vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 95, the nays are zero, and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider will be made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. under the previous order, there

will now be two minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the burwell nomination. mr. wyden: madam president? the presiding officer: senate, please come to order. the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, sylvia matthews burwell was introduced at the finance committee by the senator from oklahoma, tom coburn, and the senior senator from west virginia, jay rockefeller, and the reason she has this extraordinary bipartisan support is after years of divisive and polarizing discussion about the affordable care act, sylvia matthews burwell is somebody who can bring people together. she will bring democrats and republicans together to improve the quality of our health care, the affordability of our health care, and i strongly urge all senators to vote for sylvia matthews burwell, and i yield

back. the presiding officer: without objection. all time is yielded back. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close the debate sylvia burwell to be -- signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of sylvia mathews burwell of west virginia to be secretary of health and human services shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: have all

senators voted? does any senator wish to change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 67, the nays are 28, and the motion is agreed to. the clerk: department of health and human services, sylvia mathews burwell of west virginia to be secretary of health and human services. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: department of commerce, stefan m. selig of new york to be under secretary of commerce for international trade. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question occurs on the selig nomination. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it.

the nomination is confirmed. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: madam president, two week ago i came to the senate floor to ask unanimous consent to ratify the protocol amending our tax treaty with switzerland and i argued the new protocol would no longer permit swiss banks to withhold information on u.s. individuals who have hidden behind swiss bank secrecy laws to avoid paying u.s. taxes. today i come to the senate police officer floor to ask unanimous consent to ratify the bilateral income tax treaty with chile. if the protocol with switzerland is the perfect tbample ch example how tax treaties enhance our efforts to prevent tax's evasion, the treaty with chile

is why the united states pursues tax treaties, to promote greater trade and investment, we pursue them to protect american companies from double taxation. we pursue them to expand new markets and develop new business opportunities for companies and investors. on april 1, the foreign relations committee was with strong bipartisan support reported favorably on the proposed new taxes treat with chile. if ratified, the treaty would be only the third u.s. tax treaty in all of latin america but it would be a significant step forward in a region critical to u.s. international economic interests and would be with one of our estrogennest allies in the atmosphere. what does this treaty do? it promotes trade and investment between the united states and chile. it provides for reduced withholding rates on cross border payments of dividends, interest and royalties.

it would prevent evasion of taxes and includes rigorous protections against treaty shopping and assures a exchange of information between tax authorities. the american private sector sector support is unequivocal. the u.s. chamber of commerce and other major u.s. business associations said -- quote -- "ratification would represent an important milestone in lowering tax barriers to u.s. companies operating in latin america. and would protect the interests of u.s. taxpayers in chile. madam president, this protects and grows u.s. investment in chile, it expands u.s. economic engagement with the region and that is a win-win-win. now, i there are those in the chamber who do not see it that way but these are the facts of

economic engagement in region and economic state craft in the hemisphere. in the last decade, chile has taken a religiousal leadership role. it's one of our most important partners in the region, total bilateral trade has tripled since 2003 and u.s. investments have more than tripled from $10 billion in 2004 to roughly $35 billion today. ratifying this treaty will take the commercial relationship to the next level. i understand newly inaugurated president plans to travel to washington later this month to continue the close partnership between our two countries, ratifying this treaty would send the chilean president a message we value our partnership with chile, we are serious about expanding economic students between our countries. madam president, 1,421 days have passed since the last time

the senate ratified an income tax treaty. we can end that ignoble streak right now. let me ask unanimous consent at a time determined by the majority leader in consultation with the republican leader, the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 8, treaty document 112-8, that the treaty be considered as having advanced through the parliamentary stages up to and including resolutions of ratification, any committee declaration be applicable, any statements printed in the record as if read, at the resolution -- if the resolution of ratification is agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's actions and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: reserving the right to object, i think it's important that we remember that the vast majority of americans are

