs a week. and so what employers for the first time hear the government saying, if you work less than 30 hours a week, you don't have to have that health insurance. we're going to hire three people at 27, 28 hours rather than two people at 40 howmplets we're going to meet our workforce needs in a new way. those individuals don't have coverage. many individuals at that level of frankly hours of work that used to have coverage no longer have coverage. an awful lot of companies used

to provide coverage at half-time, at 20 hours. but when the government says you don't have to do it until 30 hours, turns out a lot of people don't work more than 30 hours because they don't have an opportunity. or maybe they work almost 60 hours but they work 60 hours at two different jobs, as did a lailady that i mentioned last w. david in kansas city said he worked -- he's retired from the railroad industry, and on april 1, his former company canceled plans for retirees 65 and older with the idea that -- well, i don't know what the idea was. i do know that a lot of companies have done that, not just the railroad industry. i.b.m. announced that they would no longer provide health care coverage for their ry for retir. i assume the retirees 65 and

older are on medicare. but what kind of supplement do they have? they use to have a supplement that was part of a big i.b.m. plan. new they don't have that anymore. david had access to a retiree plan from the railroad industry. he doesn't have that anymore. u.p.s. announced that the dependents and spouses that are part of the ups family wouldn't have insurance anymore. the unintended consequences keep on coming, and we need to continue to look at what we can do to see that people have access to great health care. we're talking now, as we should be, about veterans health care. and how ernst haves can have -- and how veterans can have great access. when i look at this issue, the veterans service organizations rough looking at this in a new way, alternatives are a good thing. the vrntses -- ernst veterans should have the best health care in the best location for them at

what is the best way that taxpayers can provide it. the v.a. fangly -- the veterans administration should be the best at some things. they should be better than anybody else at dealing with i.e.d. kinds of accidents, with eye accidents, with the loss of limbs and other things that have happened that happen to veterans in unfortunate numbers because of the kind of conflicts we've been involved in. nobody should be better at that than the v.a. the v.a. may be the absolute best place to go for that kind of injury. posttraumatic stress. our veterans have problems because of conflicts they've been in, but they have problems because, you know, the national institutes of health says one out of four adult americans has a diagnoseable mental health problem. as i've asked the secretary -- the surgeon general of the army and the other forces about this, do you think that's reflected in

the military in a hearing a couple months ago, the answer was yes. she said, we recruit from the general population. i would don't have any reason to -- we don't have any reason to believe that our population serving in the military doesn't reflect that same thing in mental health issues. some of those mental health issues, like post-traumatic stress disorder, the v.a. should be better. but a lot of other issues, you may have to drive to another state to drive -- drive by to get no another state to get to another veterans facility. or drive 150 miles in a veterans v.a. van transportation. if that's what you want to do as a veteran, i think we ought to be sure that ernst have veterann continue to do that. but if veterans want to get better care, closer to home, more choices, we should do that. and let the veterans administration compete to be the best at what they can be at.

-- what they can be be the better at. no particular reason to believe that the veterans administration is going to be the best of everybody in the country at normal internal med sip. there i-- internal medicine. floss reason to believe that they're going to be the best at dealing with cancer or heart disease. if there is a veterans administration that figures out to do that, that's fine. but don't make veterans drive 120 miles by a dozen facilities that can do just as well or better because we've decided that we want to put people in a system totally defined by the government. we're learning that people can make choices in so many areas better than the government can make those choices for them. and so as we think about our veterans, as we think about what we can do to be sure that they get the best care, that they're honored, their service is honored in the way they were led to believe it would be honored,

this is a great time to have this discussion. so whether it's health care or everybody else or health care for veterans, the congress. united states and the -- the congress of the united states and the country have never been in a better position to talk about these issues. we've seen the consequences of taking steps in the wrong direction. now is a great time for our veterans and health care generally to see what we can do to take steps in the right direction. i notice the lack of a quorum, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. schumer: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. mr. schumer: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i rise today to point out that it has now been 342 days since the senate passed bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform that would secure our border, turbocharge america's economic growth, and provide a chance to heal america's broken families that are being separated by our dysfunctional immigration system. here's what we know. the nonpartisan congressional budget office told us that had we passed a bill this last year, we could have already seen up to $80 billion of economic growth, $20 billion of deficit reduction, 50,000 new jobs, $50 billion more in the social security trust fund, $2 billion of revenue for state and local governments and 40,000 more brilliant stem graduates -- science, technology, engineering

and math -- to stay in the united states instead of being told to go home. instead, we haven't been able to achieve any of these important gains. why is that? it's because the house has refused to do anything -- underline "anything" -- to try and fix our broken immigration system. to be clear, the real problem is not that there's a difference of opinion between a house bill and a senate bill on immigration that can't be reconciled. there is no house bill. we're happy to meet our colleagues in the house part of the way. we love to sit down and negotiate. but there is no house bill. so the problem is not that the two sides are irreconcile hrabl. it is that the one side refuses to do anything. the problem is that house republicans is completely abdicated their responsibility to address important issues, such as fixing our broken immigration system. for the last few weeks i have explained that the reason the

house has done nothing on immigration is because house -- the house republican leadership has handed the gavel of leadership on immigration to far-right extremists like congressman steve king. and he is truly extreme on this issue. steven king says do nothing, absolutely nothing, and the house does nothing, absolutely nothing. well, mr. president, not only has this point not been refuted by anyone in the republican party, it's actually been even further confirmed in the last few days. let's start with steve king himself. just last week king filed an amendment to the commerce-justice-science appropriations bill that would require the department of justice to -- quote -- "investigate the department of homeland security's use of prosecutorial discretion towards certain immigrants, including beneficiaries of the deferred action for childhood arrival or

daca program, that the obama administration announced in 2012 of june." when discussing his amendment, steve king -- listen to this -- pejoratively referred to the daca program as -- quote -- "deferred action for criminal aliens." that's what he thinks. that's what he thinks. that every immigrant is a criminal. that's because king has said, when describing this program, that -- quote -- "for everyone who is a valedictorian, there is another 100 out there who weigh 130 pounds, and they've got calves the size of cantaloupes because they have been hauling marijuana across the dessert. was king criticized by the house leadership for these comments? was he chastised and told he has no place in a modern republican party? was king's amendment at least

ignored in the same way every other immigration bill has been ignored? unfortunately, mr. president, the answer to all these questions is "no." for the second time in a year, house republican leadership actually rewarded king and handed him the gavel yet again by giving him another vote on another politically motivated appropriations amendment. the amendment to investigate the daca program is what received a vote last week. and just like before, the house passed yet another inflammatory king appropriations amendment along partisan lines. his previous amendment was to defund the daca program. this is a man who just last week compared immigrants to santa ana's army. he compared immigrants to a foreign invading army. it's a comparison that i implies

an immigrant's goal is to harm the united states when they desperately want to be here and participate in the freedom, both economic and political, that we love and enjoy. and yet again, after he says something like this, the republican leadership hands him the gavel on immigration. that is why we continue to see nothing out of the house other than inflam forry amendment ret -- inflammatory amendment rhetoric showboats. steve king is undefeated and is increasing his margin of victory every day. it doesn't have to be that way. steve king doesn't represent the vast number of voters in either the republican party or even the tea party. steve king does not represent republicans in this house when we join together on a moderate bipartisan bill that would do so much good for america and was supported by traditional republican groups, the business

community, the high-tech community, the agricultural growers, the catholic church, evangelical protestant churches. all of them support this had bipartisan bill. some on the left thought it was too conservative. so it doesn't have to be this way. steve king doesn't have to write into law whatever the house does. poll after poll is clear that even republican voters, conservative republican voters, want to fix our broken immigration system in a manner that secures our borders, fixes our legal immigration system and allows those undocumented to get right with the law after a long path, including paying fines, paying back taxes, learning english, having to work, and going to the back of the line and waiting. mr. president, steve king is