law-abiding americans who reside either here or overseas, and that they do have an expectation of privacy and they do have a right to privacy. for those who break the law, they should be punished. but we can't forget about the innocent americans who are not breaking the law that do have a right to privacy. we've had treaties like this for decades and i'm not opposed to the treaties, there are beneficial aspects to the treaties. but the treaties in the past had a standard that said that you had to be committing tax fraud or that had you to be engaged in fraudulent activity. the same way every american here expects that the government's not going to look at your bank account unless they have gone to a judge with evidence that you are cheating on your taxes. the government can't look at everybody's information in the bank without probable cause. the previous standard was that there had to be some evidence presented that you were cheating

on your taxes. i think there should be some evidence presented. the new standard is they can look at any of your records that may be relevant. this is a much lower standard and i think it will be injurious to the vast majority if not the overwhelming majority of americans who are actually innocent but just happen to be living abroad. i would be willing to work with who is is willing to work with me on this to get the treaties passed if we can keep the same standard that we've had previously, which is a standard of fraud, not a standard that these may be relevant. so for this reason, madam president, i object. mr. menendez: madam president, very briefly? the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i would have more extensive remarks, but i know my colleague from maryland has a different unanimous consent. just three quick points. chile and other income tax treaties the foreign relations

committee has reported favorably do not represent the first time that the senate has considered treaties providing for information exchanged based on a foreseeably relevant or may be relevant standard. in fact, since stphaoeupbt -- since 1999, the senate adopted resolutions for advice and consent for at least eight other tax treaties using the relevant standard. and this stphart has -- standard part of the model of the u.s. tax treaty since 2006. so it is not correct the maybe relevant or perceiveably relevant standard is ambiguous. it has been extensively designed to which no country expressed a dissenting opinion to date. i must say that not only do these objections ultimately not

provide all the benefits that all of the private-sector interests have and have made, as i referred to before; the entire business community. but by the same token, i simply have a tough time accepting that those who cheat get away with cheating and that somehow we're going to make it easier for them to cheat when the average american doesn't have the opportunity nor has the desire, nor do they cheat in terms of their payment of whatever is the taxes they owe to the federal government in a way that helps sustain all of the things that we seek as americans. the best armed forces in the world, security here at home, educational opportunity for our kids. so there's a fundamental difference here. and i will push these tax treaties and i will urge the majority leader to give us votes then in a process because it has

overwhelming support, and we can't have one member of the senate object to a process that can provide such benefits, such equity across the board. i yield the floor. mr. cardin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: madam president, let me just underscore the point that senator menendez, the chairman of the foreign relations committee, has made in regards to these tax treaties. i want to make two principal points and then a few other comments, and i'm going to make a unanimous consent request in regards to the swiss protocols. the two points i want to raise, first, on the standard of fraud, the relevancy standard that has been included in tax treaties ratified by the united states senate since the 1990's. there's at least eight treaties that have used this. this is the international standard on fraud. it's not the u.s. standard. it's not the swiss standard. it's not the chilean standard.

it's the international standard. there may have been one time where the united states could dictate what tax treaties would include, but we're part of an international community. it's part of international negotiations. and this is the international standard for cooperation among taxing authorities in order to establish a level playing field. secondly, our constitution provides for the ratification of treaties by the united states senate. it provides for a two-thirds vote. it is an extraordinary vote. it is a heavy vote. it is a heavy burden for ratification of treaties. it's not 100%. it doesn't require every senator to agree on it. i would just urge my colleagues that we need to return to regular order. everyone talks about returning to regular order in the united states senate. well, if we need to go through lengthy debates and votes on a treaty that is totally noncontroversial, i'm not sure we're serving the best interest of the united states senate.

let's have an open debate but let's vote. and let's vote -- if some senators disagree, well, at least allow the vote to go forward so that we can get the, two-thirds of the senate to agree on this. i want to thank the chairman of the committee. he gave me the opportunity to chair the hearings. so i was at the hearings during these treaties. we have a full panel of witnesses. not one testified in opposition and not one was concerned about the issue that, my colleague from kentucky has raised on the fraud standard. in fact, they all said that this is the level playing field. this will allow our country to support our companies and provide a level playing field for international investment here in the united states. the absence of this treaty affects america's ability to attract investment. make no mistake about it. it hurts our companies. it hurts american companies who