much like the wizard of oz when it comes to immigration. he's pulling the levers behind the screen to make it seem he has the power. but the republican party will learn sooner or later, like dorothy did in the wizard of oz, that actually king works by fear and he doesn't have the power that the wizard's power is overstated. he can't really do very much. and the only way to get back home and do something real is in ourselves, not in that man behind the screen, the wizard of oz, steve king. where are the men with the courage to stand up to steve

king in the far right and say enough is enough, we will not let our party be hijacked by extremists whose xenophobe i can't causes them to prefer maintaining a system where hundreds of thousands still cross the border illegally instead of achieving the fair, tough, practical long-term solution. make no mistake, immigration reform will either pass this year with bipartisan support and a bipartisan imprint, or it will pass in a future year with only democratic support and a democratic imprint because democrats control congress and the white house. some democrats argue it's better for us politically with if the r occurs. many republicans in their hearts know that's true. but we don't want that. we want to fix our country's problems. we want our g.d.p. to grow 3.5%. the c.b.o. said it would if this bill passes. we want to secure our borders once and for all. we want a fair path to

citizenship so that people will work, pay taxes and get right with the law. time is running out, mr. president. we have less than eight weeks to go to get something passed. there is still no serious proposal from republicans. if the house fails to act during this window, the president would be more than justified in acting any time after summer is over to take whatever changes he feels are necessary to make our immigration system work better for those unfairly burdened by our broken law. but that is not the preferable way to go. the preferable way to go is for the house to do what the senate did, democrats and republicans band together, create a moderate, thoughtful, comprehensive bill that fixes our broken immigration system once and for all. i hope, mr. president, in

conclusion, i hope the immigration reform bill passes this year because our economy, our broken families, our country so badly need it. let's hope the house finally stops talking, finally stops paying owe -- obescence to their wizard of oz, steve king. mr. barrasso: mr. president, i come to the floor as the senate begins debating the nomination of sylvia burwell to be secretary of health and human services. if she is elected for that job she is responsible for the president's health care law. i think it is important to take a little bit of time to talk about the state of president's health care law. i visited with a number of of wyoming just this morning,

people here in yuwenta county. i will tell you what they know and what we all know is that there are many dangerous side effects of the law like people losing abg stows their doctor, people -- losing access to their doctor, getting smaller paychecks. i want to talk about the expensive side effects so many americans are facing, and that is how much health insurance premiums are rising because of the law. states are starting to release the proposed premium insurance companies expect to charge next year under the obama health care law. the numbers, mr. president, are not good for the american people, for people who wanted affordable care, quality care, access to care, the kind of things that the president of the united states looked into the camera and promised them. now, virginia was one of the first states to put out the numbers. what's happening in the state of virginia? every health plan sold in the state exchange expects to raise its rates next year. the state expects some people to pay as much as 17% more next

year. in vermont, it's a similar story. there are two companies offering plans in the state exchange. yesterday we learned that one intends to raise rates 10%. the other 15% next year. last friday, ohio released its proposed rates for people buying insurance through the exchange. the average premium in the state's individual market is expected to be 13% higher next year than it was last year. you know, according to state insurance regulators, it's bad news, they say, but it's what they expected. the state lieutenant governor said continued and unnecessary headwinds out of washington are making it more difficult for job creators, for hardworking ohioans and their families to purchase health insurance. president obama said the democrats should forcefully defend and be proud of the health care law. is there a democrat in this body, even one, who is willing to come to the floor and

forcefully defend premium increases of 13%, 15%, 17% in one year alone? now, more states are going to be releasing their new premiums all summer. more people around the country are going to see these kinds of rate increases. this is an alarming side effect of the president's health care law. now that's on top of the rate increases people have already had to pay for insurance for this year. it is astonishing when you look at the numbers. it's not just families buying health insurance through the exchanges who are getting slammed. "usa today" ran a headline last week that said many employees hit with higher health care premiums. the article says "more employees are getting hit with higher health insurance premiums and higher co-pays and many don't have the money to cover unexpected medical expenses." this is what a new report finds. the report found that 56% of companies increased their employees' share of health care

premiums, or their co-payments for doctors' visits last year after the health care law came into effect. and 59% of companies intend to do the same thing this year. so people buying insurance in the exchange are being hurt. people who get insurance through work are being hurt. small businesses are being hurt as well. there was an article in "the alaska dispatch" about this last thursday. now, it says alaska's small businesses feel the pinch of rising health care costs. the article tells the story of a restaurant owner with 24 employees. he wants to offer coverage, health insurance coverage. but he's paying $5,000 a month more than he paid last year for his share of the insurance. he's somebody that wants to provide insurance. $5,000 more a month for his 24 employees. he says the costs are crippling and that it's like meeting another payroll every month.

this small business owner says this, about the health care law, he says it's killing me. he says, "i just don't know how long we can keep absorbing these costs." these are costs put on this business owner in alaska by every member of the united states senate who voted for this health care law. every one of them. i'd invite any one of them to come down here to forcefully defend this law as the president requests that they do and be proud of what they've done to this small business owner. our democrats in the senate who voted toker this -- are democrats in this senate who voted toker this health care law proud of what this law is going to to this business owner? alaska? are they proud of his having to pay an extra $5,000 a month? that's what people are dealing with. and there's a story just out today about north carolina, another state where a senator has said, if you like what you have, you can keep it. a north carolina woman, according to this story, the

headline is, "obamacare cripples north carolina small business." a north carolina woman currently living her dream to own a salon could soon shatter and crumble, leaving her employees to pay astro know cal costs for health insurance -- astronomical costs for health insurance, all because of obamacare." julia satoria is worried she will not be able to provide her employees with health insurance. she said, 'i think you just want the best for your employees'." i think that's what many people around the country want. "she says, 'we're a small business, and it's very much like a family, so i care about our staff'." she previously offered her employees health insurance, paid part of it but has been forced to reconsider part of her decision because of rising costs of premiums.

we've been very proud, she said, to even carry it for this long, but it is certainly a concern moving into the future if we're going to be able to keep doing it, she explained. everonica cook, a her a hairdre, said, "it's frustrating and scary, diewnd and you don't knot to expect." i think that applies to many people as a result of the president's health care law. it's frustrating, scary, and you don't know what to expect. she is not sure what she will do if she has to pay for her own insurance. that's what this devastating side effect of the president's health care law is doing to people all around the country. now, the president, he says he wants everyone to have a fair shot. democrats say it over and over again. is this small business owner getting a fair shot? are the families of ohio getting a fair shot when their premiums

go up as much as 13% next year? some democrats who voted for the health care law have come out and said that the rates may be going up, they say, but not as fast as maybe they would have been without the law. but let's take a step back. when they were trying to pass this health care law, democrats said it would only raise premiums -- no, democrats never said it would only raise premiums by 10% to 13%. no, they said it would drop premiums by $2,500 a year. that's what the president said, $2,500 per family per year, and he said by the end of his first term. well, you know, we met with the president in february of 2010 at the white house at the round table discussion. senator lamar alexander, my colleague from te tennessee, asd specifically about these predictions that the premiums we had seen, that they would go up and the president is making

these promises, claims that they would go down. the president denied, again to each of us in a face to face feemeeting that they would go u. the president said, that's not just the case. well now we know that is the case, mr. president, and it was the case all along. people believed the president when he promised he would save them money. they thought that democrats were giving them this fair shot that the president talks about. now they're finding out what they got: higher premiums, higher costs, higher deductibles, higher co-pays, loss of coverage, can't keep your doctor. it's hard to believe the president of the united states. this isn't what people wanted. people wanted a fair shot, but it's not what the president and democrats in congress actually gave them in the health care law. many of them who voted for it never read it. nancy pelosi said, first you have to pass it before you get