want to do business in other countries to have a level playing field, to be protected against multiple layers of taxation and compliance issues. so this allows for that level playing field so that we can have a fair agreement. let me mention one company that has come to us and said this is very important. mccormick. they have been headquartered in maryland for 125 years. they have 10,000 employees in my state of maryland. 2,000 employees in the state of maryland, 10,000 employees globally. they're adversely impacted by the failure to have these treaties ratified. it presents a level playing field. it allows for investment. it protects the privacy. our laws protect privacy. swiss laws protect privacy. what this does is establish a level playing field so that all are protected. i appreciate the fact that we may want to negotiate this in a different way. well, let's work with our negotiators and work with the

international community. it's not going to be the united states dictating what that standard should be. and, quite frankly, the relevancy standard on fraud has worked well. there's been no complaints whatsoever on privacy issues on the eight treaties we've ratified. to the contrary. what it does, it removes the veil from those who are tax cheats to allow to us get that information. it provides for the transparency necessary between taxing jurisdictions so you can't hide and commit fraud against one country where you have the treaty. so i would urge my colleagues to allow us to proceed on these treaties. they're very important to economic growth in our own state. and with that, madam president, i would ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the republican leader, the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 9, treaty docket 112-1, that the treaty be

considered as having advanced through the various parliamentary stages up to and including the presentation of the resolutions of ratification, that any committee declarations be agreed to as applicable, that any statements be printed in the record as if read and if the resolution of ratification is agreed to the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and that the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. paul: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: to make one point -- reserving the right to object. to make one point very clear one senator cannot prevent a vote in this body. the vote can occur at any point in time. one senator can prevent expedited passage without extensive debate. one of the things that our founding fathers did with this body by allowing filibustering, procedural ways to slow things down was to allow senators who

were in the minority to try to influence legislation. and so i am open to a discussion on the language of this treaty, and i am taupe a discussion on how we -- and i am open to how we would have the standard promulgated. but i am very aware that when people talk about the criminal aspect of people they want to punish, i'm in favor of that as well. but you have to be aware of it, the vast majority of americans who reside overseas are not criminals, are not tax cheats and are law abiding citizens. so i don't think we should agree to a standard that is less than our normal standard here in the country. i also don't think we should agree to a standard that might allow bulk collection of data on everyone who lives overseas. realize this can be putting us beholden to other countries as well, accessing records of their citizens who are here as well. so i think we have to be very careful about lessening the standard and it is very much worth the debate. and so, therefore, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. cardin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: madam president,

let me just point out that it's been now four years since we've ratified treaties. four years because of the time restraints of doing business in the united states senate. it is one senator holding up an expedited way under the senate rules so we could get a vote. he can cast his vote any way he wishes to on this issue. and i would just urge that we have many of these tax treaties that are now backed up, not just the two that we brought up today. there are other tax protocols and treaties that are waiting for senate ratification. and i would just hope that we can find a way that it would satisfy our colleagues to allow an up-or-down vote on these treaties. they are noncontroversial but they're extremely important to the business of our country and moving our economy along.

the presiding officer: with regard to the selig nomination, under the previous order the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid on the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. mr. cardin: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the majority control the time from 2:00 p.m. until 3:00 p.m. and the republicans control from 3:00 to 4:00 p.m. today. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: madam president, i have six unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i would ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: madam president, today i'm pleased to come to the floor and speak about my dear friend -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. manchin: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from west virginia is recognized. mr. manchin: madam president, i come today and i'm honored to support my friend, sylvia matthews burwell. sylvia is a native of west virginia and i always said this, we are all products of our

environment. and if you know where sylvia came from, the type of family she was raised in, the neighborhood, her friends, it will tell you everybody about who she is today and why she's been so successful and why public service runs through her veins. truly giving something back. the little you want to of hinton, west virginia, is where sylvia's from. it's in the southern part of the state. she's right on the new river. it's a train town. trains would come there and dispatch and they would turn them around and get them going in the right direction. so i'll never forget when they were introducing sylvia and i think it was senator alexander was speaking, and he was talking about his father who worked in the rail yard and he was always responsible for turning the trains and getting them moving. and i said, well, one thing about it, sylvia comes from a train town. she knows how to get the train on the track and how to get it in the right direction. and she's proven that. unbelievable blessed person.

she was gifted, as smart as they come. rhodes scholar. and in west virginia, we're so proud to have a person with those types of skills and the ambitions she did serve back. now i know a little bit about her mom and dad because it's really who she is. her father is a doctor, an eye doctor there and is well respected in the town. he's an immigrant coming from greece. and her mother cleo was the mayor. when i was governor of west virginia -- and i always kid around -- cleo would always call and tell me everything i did wrong. and she was usually right. and, you know, we'd get things worked out and we always had a great relationship. but basically she instilled that you had to give something back, you had to be involved. you just consistent sit around, you couldn't be satisfied with your life just thinking, well, i've gone to work, gotten a paycheck, taken care of the family. there was always something. and i think that comes -- my family, i'm second generation also, and coming to this country and hearing your grandparents talk about the wonderful

opportunity they have to provide and how -- how -- how privileged they believe they are and how honored and why we always have to give something back. had you to either volunteer, be involved, you had to go out and contribute, you had to do something. and that's the type of background sylvia comes from. and when you look throughout every job she was asked to do, she was in the clinton administration. and if fame and fortune was her desire, she could have gotten that a long time ago. she's public service and she did it and did it exemplary. then after the clinton administration, she leaves and she goes with the gates foundation. she goes with the wal-mart foundation. she's always with the foundation, somebody willing to help others and give back, to try to invest in the best of america. then she comes back and she goes and she becomes our director of o.m.b. and she gets totally unanimous support. now the president has tapped her

to come and take the reins of dhhs. and i've said to my friends, i said, whether you support or not the affordable health care act or the so-called obamacare, sylvia's not coming here to change your mind. she's not going to say, i'm going to tell you why you should be for it and you're wrong if you're not for it. she's not going to do that. she's going to make the system work. she's going to follow the law. she's going to be listening to everybody. those who are in want and those who aren't in support. and -- those who are in support and those who aren't in support. and make adjustments and recommendations. and i trust she'll take them to the president, good, solid recommendations that if change is needed, this is where we need it. if this is not working, this is why it's not working. if the numbers doesn't add up and we can't afford it, we will make adjust ments to make sure it does -- adjustments to make sure it does work, that all americans can benefit. so i come because i do know sylvia matthews burwell. i know where she comes from.

i know her family. i know her friends. i know her town. that speaks volumes. and as i've said in the opening, as we are all products of our environment. sylvia mathews burwell is a product of her environment, which is as nurturing and loving and caring as any one of us could ever hope for. to have that quality of a person that's going to be serving at the highest level is something i'm proud of, not just because she's a west virginian but because she's such an accomplished person and she wants to give something back. because she's lived the american dream. her parents made that come true for her. and that's who she is. so i would ask all of my colleagues when they're voting, who do you think would have better values, who would have the ability, who has the knowledge and the experience to make sure that there's fairness, bipartisanship, every person's going to be listened to and she'll give you a direct answer

exactly of why she's come to a decision. that's all you can ask for. when you have an opportunity to get somebody at that level, in the private sector you would jump all over it. you would do whatever it would take to get somebody of her qualities. and in public service, we have such a hard time recruiting the young today, recruiting this new crop of leaders. some of them will be senators. some of them will be congresspeople. therthey're going to be leadersn their community. that at a young age, they care. we have a hard job of recruiting these young crop of peel today. and when you have them, you better hold on to them. we have a chance to hold on to sylvia, to take us to a new level, to where health care could be affordable for the masses, we could have a healthier population. we don't have to rank 43rd in the world as far as wellness and longevity. you know? it shouldn't be to where we're spending more money that anybody else and not getting results. we need somebody like sylvia mathews burwell who will put all of this together, that makes

sense out of it because she comes from a grounded area, she comes from a community that's all of west virginia and it's all-american. so with that, i say to my colleagues, i would hope that you would consider voting in favor of sylvia mathews burwell, showing that we can come together, we can work in a bipartisan fashion and pick the best person for the job. not because they're democrat or republican or independent or have any political affiliation, because she's the best qualified person for this job. so with that, i would say to all my colleagues, thank you for allowing me to give you a little bit of an insight of a most amazing young lady. a mother, a daughter, a loving friend to all who really just gets it. she knows how to do it. thank you, madam president. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. murphy: i would ask that we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you very much, madam president. i come to the floor today to speak in support of sylvia burwell's nomination to lead up