to find out what's in it. but it didn't stop the democrats who voted for it from making those same promises, promises if you like what you have you can keep it, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, premiums will go down. all of those promises, each one of them, turned out to be not true. now a fair shot is exactly what republicans have offered. and that is -- and i can tell you thi this as a doctor, paties don't want government-controlled and mandated care. access to care, cost of care, quality care. that means things like allowing small businesses to pool together in order to buy insurance more cheaply. it means letting people shop for health insurance that actually works for them, works for their families, not what the president says is best for them. so in closing, madam president, let me just say, there are just a couple solutions that republicans have offered to give

americans the care they need from a doctor they need at a lower cost without the outrageous, expensive side effects of the president's health care law. i yield the floor.

mr. wyden: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, after months and months of polarizing and divisive debate here in the senate about the affordable care act, i rise today to strongly support the

nomination of sylvia mathews burwell because i firmly believe that she will help the senate come together to jointly work to improve american health care. the reality is, both political parties have had valid points on this critical issue. my party believes passionately, as i do, that everyone must be covered. republicans feel equally passionate about having a real role for the private sector to help hold down costs and promote innovation. the affordable care act does both, and working together, working together under the leadership of a talented official like sylvia mathew burwell, we can build on that. ms. burwell has earned much

respect here in the congress on both sides of the aisle. madam president, she had our distinguished colleague from oklahoma tom coburn and our friends from west virginia jay rockefeller at the witness table together talking about how she had worked with both of them. she is a leader with a head and a heart, and she's qualified and experienced for this critical job at this critical time. she is a graduate of harvard and oxford, where she was a rhodes scholar. early in her career she showed a commitment to service by becoming part of the clinton administration. she was the staff director of the national economic council beginning in 1993. soon she transitioned to be chief of staff to the treasury secretary. in 1997 she became deputy chief of staff to the president and moved the following year to become the deputy director of

o.m.b. she has extensive experience in the nonprofit sector. she led efforts to address some of the most pressing global challenges of our time. and in 2011, she became the head of the wal-mart foundation. so, madam president, i noted sylvia mathew mathews burwell's support. here are a couple of comments from the other side of the aisle. senator burr had this to say. "she comes with a portfolio of experience that would make her a tremendous asset in addressing some of the challenges that that agency specifically and uniquely has." here is what senator coburn had to saivment "the fact is when you have somebody that's competent and has strong characteristic, you find a way to get past your differences to try to solve problems." so she has strong, vigorous

support from bowgets sides of the aisle. -- from both sides of the aisle. we all understand that the factoaffordable care act is goio be a central part of her job. senator hatch and i have talked about this again on a bipartisan basis. we can come together to make the law work better. for example, my colleague from utah has done very good work in fixing the dysfunctional reimbursement system for medicare known as the s.g.r. with sylvia mathews burwell at the helm, we will get that done and we'll improve medicare transparency because the public and taxpayers and seniors shouldn't be in the dark about critical services. i know senator begich is going to be making some important remarks about veterans. i just appreciate my colleague giving me this quick minute or two because i wanted to bring a bipartisan case for sylvia

mathews burwell to be confirmed. we'll have the beginning of the process go forward today, madam secretary, and more discussion about her and i'm sure the affordable care act as well. i strongly, strongly urge my colleagues to advance her nomination and to support her when we go to a final vote. with that, i thank my colleague, and i yield the floor. mr. begich: madam president? the presiding officer: th the senator from alaska. mr. begich: thank you very much. thank you to my friend from oregon. i appreciate the opportunity to be done here today to talk about veterans care. this is an important issue that is not only critical to my state but across the country. as we know, it's been in the papers and on tv and the internet and everywhere else you can imagine. there are very few issues that we work on that have such a critical potential for impacting so many people when you think about it. these folks have sacrificed so much for us, our veterans, and