our efforts at h.h.s., to follow on the great comments of her great friend, senator manchin. i would just add maybe two points to i think a great presentation by the senator from west virginia. you rarely get someone who has this kind of background in both the public sector and the private sector. of course that is perfectly suited for a tour of duty at the helm of the nation's largest public-private partnership. h.h.s. is the payer, obviously, for our medicare program and for much of our medicaid program, but they are doing business with literally hundreds of thousands of private entities and private companies all throughout the country, primarily health care practitioners from east coast to west, and the affordable care act itself is a -- an enormous public-private partnership. we have expanded coverage both through the traditional medicaid

program but also through millions of people, eight million and counting who have signed up for private insurance with a little bit of help from their government through tax credits, and so it's this background that she has on both sides of the public-private divide that i think will put her in a perfect position to lead this agency. i was particularly pleased when she came before the help committee that she was very willing to be flexible and increase in her work with governors throughout the state who have not yet expanded medicaid. i think there is growing willingness on behalf of many republican governors to look at some innovative ways to expand out medicaid. sylvia burwell is the perfect secretary to work with governors to find a way perhaps with subsidies that will help people in the lower income brackets afford private insurance that could capture thatfive million

number, those five million individuals all across the country that are not getting access to medicaid because their states have not expanded it. madam president, i want to spend just a few minutes in the context of this debate answering what i imagine is going to be a growing chorus of concern and criticism from our republican friends regarding some of the new rate announcements from exchanges all across the country. it's been hard to follow a lot of the criticism of the affordable care act because it seems like it mutates on a pretty regular basis. it started out with claims that the web site could never work given its initial rollout problems. of course it's working very well today. nobody would sign up for this new benefit. it wasn't affordable. while we have hit eight million in terms of those who have signed up for private insurance. young people wouldn't sign up except for the fact that today private insurers are telling us that there are mixes -- their mixes of enrollees are exactly as they had hoped especially with respect to young people

signing up. well, then it was the people wouldn't pay their premiums at a house hearing about a month ago, the private insurers said in fact 80% to 90% of people were paying their premiums comparable with the non-a.c.a. plans. of course the general claim that it will bankrupt the treasury even though it is saving us trillions in terms of deficit savings as well as savings to the overall health care spending line items of the federal government. and so now the critique is that these rate increases are unjustifiable as insurers are getting ready to offer rates on the new exchanges coming out. for open rollment at the end of this year. first of all, it's important to note there are a lot more insurance companies offering health care on these new exchanges. connecticut will get at least one new entrant. new hampshire went from one insurer to five insurers offering. there is very good news coming in the new exchanges in that you

are going to see a lot more options because insurers have figured out this is a pretty good deal for them as well as for their consumers. but it is important to have a little bit of context here. here are just a couple examples of the kind of premium increases that had been asked for by private insurers all across the country in the last several years. 2010, anthem in california proposed a 25% to 39% increase in premiums. in 2010 again. in maine, anthem asked for a 23% increase. the year before in michigan, bluecross blueshield asked for increases of -- for some populations up to 56%. the reality is that we have seen on average a premium increase for the individual market of 15% or above over the last ten years. now, that's not good news, but it does provide some context for

the requests for premium increases that we are going to see in the exchanges this year. the reality actually is that since the law passed, there has been a fairly precipitous decline in the number of premium increases that have been requested by private insurers of above 10%. there are less requests for premium increases of above 10% today than there were in the corps responding period before the -- corresponding period before the affordable care act was passed. but just because the rate increases that are being requested or may be requested as we roll out the next year of open rollment for the state-based exchanges, just because those may be below the historical averages of the last few years, certainly isn't any reason for people to jump for joy. 15% is unaffordable, 56% is unaffordable, and 10% is still

unaffordable. and so it's also important to note some of the protections that are in the bill. for instance, one of the most important provisions of the affordable care act that very few people have noticed is the provision that says that an insurer has to spend 80% of all the money that it takes in on care, and if at the end of the year they have not spent 80% of the money that they have taken in from ratepayers, from premium payers on direct care, then they have to rebate money to consumers. and thus, if these premium increases are above what is justified based on the actual experience, there is going to be a rebate paid to ratepayers. those rebates thus far have saved patients and consumers all across the country $5 billion, and it is a significant historic protection against unjustifiable premium increases that aren't backed up by actual experience in terms of claims paid.