now it is important for us to make sure they have the proper care. the v.a. system all over the nation -- as i mentioned, everywhere you turn, there is something about the system. i want to talk about alaska's veterans programs, especially around health care, and for me, veterans is a big deal. it is a big deal because alaska has so many. and just to give you the lay of the land, we have over 77,000 veterans in alaska, almost 10% of my population of my state are veterans, serving this country in many different aspects throughout their careers and coming to alaska to make it their home. along with the 77,000 veterans across the nation, the v.a. has more than 11 million veterans registered or enrolled. here is a picture of some rural veterans in bethel, alaska, in which i was enjoyed to be out there. i was a story i'll tell about

some of the things we're doing in rural alaska. i think about my uncle, infantryman joe bec begich. my family is very proud of his service and the service of my late feernl father-in-law, an ay colonel in vietnam. we need to listen to their stories, not just on memorial day, not just on the weekend that -- on the d-day anniversary, which is this friday. we need to listen it our veterans every single day. they deserve to be heard, just as they deserve to receive the benefits they fought for. make no mistake about it when i hear from veterans, the vast majority love the v.a. health care system and what is being provided to them. i was in alaska last week and met with veterans from all over the state. we do not have to wait for some headline or cnn to run some

story about what's wrong with the v.a. s my staff and i know what's going on with our care. we have regular meetings with the v.a. as a matter of fact, when i first came into the senate, some of the first issues that we dealt with was v.a. and trying to make sure that the veterans administration is zealing with alaska's unique situation of how diverse it is and how far apart many of these services are getting to our veterans. you know, when this jewish started coming up on a if -- when this issue started coming up on a national level last week, don't get me wrong, i'm outraged like every american, every alaskan is on what's going on there, probably as we hear about every other v.a. facility around the country as they hear about more audits getting done. but i saw this and it was clear to me that it was inadequate staffing in alaska, some other programmatic problems and

delivery problems. what it meant was in alaska when i saw this problem, we had almost over 1,000 people waiting two, three months for just their initial appointment to get v.a. health care service. this was unacceptable. so i convened a field hearing in alaska to look at these issues and figure out what we can do to improve the system. today the average wait time for our v.a. veterans, our veterans in alaska, to get their initial appointment is now down to nine days. as a matter of fact, the list which we monitor on a regular basis from our office is down to less than two dozen. that fluctuates from day to day, but from 900-plus down to a few dozen is an incredible system change. we didn't sit around and wait, like i said earlier, about some story to bust loose or someone to get some bumper sticker out there or make some political hits.

we saw the problem, we took action, and i was aggressive about it. i didn't sit around and wait for the veterans administration to come up with an answer. i participated, like my staff participated, because these results are real. as a matter of fact, alaska is a model on how to do this around the country because we figured out how to partner with folks around the state to make sure the highest priority -- delivering health care to our veterans -- was done, and especially in our very rural areas. i know, madam president, you're like my state, very rural, small population, people spread all over the place trying to get to their clinic or their hospital for v.a. care is not as easy. you're more fortunate. you have road access to a lot of your places. in our state, my state, 80% of the state cannot be accessed by roads. but we have veterans living all throughout alaska who need desperately to get care. and we saw this problem. we didn't sit around and talk

about it and do nothing. we actually talked about it, came up with a solution and worked for it. when i ran for office we called the hero's health card. we modified it to make sure we could make access. for example, here's a hospital, beautiful hospital in alaska way up north. we need health services but our tribes run it, incredible delivery system, one of the best in the country when you talk about health care delivery systems. health care law systems in alaska are rated in the country, one of the best. but i have veterans, native and nonnative that could not access that health care. they live near it but they couldn't go there. they had to fly hundreds of miles to anchorage to go to the clinic. if the service wasn't there, they'd have to fly to seattle. outrageous. 800 vans. so what did -- 800 veterans. what did we do? we sat down. i dragged general shinseki out

to alaska to rural areas to give him a little experience about what was going on. anchorage is down here, seattle, they aren't even on the map, but that's a lot of distance. there's hundreds of miles people have to travel. it was not right. what did we do? we partnered with our indian health care services delivered by our tribes. incredible care. instead of just here and here, it's now everywhere that they can access. so that means the veterans have a choice, a choice they did not have before we put this program into place. and it's unique to alaska, and only in alaska right now. but those 800 veterans have a choice. they go to nome or to anchorage or seattle. but they have a choice now. they don't have to fly hundreds of miles. what does this do? it saves money to the v.a. system not paying for air fare.

guess where that goes to? health care for veterans. remember that photo of the health care veterans in bethel, that was a couple of years ago. they were a little skeptical. this weekend i'm in bethel, alaska, in the same v.f.w., this one guy pulls his hand out, shows me these scars he's working on. he said i had to go to anchorage. i thought he was going to get mad at me. but he said now, now -- these are the bethel folks. he said to me, mark, i'm able to save my air fare and give more care to my brothers and sisters who serve with me in the military, because he doesn't have to fly to anchorage. he gets a choice. he gets to get the care right there. we went after this issue aggressively because we knew these veterans fought for our country and deserve the best.

the best. and we knew we could offer it in this system. the other thing we've been aggressive, as a member of the veterans' committee, we've been aggressive about putting more resources to the veterans, the v.a. organization. just in alaska, in 2010, we had about $160 million budget. today it's over $206 million in four years. why? because we're implementing programs that have success, that work, that deliver care. is it perfect? no. is it better than what they had five years ago? absolutely. we didn't, again, sit around. it's always amazing to me around this place. so many new ideas pop out because they read it out in the paper. well, do your work. i did. we're getting results. care is better today than it was five years ago. that one veteran was incredible because, you know, madam president, you know what it's like when you're out traveling, you meet your constituents, they're going to say things to you and you're not sure they're going to be very nice and friendly. and he was a little intense about it. but when he showed me his

result, i told him, i said i want to take a picture of your hand because that hand is the result of the work we are doing. to take 1,000 people off the primary list of waiting down to a couple dozen. instead of waiting 120 days, 8 days. as a matter of fact, when you are enrolled in our delivery system in anchorage through our tribal delivery system or our community clinic there, you can potentially get, the likelihood is same day. you walk in, you get service. no delay. because we have a system that's maximizing our federal resources. all those are paid by federal tax dollars. why not use them? use them for the betterment and making sure our veterans have the care they need. there is a couple of other things we could do right now. i've written to the v.a. about this, and that's for example, we have public health doctors, public health service doctors that work in the community health service programs. but they're not in the v.a.

they have the ability to do it under title 38, i think it is. they just have to make it happen. this is important because we have over 5,000 of these folks in many different professions serving our country. let's put them to work even more. they're working hard now but maybe we can deploy them a little ways to help our v.a. i support senator sanders bill to increase loan forgiveness to these folks who want to participate in our public health service. i've just introduced and i know senator pryor introduce add bill that would increase psychiatric services to vets through a pilot program offering loan forgiveness. we don't have enough. i'll tell you another program we did for veterans in the rural part of this country. what did we do? because sometimes the co-pay for accessing telehealth medicine is enough to tell people i don't want to do it. i had a bill on the floor, or a bill that i introduced. but again, general shinseki

decided just to do it. so now there is no co-pay. if you want to access mental health through telemedicine. why? because it has proven to be very successful. in remote communities like your state, in my state we want them to have access to this mental health services. we have a limited amount of mental health doctors. why not create an opportunity, use technology, limit the cost of the v.a., or veteran, and give them the services they need. it's critical. as i said earlier, what happened in arizona is unacceptable. and if it continues, we see other pieces where these lists were falsely put together, then people need to be held accountable and prosecuted. but just dealing with that does not solve the problem. solving the problem means being innovative, thinking out of the box. and i have to say, madam president, if you can do it in alaska in the most remote area of this country, you can do it anywhere. and we have a model that's