but the protections are even broader. while rate increases aren't new, what really is new is that consumers are back in charge of their health care again. ten years ago, insurers were charging 15%, 20% increases and they were also denying health care to millions of americans who were sick. they were charging women in some parts of the country 50% more than what they were charging men. they were putting annual limits on health care coverage that ended medical insurance for many of the sickest individuals and families all across the country. all of those abuses under the affordable care act are history. and so while i will admit that we still have work to do to bring down the cost of health insurance in this country, at the very least today consumers are back in charge of their

health care. the worst excesses and abuses of the insurance industry are no longer permitted. and while i want to see a day when health insurance premiums are 2% and 3% and 4%, what we are seeing thus far in the wake of the passage of the affordable care act is premium increases that are less than the historical average before the law was passed. that's the facts. that's the facts. and i know that that is not soleless for -- solely for individuals that are receiving these premium increases, but what we have seen is premium increases coming down, not going up since the affordable care act was passed. there is still an enormous amount of work to do. the news is generally very good. more people being enrolled in the affordable care act than was expected. the rate of uninsured

individuals in this country coming down by 20% just in the last six months alone. medical inflation at a near-term historic low. outcomes getting better, whether it be infection rates or readmission rates. our next secretary of health and human services is going to have a lot of work to do to continue to perfect this law, but she is going to have a lot of good work and a lot of good outcomes upon which to build based on her experience both managing private sector entities and large public sector entities, even with these challenges, sylvia burwell is the right choice for h.h.s., and i hope that we will confirm her in a big vote tomorrow. i yield back.

the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: madam president, i come to the floor in this discussion period regarding the nominee to be secretary of health and human service because as a physician, i'm very concerned and want to make sure that americans can get health care. i think getting care is actually much more important than getting actually the insurance component of that, and that's nothing new. i have said that to the president. but as the president has in so many ways offered empty coverage but not actually providing an opportunity for care for people. we see situations where people are paying higher premiums, higher co-pays, higher deductibles, all many of the side effects of the president's health care law. when i hear my colleague from connecticut make reference to rates going up, let's face it.

what the president of the united states said is that premiums would drop by $2,500 per family by the end of his first term. the president didn't say well, they won't go up as fast. didn't say oh, they're going to go up some but don't worry about it. and the facts are that people are continuing to be hurt by the health care law, much of it as a result of the expense of the law. the "usa today" last week, many employees hit with higher health care premiums, as they go on to say more than half the companies increased employers' share of health care premiums or co-payments for doctors' visits in 2013. why? because of the health care law. so businesses trying to provide health insurance for their employees, what other things have they had to do? 32% of the time, the businesses delayed raises for the individuals because the cost of insurance under the president's health care law has gone up so

much, so people who are concerned about take-home pay are getting hurt by the health care law. according to this "usa today" report, 22% eliminated or cut back on benefits. 21% of these folks cut back from full-time work to part-time work on individuals. that's obviously a hit to somebody's take-home pay. the -- in the report, it says that health care premiums have increased 80% since 2003, nearly three times faster, three times faster than wages, and nearly three times faster than inflation. so the health care law has actually failed to do what the president had promised when it comes to actually providing care and affordable care. it's interesting as we look around the country and i see what's happening now and the report out very recently in iowa

of a woman who -- and this report, hundreds of thousands of iowans who don't have coverage, a woman says she drove a half an hour from mitchellville recently to seek care for flu-like symptoms at a free clinic at des moines. she was an assistant manager of a convenience store. she has been offered insurance by her employer but would have to pay $111 every two weeks for her part of the premium. $111 every two weeks for her part of the premium. she says i can't afford that, no way on earth. our colleague from connecticut says it's working. it's not working. and it's because of the mandates of the law, the mandates that people have to get insurance that the government says they need as opposed to what may be good for them for their family. the