working. we have veterans that like their care. they love their care. they have access they never had before. it is important that we figure out a solution here. i know senator sanders' bill is an important bill. i hope we have it on the floor and we can debate it. and hopefully we'll get through a bipartisan. remember this bill failed. they complained it cost too much. cost too much. these are veterans who serve our country, who went to war for us. to be in this chamber, to be able to have free education and public education, to be able to have an incredible country here. you're for veterans or you're against veterans. it's not a complicated issue here. the bill that failed told me where some people were. some were for veterans. some were against veterans. we had two wars unpaid for,

trillions of dollars. now it comes time to pay the bill for the people who have served our country, and we debate that we can't do that in short order on providing all kinds of tax extenders. you know, for horses in kentucky to get special tax breaks. but we're not going to pay for that. we're not going to pay for that. but when it comes to veterans, got to pay for that. no, too bad. no. when that bill comes forward, it is time to see who's for veterans and who's against veterans. it's not complicated. because if i -- that tax bill, special deductions for horse racing. we're not going to pay for it. so now horses are important. veterans are important. this is who we should be taking care of. complaining about what it will cost, they have paid the ultimate price. they have served our country. and the people who are not coming back have served and paid

the ultimate price. so, madam president, you know, my poor staff, i know they look at me sometimes because they're wondering where i'm going with my presentation here, but i get pretty outraged about this because in alaska, veterans is an important issue. this country, it's important. and for us to debate how the few couple billion or a few hundred million that we're complaining about -- some people have -- we spent $2 trillion-plus on wars. it is time for to us pay the debt to these veterans. i hope -- i know we're going to have a hearing this week in the committee. we'll be working on the bill that senator sanders put together and i participated in like every other member of the veterans' committee. it is time to do the right thing here for our veterans. madam president, i appreciate the opportunity to be down here, and i think that as an alaskan, an alaskan that recognizes the importance of our veterans, i

believe 9/11 this chamber -- i believe everyone in this chamber recognizes the importance to our veterans, but they will have a chance, they will have an opportunity to decide whether they're for veterans or against veterans. if they come down with this convoluted washington, d.c. doublespeak because they can't do the bill because of this or that, you know what? people are fed up in this country. i know when i go back home, they ask me a very simple question: can we get better health care for our veterans? can we access the g.i. bill that makes sure they get an opportunity to get better education? is there an opportunity to take their skill they learned in the military and put it to work to get a job? these are things we should be fighting for but i have a feeling we'll be here with some members quibbling or a small detail because they don't want to pass the bill. again you're for veterans or you're against veterans. it's not complicated. madam president, i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum

having been -- the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that not withstanding rule 22 following the cloture vote on burwell, the senate proceed to consideration of calendar number 796, se liu g, that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no further action or debate, any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record and the president be

immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: we expect, madam president, this nomination to be confirmed by voice so we expect four roll call votes at 11:00 a.m. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to -- morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations which the clerk will report. the clerk: nominations, the judiciary. mark g. mastroianni of massachusetts to be united states district judge for the district of massachusetts. bruce howell hendrix to be united states district judge for the district of health care. tonya s. chutkan of the district of columbia to be united states district judge for the district

of columbia. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be now two minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote on the confirmation of the mastroianni nomination. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the two minutes time be yielded back. the presiding officer: without objection. the question is on the momtion. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 92, the nays are 2 and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider will be considered made and laid upon the table and the president will immediately be notified of the senate's actions. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote on qirlings of the hendricks nomination.

-- confirmation of the hendricks nomination. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: senator scott and myself would ask the membership to vote aye for brucey hendricks, she is a former u.s. attorney from the state of south carolina, she has received numerous awards for scholarship, she is well respected by both republicans and democrats, has a rich judicial background and will be a great choice to assume the federal bench in south carolina, and she was rated unanimously well qualified by the a.b.a. strongly support her nomination.

the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection all time is yielded back. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: the presiding officer: any senators wishing to vote or change their vote?

,if the yeas are 95, the nays are zero and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider will be made -- considered made and laid on the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions. under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote on the confirmation of chutkan, chutkan's nomination. without objection all time is yielded back. the question occurs on the chutkan nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: