child left behind act. reporters stopped by the event. president obama's comments are just under five minutes. >> well, good afternoon, everybody. i am here with some outstanding teachers, as well as secretary arne duncan, and, you know, the reason we're here is with the school year now over, it is a great time for us to focus on what we need to do to make sure the next year and the year after that and the year after that continues to improve for students all across this country. the one ingredient that we know makes an enormous difference is a great teacher, and we have four of the best teachers in the country here. but what we also know is that there are outstanding teachers all across the country. and arne, myself, i suspect many of you had wonderful teachers that made all the difference in your lives and allowed you to be

excited about learning and set you on a path for an extraordinary career. unfortunately, there are a lot of kids around the country who are not getting the kind of teaching that they need not because there aren't a whole lot of great potential teachers out there, but because we're not doing enough to put a lot of our teachers in a position to succeed. they may not be getting the training they need. they may not be getting the professional development and support be that they need. -- support that they need in the classroom. and part of our goal since we came into office, is how do we continually improve how teachers can get better each and every year? of particular concern is the fact that typically the least experienced teachers, the ones with the least support, often end up in the poorest schools.

so we have a problem in which the kids who need the most skilled teachers are the least likely to get them. and the most talented and skilled teachers often times are teaching the kids who are already the best prepared and have the most resources outside of the school in order to succeed. so what we're trying to do today, and arne's going to have more to say about this this afternoon because there are a whole bunch of other teachers who are here in town, is to highlight what we're calling excellent educators for all. it's going to be a program in which we ask states to take a look at where they are distributers great teachers -- distributing great teachers, what are they doing in order to train and promote and place teachers in system of the toughest environments for children? and, you know, what we're also going to be doing is providing

technical assistance, highlighting best practices all with the intention of making sure that wherever a child is anywhere in the country, they've got that opportunity to have somebody in front of the classroom or beside them, guiding them, mentoring them, helping them learn. and when i think about my own experience, the only reason i'm here in the white house is because i had some extraordinary teachers as well as a pretty extraordinary mom and grandparents. i think everybody sitting around this table probably feels the same way. i suspect that's part of a what inspired some of these people to become teachers. we want to make sure every child has access to excellent teachers, and we're very confident that if we can lift up what works, that there are going to be a lot of states that want to adapt it. so unfortunately right now they don't necessarily have the information, and as i said, if we do nothing, if we don't highlight the problem, then, you know, inevitably the kids who

probably need the less help get the most, and the kids who need the most help are getting the least. that's something we're going to need to reverse not just because it's good for these kids. we know that if they've got a great teacher, they're more likely to graduate, more likely to go to college, more likely to succeed in their career. it's also necessary for our economy because we've got too many kids who are trapped in situations in which they're not able to realize their full potential. so i want the these folks for being here, and i'm really looking forward to listening to them to find out what they think can be most helpful in promoting excellence in teachers. all right? thank you, everybody. >> we start with the effort that the white house unveiled yesterday, could you give us the essentials of the program? >> guest: sure. so under this new program, the administration unveiled it yesterday, they will be required to submit plans for insuring students in underperforming

schools have access to as many great teachers as students this more advantaged schools. it's actually not all that new, this has been the requirement of the no child left behind act which was signed way back in 2002. some states actually already have plans on file with the department of education, but many of those plans haven't been updated for years, and advocacy groups have found them to be woefully lacking and found that states really respect patrolling through on -- following through on their promises. so this is an effort to put teeth into an older requirement. >> host: is there a reason for states not updating these plans, as you talked about? >> guest: well, first of all, the department habit really kind of -- hasn't really kind of out the pressure on them to do this. and also it's just a really tough thing to do. it's really hard. states only have kind of a limited authority to make hiring and placing decisions, so their usually made by -- they're

usually made by local districts. there's usually only so much states can do on this. but what i think the secretary and the president are trying to do is sort of start a national dialogue and put a lot of focus on this issue which sometimes kind of gets swept under the rug. >> host: and according to the papers this morning, a $4 million plus price tag attached to this. where does this money get spentsome. >> that's a really small number, right? in terms of the federal be budget. that's almost a rounding error. so it sounds like the department will use that money to kind of provide they say technical assistance to states, give them some sort of guidance in this area. presumably, you know, they'll kind of hire advisers and folks like that or use it to kind of -- [inaudible] that sort of thing as a department. but generally that's a really tiny amount of money. and this is a huge problem. in order to get some of these

high flying teachers to go to, you know, these underperforming schools, districts have offered teachers bonuses of $10 is, $20,000. it's unlikely that that's going to come out of that tiny $4.2 million pot. >> host: did the administration offer any specific ideas on how to put these types of teachers into these types of districts? >> guest: so they haven't really been too specific. they have said that some of the best practices, things that seem to have worked in the past, are insuring that good teachers have access to a really good principal, that they have time the plan and collaborate with each other and that they have a chance to work with other colleagues who really believe in the mission of, you know, turning around low performing schools. >> host: what's been the reactions from teachers unions? >> with so generally the reaction -- >> guest: so generally, the reaction has been very supportive. and i think that's because the

administration isn't being too specific at this point about what it wants to see in these plans, so i think unions are hoping they can work with their states to come up with, you know, equity plans that will include some things that teachers want anyway, some of the things i just mentioned like more time the collaborate with their peers. >> alyson kline, tell us why the nea is looking for arne duncan to resign? >> guest: that's a great question. i think secretary cup can has done a lot of things over his tenure that have proved controversial. he has been kind of one of the loudest voices in federal policy calling for teachers to be evaluated based on student outcomes, and that's something that, you know, states and districts are, you know, kind of working their way through. a lot of teachers are really skeptical of standardized testing, and their job could be on the line if their students don't do well. >> host: so it's basically over

teachers. tell us about initiatives we've heard about over the years -- common core, race to the top -- how have these done since the administration has highlighted these policies? where have they gone? >> guest: so common core is not something that the administration came up with, although they've certainly been boosters for it. right now more than 40 states and the district of columbia are using these standards to prepare students for college and careers. you know, most -- some states are beginning to walk away from the standards; oklahoma and south carolina were sort of the most recent states to ditch them. host states are sticking -- most states are sticking with the standards, the question is what will happen to common core as, you know, as the obama administration -- which, again, has been a big cheerleader for it -- and their time in office comes to an end. when it comes to race to the top, you know, these states that originally got the money still have it.

there have been some improvements in the states, but congress is really reticent to give the administration think more money for that program. >> host: and what's been the reaction from arne duncan as far as what the nea does? >> guest: pretty dismissive. not that he doesn't seem the care, but it's kind of like they're a good partner, we've enjoyed working with them. he's brushed off their comments. he'll really downplayed that particular vote. >> host: alyson kline with education week, a staff writer who's here to the talk about this latest initiative looking at teachers,. [applause] klein, thank you for your time. >> that will be on c-span3. nato secretary general anders faux rasmussen -- >> well, the u.s. senate is set to return the session this just a few moments at 2:15 eastern. more debate on the sportsmen's bill is coming up while senators

work behind the scenes on amendments to that bill. live coverage here on c-span2, again, as they gavel in at 2:15 eastern. before that, members of the senate armed services committee met this morning in a closed door meeting ors but afterwards some of the committee members offered comments to waiting reporters. here's what they had to say starting with republican senator john mccain followed by senator claire mccaskill. >> a classified briefing, so i will not provide any details of that briefing. except to say very clearly we, there is no strategy for countering the largest enclave of terrorism that in history on the iraq/syria border. they have no strategy, nor could they articulate a strategy to counter what our intelligence estimates are over time will be

a direct threat to the united states of america. >> what about afghanistan? >> did they outline any plans at all? >> no. no. no strategy whatsoever. >> are they going to change anything about afghanistan? >> i can't give any details. >> any word on how the assessments are going? >> [inaudible] >> were you any more or less reassured after the briefings? >> well, it's very complicated. we've got iran very active in iraq, trying to help the maliki government. at the same time they're active in syria, trying to help assad. ask that complicates -- and that complicates what we should do and do. and the problem in iraq is the iraq government and maliki refusing to acknowledge that he must include all of iraq in the

government. and until he is willing to do what is politically necessary, it's going to be a slog. >> did you hear anything that sounds hike a strategy from the administration to -- like a strategy from the administration to deal with it? >> i think they have strategies. you know, if the american people are looking for some simple sound bite with, it's complicated. and as i said, we've got iran on different sides, and we're talking about neighbors here. so what we've got to do is make sure that we are working with our allies, that we are continuing to appeal to the moderate sunnis who ultimately will reject a kind of government that will cut off your finger for smoking a cigarette. that's what this extreme organization represents. so ultimately, their extremism will not help them govern, but i think we have to be and i think administration is being appropriately cautious and careful. but there is not one size fits all in the middle east right now. >> were you under the impression

that airstrikes -- [inaudible] >> i'm not going the talk about -- >> and senators mccain and mccaskill will gavel back in with their senate colleagues this afternoon as senators are returning from their weekly party lunches in just a couple of minutes as they continue working on a bill expanding hunting and fishing on federal lands. amendment negotiations are happening off the floor. no votes have been scheduled for the senate today. in news this afternoon, we're learning from the ap that the white house is requesting $3.8 billion to deal with unaccompanied immigrant kids at the u.s. border. immigration reform, of course, something the president has edge couraged congress to address, but john babier recently -- john boehner recently countered it's not likely. the president said he'd use his executive authority to move immigration forward. now a spokesman for house speaker boehner says president obama's request for almost $4 billion to deal with the tide of children falls short in at least

one respect. the spokesman says boehner wants to see the national guard provide humanitarian support in the areas affected. the president will be discussing the crisis with local leaders during a visit to texas tomorrow, and a spokesman for republican governor rick perry confirms that governor perry will be among those meeting with the president. also this from the associated press, cleveland has won the backing of the republican national committee panel tuesday, all but guaranteeing the 2016 presidential pick will accept the party's nomination. and now live to the senate floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: madam president, i wanted to say a few words about the conference committee in terms of legislation on protecting the needs of our veterans. we are working hard on it here in the senate. the house is working hard on it. staffs have been meeting. i have been in touch with -- often with chairman miller in the house. we had a, i thought, very

productive conference committee before we left. and let me just say this as we continue to proceed. if there is anything that i have learned since i have been chairman of the senate committee on veterans' affairs is that i think as a people, as a nation, we underestimate the cost of war. and before anyone votes to go to war again, i think they should fully appreciate what the repercussions of that vote are. and we're going to war means not just as in the case of afghanistan and iraq losing some 6,700 brave men and women. that's a terrible loss, but i also want people to remember the families, the wives, the kids, the mothers and the impact that that loss has had on their lives and the need for us to protect those wives and those children to make sure that they can have

the quality of life that they are entitled to despite the loss of their husbands. but it is not only loss of life. we have had in this war a horrendous epidemic of men and women coming home with posttraumatic stress disorder. no one is quite sure of exactly the number, but it could be as high as 500,000 men and women coming home from war with ptsd, and that is a very, very difficult illness which needs a lot of care, and that illness again impacts the entire family, wives, kids. it impacts the ability of a worker to go out and get a job to earn an income. that is a cost of war. needless to say, the cost of war are the many who came home without legs, who came home without arms, who came home

without eyesight. the cost of war is a high divorce rate for folks who come home who can't resettle well into their family life. the cost of war is an extreme high rate of suicides. the cost of war is widows who are now having to rebuild their lives. and on and on it goes. bottom line is the costs of war is enormous in terms of human suffering and the impact on not only the individual who fought in that war but on the entire family. as i think our colleagues know, several weeks ago senator mccain and i put together a proposal to deal with the current crises at the v.a., and i am very proud that that legislation passed the senate by a vote of 93-3.

now, what are we dealing with? what are we dealing with? what's the cost of this proposal? this is an expensive proposal because the costs of war is expensive. what a v.a. audit told us is that more than 57,000 veterans are waiting to be scheduled for medical appointments. these are the folks who are on these waiting lists, some of which were secret, some of which had data manipulated. these are folks who should have been getting into the v.a. for timely health care but who were not. and on top of that, there is an unknown number of veterans who are on no lists because of the poor work being done at the v.a. they were not on any list. how many there are, we don't know. but many of those people need to be seen. so what our legislation has done

is to say that we are going to make certain that all of these veterans who are waiting for health care, who have waited far too long for health care will, in fact, get health care as soon as they possibly can, and they will get that health care either through private physicians, they will get that health care in community health centers, they will get that health care at department of defense military bases, they will get that health care in the health service, but they will get that health care in a timely manner. and, madam president, that is going to be an expensive proposition. you cannot provide health care to tens and tens and tens of thousands of veterans in a short period of time outside of the v.a. without spending a substantial sum of money. number two, long-term what is clear to me and i think to

anybody who has studied the issue is that if you are serious about eliminating these waiting lists and getting people into the v.a. in a timely manner, we have got to make sure that at every facility in this country, the v.a. has the requisite number of doctors, nurses, space and other types of personnel that they need in order to accommodate the growing numbers of people who are coming into the v.a. and if we are talking about hiring thousands of doctors at a moment by the way where we have a very serious doctor shortage in this country, that is going to be an expensive proposition as will hiring the nurses and the other personnel and building or leasing the space that we need. that's issue number two. that is going to be expensive. but long-term if we are serious about keeping our commitment for

the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend this country, that is exactly what we have to do. third area which is going to be expensive, and that is in this legislation, we have now for the first time said to veterans that if you are living a distance away from a v.a. facility, more than 40 miles, you are going to be able to go to a private doctor, and that will cost us some money as well. mr. durbin: would you yield for a question? mr. sanders: i would be happy to yield to the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i would through the chair like to address the senator from vermont. first, thank you for your bipartisan effort with senator john mccain which led to an overwhelming bipartisan vote on the floor of the senate to address what we consider to be a crisis in the veterans administration. press reports have suggested in the most extreme situation that

some veterans were lives being compromised because of the failure of the v.a. to provide timely care to these veterans. it resulted in an investigation of v.a. facilities all across the united states. it resulted in the resignation of the secretary of the veterans administration, and promises for dramatic reform. but i have to say to the senator from vermont, what you accomplished with senator mccain was tangible. i'd like to ask you two or three questions about the current state of affairs. how long was it -- how long ago was it that we passed on the floor of the senate this bipartisan measure? secondly, did this measure involve emergency spending to deal with the emergency in the veterans administration? and third, did the house version of their v.a. reform include the resources that you are talking about, the new doctors, the new nurses, the new facilities to

accommodate this wave of veterans? those three questions i think are critical. and i just close by saying thank you again and again because as head of the veterans committee, you have reminded us the real costs of war. there are many people who vote quickly to go to war, who won't vote quickly to pay for the care that we promise our veterans when they come home. and thank you for caring. mr. sanders: thank you very much, senator durbin, for your strong support of veterans. and let me just answer the very last question and then i will go to the others. i think throughout the history of this country, not only in iraq and afghanistan, i think as a people we have underestimated the real cost of war. there was no word called ptsd at the end of world war ii, but anyone who thinks that men and women did not come home from that war suffering from that ailment would be very, very mistaken. so the costs of war is real and it is not just missiles and

tanks and guns. if this country means anything, we take care of all of those who served to the last day of their lives when they need that care. i don't have the date in front of me, but i think it was about three weeks ago when we passed that legislation, a, by a huge vote. i think it was three people, all of three people voted against it. it was 93-3. huge support, bipartisan support for the bill. but equally important to answer the important question raised by the senator from illinois, there was also overwhelming understanding that paying for this bill is a cost of war. it has to be emergency funding, and no strong bipartisan vote, the senate said yes, that is how we're going to pay for it. in terms of the house bill, the house bill was a reasonable bill, but they did not go into the detail that we did in terms of how it will be paid.

but the major point that i do want to make today -- and i was just going to get that, and i appreciate the senator from illinois for raising it. this bill is not going to be paid for by cutting education or food stamps. that ain't going to happen. that would be -- it ain't going to happen, first of all, because it's not going to happen, and second of all, it would be grossly disrespectful to the veterans of this country. the veterans of this country need help, they need help now. this legislation must be passed as soon as possible. and it must be passed in terms of emergency funding. this is a cost of war. i would ask my friend from illinois, the whip, can he recall about what kind of programs were offset and what kind of taxes were raised to pay for the wars in iraq and afghanistan? mr. durbin: through the chair, i would address the senator without asking him to yield the floor and say this.

when we decided to embark on the invasion of iraq and the invasion of afghanistan, it was with at least the understanding of the president, then-president bush, that these would be costs that would be added to the deficit of the united states. we would not be paying as we fought. we would be waging the war, spending the money necessary to wage it successfully and we would deal with the cost of it at a later moment in time. many of us, even those of us who voted against the invasion of iraq -- i was one of 23 on the floor of the senate who voted against it -- voted for the resources to wage the war, saying if our men and women in uniform are risking their lives, we'll stand by them, equip them and bring them home safely. i also believed and understood that i had an obligation to every one of those men and women in uniform, having promised them that if they would risk their lives for america and come home

needing our help, whether it's health care or education or the basics of life, we would be there. and i say to the senator from vermont, thank you for reminding us of the pledge made by america to these veterans, and i believe the pledge made by democrats and republicans in congress, and independents in congress to stand by them when they came home. mr. sanders: the senator is exactly right. and while no one is quite exactly clear how much those two wars will end up costing us, the estimate is between $3 trillion and $6 trillion. $3 trillion and $6 trillion. and the point that senator durbin made is even those who voted against the war -- and i did as well -- understood that when you send men and women off to battle, they have got to have all of the resources they need to do their mission, and equally important, what we are saying now, when they come home, wounded in body, wounded in spirit, we need them to have the

resources that they require to make their lives whole again. that is a moral obligation. so i thank the senator for raising that point. so, madam president, i would just yield the floor in a second, but let me conclude by saying this. i want to see this bill passed as soon as possible. we are working as hard as we possibly can. but anyone who magically thinks that the only problem facing the v.a. is more accountability and better management is not corre correct. we do need better management at the v.a. we do need more accountability at the v.a. and this legislation will provide that. people who are incompetent, people who are dishonest should be fired and there must be more

transparency and there certainly must be a much clearer chain of command that goes from washington to regional hospitals and facilities and back up aga again. but at the end of the day, the best management in the world is not going to provide the quality and timely health care that veterans need unless we have the doctors, the nurses, and the other medical personnel. and that's the simple fact of it. excellent management, yes. transparency, yes. firing incompetent people, yes. but we also need the doctors and nurses to provide quality, timely care to the veterans of our government. and with that, madam president, i would yield the floor.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: madam president, it's been two weeks since the house and senate veterans affairs committees held our first conference meeting in fix the v.a. health care system. it is a disservice to our veterans that we haven't met again. my fellow conferees and i should be at the table actively negotiating a path forward. chairman sanders is right when he says that the situation at the v.a. is an emergency. i have the opportunity to meet with veterans last week in hilo, hawaii. my discussion with them underscored the urgency of adjusting the long -- of addressing the long-standing issues at the v.a. for those who haven't visited hawaii, hilo is on the big island of hawaii. the big island is home to volcanoes and rain forests and

just about every other type of climate. it is also twice as big as the rest of hawaii islands combined. in fact, it's roughly the size of connecticut but with only a fraction of the population. it can take hours to drive from hilo to the second largest town, kailuakona. of the roughly 143,000 people living on the big island, over 15,000 are veterans. i'm raising these facts because i want my colleagues to understand that veterans in rural communities like those who live on hawaii island need our help and they need it now. the veterans i met in hilo expressed to me that they can't get care anywhere other than with the v.a. on the big island, as private physicians are few and far between. in fact, while 90% of hawaii island residents have health insurance, there is a serious physician shortage. this results in long wait times for non-v.a. health care.

given these long wait times for private physicians, big island veterans rely on v.a. for their primary care. those hawaii island veterans who have private insurance have paid for flights to the island of oahu to get the care they need out of their own pockets. this means over $300 out of pocket just to get to the medical appointments. the $300 does not include any costs associated with the care itself. this is another reason expending -- expanding access to non-v.a. providers is needed to immediately address the v.a. health care emergency. with this expansion, we must ensure every veteran in our country, whether rural or urban, can more easily get the care they need if the v.a. is unable to accommodate them. rural and urban veterans in hawaii and across our nation deserve better. a recent audit of the v.a. in hawaii found that veterans were

waiting over 140 days to receive care. a more recent update found that while progress is being made, that number is still over 100 days. nationwide, nearly 60,000 veterans are waiting simply to get an appointment. of course this is unacceptable. this is why i stand eager and ready to work with my house and senate colleagues to ensure that the veterans of this country get the care they need and the benefits they have earned. this conference committee must reconvene as soon as possible to move forward on the important task to finalize legislation that does three important things. one, directly address the emergency circumstances that have been uncovered at the veterans administration. two, ensure that all of our veterans receive access to the care that they deserve. three, begin the long-term work of restoring veterans' trust not only in the v.a. but in

congress' ability to effectively oversee the v.a. and provide the resources necessary to care for our veterans. nearly the entire senate agrees that the current v.a. situation is an emergency and that congress must act. i'm hopeful that we can all agree on that point, but my fellow conferees need to be at the table now face to face to work out a solution to make the v.a. work for our veterans. i hope that we will include provisions in the senate-passed legislation that will provide for 26 major medical facility leases and provide for the resources and authority to expedite hiring of v.a. doctors and nurses. in addition, while i agree that accountability of executives is needed, we should avoid politicizing the nonappointed civil service process and allow some due process for v.a. employees. furthermore, our veterans rely

on the services of qualified, committed professionals at the v.a. in fact, the veterans i met with last week indicated that they really like v.a. care. however, they were concerned that v.a. doctors were already overstretched in terms of patients. i don't believe that simply telling v.a. doctors to see more patients is the only or best answer. nor is it enough to allow vets to seek care from private providers. we should be doing more to attract more health professionals to v.a., especially primary care providers. we have to recognize the long-term benefits of attracting a high-quality work force to v.a. and that we can improve accountability in a carefully balanced way. investing in the v.a. is an essential step toward building back the trust of our veterans. i understand my colleagues' concerns with the cost of the

proposals before us, but inaction won't overcome those concerns. those of us serving as conferees need to sit down and discuss how to get our veterans what they need quickly. the time for action is now. veterans in hawaii and across the country are counting on us and deserve no less. i yield the remainder of my time. i notice 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 connecticut. a senator: thank you, madam president. i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you. madam president, i begin by thanking my colleague, the senior senator from illinois, for his comments this morning, his very eloquent and powerful remarks on the need to address gun violence in this country and to do it as part of our consideration of the sportsmen's act. i look forward to joining with him in the coming days, in fact, perhaps in the coming hours, in

offering commonsense, sensible measures that will give us the opportunity to help stop gun violence in this country. addressing domestic violence, which so often leads to gun violence. women are five times more likely to be killed in domestic violence when there is a gun in the home. and addressing also straw purchases and issues relating to illegal trafficking, other measures that we have raised and considered before, but not yet successfully passed in the senate, not even addressed in depth. and so i hope we'll have the opportunity in these next couple of days to consider these kinds of measures because the scourge of gun violence is continuing in our neighborhoods, our streets, just as it took the lives of 20

beautiful children and six great educators in newtown, connecticut, almost a year and a half ago, and two more people on sunday in the east side of bridgeport alone and tens of thousands of others, it continues to cause death and injury costs in lost lives and dollars throughout this country, and we have an obligation as part of this measure to do better than we have in dealing with this tremendous, horrific and unspeakable problem when it affects so many innocent children, particularly the children who are affected in urban neighborhoods when there are drive-by shootings, in rural neighborhoods and all across the country in our cities and our streets and our schools.

we have an obligation to do better and to put priorities first when it comes to the use of guns. i understand the reasons for expanding and providing more opportunities in this bill that may involve firearms, but first things first, let's assure the safety of the country. let's consider commonsense, sensible measures on gun control before we expand the use of guns and firearms in this country. i am here as well to address the separate unrelated issue of doing better to care for our veterans. the veterans' access to care through choice accountability and transparency act of 2014 is now in conference. i am on that conference

committee. this body passed that bill by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 93-3 on june 11. a comprehensive bill to start addressing the problems that came to our attention so dramatically with reports of deadly delays, destruction of documents, manipulation of data, falsification of records. those tragic reports of unacceptable wait times that were concealed at v.a. health care facilities. books cooked and criminal wrongdoing covered up. that's the reason that i call for a criminal investigation and one now has begun, and i hope that it will produce accountability from the health care system of the v.a.

but more fundamentally, we have an obligation in the senate and in the congress to address the underlying issues that led to those deadly wait times and delays, the cooking of books and covering it up that has so dramatically undermined trust and confidence in the v.a. health care system. if anything, since june 11, the problem seems to have worsened. in fact, comparing may to july, the recently released figures of july 3 just last week, the numbers of medical appointments delayed for longer than 30 days has tripled in connecticut and doubled nationwide. nationwide, that number has gone from 242,069, roughly a quarter

million veterans whose appointments were postponed by 30 days or more, to 636,436. that's the number of veterans waiting longer than 30 days for an appointment. in connecticut, that number, the comparable numbers are 998- 998-2,727. a tripling of the appointments delayed for longer than 30 days. in other parts of the country at other clinics and facilities, those numbers quadrupled. now, the possible good news is that maybe, just maybe the doubling, tripling, quad ruleling of those numbers of

appointments a lot longer than 30 days delay means that the numbers are more accurate and truthful. we don't know. i have demanded an explanation. i have written to the acting secretary of the v.a., sloan gibson, calling for a public explanation for these numbers, and the very alarming and astonishing trends, drastic and dramatic increases in those numbers of appointments suffering from delays. justice brandeis once said that publicity is justly recommended for social diseases. sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants. these chronic failings at the v.a. demand better explanation. veterans deserve to know have

things gotten worse or is the reporting just better, and all of us, the public whose taxpayer moneys fund the v.a. deserve the same kind of explanation, and there should be criminal investigation if there has been obstruction of justice and destruction of documents and falsification of records which involve federal criminal wrongdoing. but the fact that we have now in conference committee will help address many of these problems looking forward, moving ahead, providing more access to private doctors and private hospitals outside the v.a. system to minimize and reduce and perhaps even eliminate those unacceptable waiting times of longer than 30 days for an appointment. it will provide more doctors more than $500 million for that

purpose alone. it will impose accountability by enabling easier firing and seeking to in effect tall back or at least stop some of the financial incentives that may have driven the false reporting. in those ways and a variety of others, this bill will help us move forward and achieve progress. no one should be under any illusion that this bill alone will solve those problems. it is not a panacea. it is not a permanent solution to the v.a.'s problems. we need for starters a new leader. the v.a. has no permanent secretary. confirmation of a new one is imperative, but tough questions are absolutely essential to determine whether the

president's nominee should be the one to lead this agency, and i'm certainly hoping that he will be. the veterans' affairs conference committee met on june 24, and i emphasized the importance at that hearing of honoring the commitment of our men and women in uniform by addressing the v.a. challenges with adequate funding and essential legislation, and i am hopeful that we will move quickly and effectively after that first june 24 meeting now to present to both houses a final version of this bill so that we can truly address the problems that our veterans deserve to be solved and the v.a. has an obligation to eliminate. we need to assure that the differences between the two bodies are resolved and send

this bill to the president for his signature. a country that really values its veterans truly honors their service, should not subject them to waiting delays, secret waiting lists and false records. this broad bipartisan historic bill to ensure that delays in trade agreement are eliminated and bad actors at the v.a. health centers are held accountable is a critical step to keep faith with our veterans and let us move forward quickly and responsibly with this bill. 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:

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. who havmr. inhofe: mr. presiden, there are a few of us who wanted to come down and talk about specific things in our state that are reaching a crisis point by having to have -- participate in obamacare, but before doing that i want to make just one comment to make sure it's in the record that we can talk about the election that took place over in afghanistan. you know, we've had quite a time over there. we've lost actually 2,197 of our own troops in afghanistan, and we've injured about ten times that many. so it's just -- it's been a real crisis for a lot of people for a long period of time.

things have been going good, and i think that when the decision was made by this president to pull everything out at the -- at a given time, things started turning around a little bit, and now they're in the middle of -- in afghanistan the election that took place, i know that we're not supposed to say this. there's no official position. i want to make that clear -- by the united states of america. but to me there are two people running against each other. there is a good guy and a bad guy. that holdover from the old administration who's name is afghani is one that was karzai's chosen one. it's one that is, we continue to go in lack of leadership, not to take advantage of the opportunities they have right now. then abdullah abdullah was the other one. my concern was this, and i expressed this concern on the senate floor about three weeks

ago. i said i know we have deadlines. we're going to have a primary which we already had. then we're going to have a primary runoff. then on the 22nd, which is two weeks from today, there will be an official declaration as to who won the primary runoff. the chair is fully familiar with this. we talked about this this morning. in this runoff situation, the, we have found a lot of discrepancyies and it seems to me while i consider one guy to be the good one and one to be the bad one, abdullah abdullah, all the mistakes that were made and the irregularities that were found were found in favor of the ashraf ghani as opposed to abdullah abdullah. for example, in one of the provinces, ghani's vote count

went from 17,000 in april to 170,000 in the runoffs. think about that. that was almost mathematically impossible. when you consider the number of registered voters there, this number exceeds the number of registered voters. you went from 17,000 in the same province when they went through the primary back in april and then that jumped up to, by tenfold to 170,000 in the runoff. that's an increase of 1,000% over the april results. all of those, of course, were in an area where it's in the part of the country where ghani's vote, it was, was more favorable. the other thing that i think is unprecedented, i think we all know in our own states -- whether it's west virginia, oklahoma or any of the rest of them -- when you, the vote percentage turnout is less in rural areas than it is in urban areas. in urban areas you have to go next door to vote.

it's very convenient. in many rural areas, certainly in my state of oklahoma, tough drive maybe 30 or 40 miles to vote. so that percentage turnout is less. it happens that ghani's support comes from the rural areas. in this runoff election that just took place, 75 -- they had a 75% turnout in those areas. and at the same time in the urban areas they only had a 24% turnout. first of all, i don't think we can name one election in history that had a larger turnout in a rural area than it did the urban areas in the same election. so we're looking at something that could not happen, and logically it did not happen. and that was something that certainly worked in the favor of ghani's election. right now everyone agrees on one thing, and that is that the election was at least falsified.

if not, it was just a rigged election. and there were a lot of organizations out there. european union, for example, and the u.n. and other groups such as the osce, the office of security cooperation, they all agree that we should have an audit of this election, at least an audit. and the audit should include some independent source. and so i want to get on record now, because i fear that if nothing's done in the next 14 days, he'll be declared the winner. and with these discrepancies, i think that would be doing a great disservice to the people of afghanistan. they would lose faith in their system because what i'm saying here on the senate floor they already know. let me jump into another area that i'm very interested in, and that's as every member of this body is, i can remember back

when in the 1990's they had what was referred to as hillary health care. at that time there were several members of parliament. one of them was up here and we had a hearing. that person said it's hard for us in the united kingdom to understand why we've had this type of socialized medicine for as many years as i can remember -- this is his quote -- he said, "and yet we're now finally realizing that your system over in the united states is a much better system, and we're now starting to discard the old socialist, socialized medicine system." that's something that we saw way ak back in the 19 -- saw way back in the 1990's and it came again with the affordable care act. obamacare. we have a lot of examples in my state of oklahoma, heartbreaking accounts. since the rollout last fall my office has been flooded with stories from oklahomaans who

found obamacare to be one massive broken promise from president obama. these stories include a woman from broken arrow, oklahoma, who reported a 20% increase in her monthly premiums, a father from owaso, oklahoma, shared a story -- i talked to all these individuals personally -- served a story of a son and daughter who served as missionaries in indonesia and their health care deductibles in the united states more than doubled from $1,200 to $2,600 a person. a public school teacher from oklahoma who teachers actually not in public schools, in adjunct college classes, she shared that not only did she have her work hours cut but is now paying $950 a month in premiums for health care with a $6,000 deductible. another teacher from salaso,

oklahoma -- that happens to be the strawberry capital of the world in case you guys didn't know that -- shared her deductible increased by $1,000 from last year. a man from noble told us his company modified health plans to match the obamacare requirements. it is a company that he owns. he said these changes cost him a 40% increase in his out-of-pocket expenses at its premium cost. a man from tulsa who lives in my same neighborhood, he has a family of five. he works for a small business, shared with us that he is now paying $4,000 more for insurance than he paid just a year ago. in this november a new open enrollment period will begin in at least one state -- virginia -- has already reported an astounding 22% increase over the past year. all of that's happening, and people from any state, any of the 50 states can come down and talk about individual cases in their state. we have one good thing that's going on right now. we have a great attorney general by the name of scott pruitt.

scott pruitt, attorney general from oklahoma, has a lawsuit. it's called pruitt vs. burwell, the oklahoman has standing to proceed upon a case that the i.r.s. has acted beyond its intent to have federal exchanges. we have 36 states that have federal exchanges. these exchanges are -- well, first of all, the administration had a motion to dismiss and it was overruled 11 months ago. so this is a real case, and the state has asked for a summary judgment. success in this case would mean the dismantling of the obamacare employer and individual mandates for all 36 states that have at least a partial federally facilitated exchange. i guess you can say that it might end up being that our

attorney general for the state of oklahoma is going to be the one that's going to be the most successful in doing something about this thing that we should have learned a long time ago was not going to work. i have a personal interest in this. having had -- there are states that have, or countries that have socialized medicine. we have canada, we have great britain, we have many other countries. in making a study of these, you find that there is limited coverage for people that reach a certain age. i see our good friend from wyoming who is a medical doctor. he's given his second opinion many times. in one of those he talked about you get past a certain age, you're unable to get the treatment. i happen to have had occasion to have four bypasses at an age when in some countries i would not have qualified. it's something that we are, have been very active in and we're going to hopefully be the heroes from the state of oklahoma in

offering at least 36 of our states. with that, i will yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i appreciate the comments of the senator from oklahoma who, like the senator from wyoming who is on the floor here with us today, has heard from many of his constituents about the impact that obamacare is having on them, the real-world economic impacts. i've received countless letters from my constituents in south dakota telling me about the challenges that they're facing because of obamacare. and those challenges really consist of the economic costs associated with the new health care law. higher premiums, higher deductibles, higher co-pays, the loss of the doctors that they liked, the burden that the law is placing on their businesses

if they're an employer. and less control and less freedom, which is something that is important to so many americans, particularly when it comes to their health care. so i wanted to take a few moments, mr. president, to highlight some of the stories that constituents of mine shared with me. i know the senator from wyoming is here to do the same, to talk about the impact not only in his state of wyoming but all across the country. but a young person named eric from southeast south dakota wrote to me to tell me that his family's health care plan was canceled thanks to obamacare. his old plan was $448 a month with a $5,000 deductible and a 20% co-pay after that. the cheapest bronze plan that he could find was $987 a month, more than double what he was paying before, with a $6 5,00 deductible and a 40% co-pay.

this means, he said, that i would need to incur about $26,000 in eligible medical expenses each year before insurance is a benefit to me. then there is meggen from mccook county, south dakota, who contacted me to tell me the cheapest plan she could find for her family of four would cost her a staggering $17,000. $17,000, mr. president, that's more than some people paid for their mortgages an entire year. randy from hot springs, south dakota told me an exchange plan is almost two and a half times the cost of his old insurance plan. sheri from a small town in minihaw county said next year our insurance is changing and i will lose my family practice doctor of 22 years, the doctor that delivered all my children and cared for our teenage children all their lives. we'll lose all the backup

doctors our family is seeing when we couldn't see our regular doctor. i was happy with my insurance, and now i have to lose my doctor. end quote. there's denny from rapid city, south dakota, who told me the following -- and i quote -- "my insurance company canceled my policy. i'm currently paying over $800 a month for a family of four. if i sign up for obamacare i would be paying over $2,500 a month. i cannot think of any way this is considered affordable health care. linda, a small business owner along the missouri river wrote this. we need your help. we have one full-time employee and we provide health care coverage for him, his wife and their children. our monthly premium in 2013 was $2,964.20 or $35,570.40 annually. $2,9600 a month or $35,000 annually.

our monthly premium as a result of the affordable care act for 2014 is $3,524 a month or $42,297 annually. and so a huge increase from what they were paying before, from 2013 to 2014. and he says i've been told -- i should say she says she's been told by her agent to expect even more substantial increases in 2015. she closes by saying this is very frightening for us. end quote. lyle from brookings, south dakota, wrote to say that thanks to obamacare his monthly premium almost doubled and his deductible doubled. he said i'm a small business owner and would like to hire an employee next spring. that's not going to happen, he says. mr. president, we were told that obamacare would lower costs and make health care more affordable. instead it's driven up costs for these americans and for many others. what middle-class family can

afford to spend $17,000 a year on insurance? how can a small business with one employee afford an $8,000 yearly hike in insurance premiums? the answer is they can't. and as if high health care prices weren't enough, obamacare is also damaging many americans' job prospects. there's the 30-hour work week rule which is forcing many employers to cut their employees' hours. there's the medical device tax which has already resulted in thousands and thousands of lost jobs in the industry and will likely result in many more if it isn't repealed. there is the employer mandate, which is discouraging many employers from expanding and hiring new employees. and the many rules and regulations that are placing a huge financial and logistical burden on small businesses. mr. president, obamacare isn't working. it's supposed to help americans. instead it's hurting them. it's time to start over and to

replace this law with real health care reforms, reforms that will actually lower costs for americans, give them back their health care choices, and improve access to care. mr. president, that's what we ought to be doing but unfortunately we've got lots of folks here in this chamber who are trying as desperately as they can to run away from the issue without fixing it. so as we get into these november elections and the run up to them, a lot of vulnerable democrats who voted for this are looking for a way out but this was their signature achievement in many cases. this was the president's signature law. and so they own it. they own that vote. and yet they're trying to figure out a way to spin it to the american people so that it will come across in a different way than the reality that the american people are experiencing. this was the head lienl in "politico" from yesterday. "obamacare war room prepares for

september surprise." they know that there are more -- there's more bad news coming out in september of this year, when the new insurance rates are announced and kick in. and so what is the white house doing? they've got six people assigned to congressional democrats to help do damage control in their states or their districts when this bad news comes out and it inevitably will because there's no way that all the new mandates and requirements associated with this law don't lead to higher prices, in addition to all the higher taxes that go with it. and so this is the headline, "the war room prepares for september surprise." and it goes on to detail how they are trying their best to spin this in a way that confuses the american people in to thinking that it's something better than it is. but, unfortunately, for the spinners, the reality that most americans are confronting and experiencing is a very different one and that's the reality i talked about earlier. higher premiums, higher deductibles, higher co-pays, fewer choices when it comes to

doctors and hospitals, fewer full-time jobs, more part-time jobs, as employers look for ways to avoid dealing with the -- these mandates and requirements that are imposed under obamaca obamacare, but it's forcing more and more people into part-time jobs when they would like to be working full time. and that's why last week when the jobs numbers came out and people were heeling the numbers, sure, there was some good news there but there was an awful lot of bad news. and one of the bad news items that was most of those jobs or a good majority of those jobs were actually part-time and not full-time. why? well, one of the reasons is the mandates and the requirements under obamacare. in the institution of a 30-hour work week, which is forcing employers to hire employees for fewer than 30 hours so they don't get stuck with having to provide government-approved health care which would dramatically increase what they're paying for health care today. that's the reality that most americans are confronting,

mr. president, and i hope that at some point, as these realities continue to sink in with the american people, that their elected officials here in washington will come together and realize this isn't working. it's not working for employers. it's not working for middle-class families in this country who are increasingly squeezed by these higher costs, and it certainly isn't working for our economy. so, mr. president, i know the senator from wyoming, senator barrasso, who has already, as has been mentioned by the senator from oklahoma, is a physician and understands these issues very well and has spoken at great length here on the floor about obamacare, its impacts and i know he's going to share some -- some of the stories that he receives from not only the people he represents in the state of wyoming but those around this country who are feeling the impacts of this law. and so i would yield back the balance of my time, mr. president, and yield to the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming.

mr. barrasso: thank you very much, mr. president. mr. president, i'd like to join my colleague from south dakota and agree that what he is seeing in south dakota and i am seeing in wyoming, people across the country are seeing with regard to the president's health care law. people are very concerned because it hits them in their pocketbook. what we are seeing is that people's premiums are going up. the deductible that they have to pay before they goat us get to r insurance, that's going way up. the co-pay that they have to make has gone way up. so in terms of actual people's pocketbook issues, the things that concern them, they're paying more. they're paying more and they're getting less and it's because of the mandates and the obama health care law. now, the president of the united states, he says forcefully defend and be proud of this law, but yet day after day i don't see democrats who voted for the health care law coming to the floor to forcefully defend or be proud of t. an -- proud of it.

and there's very little to be proud of, mr. president. we all get letter from our home states, from people at home. i was home over the 4th of july visiting around the state, going to many communities. i haven't run into anyone who says this has actually significantly helped make their life better. people come up to me at parade routes, rodeos, all the different places we've been, have great concerns about the health care law and the impact on their own personal life, what money is left over at the end of the day to help put food on the table t, to get the kids off to school, clothing for the kids and how the impact of the health care law is making it harder and lowering the quality of life in spite of of the president's promises and they say were just not true. we've got a letter from a young woman, a woman, shelly in worland wyoming, the center of the state. i know the community very well.

and she writes to me and she said, "i know you've heard my story a hundred times but i feel maybe one more won't hurt." because she wanted to share what is going on in her specific life, in worland, wyoming, related to the health care law. she said, "yesterday in the mail i received a notice that my health insurance will go from $637 to $897 and my $10,000 deductible is now $11,000." so the premiums have gone up and the deductible has gone up. i mean, it is a double whammy hitting her. but she said, "my plan now meets the requirements of the health care reform law." and let's be serious about this, mr. president. the requirements of the health care law mandate that many people all across the country end up buying much more insurance than they ever will need, will want, will ever use.

but it has to comply with what the federal government says they need. the families in wyoming have a better idea of what they need for their health insurance than barack obama has in terms of what he thinks they might need. the families in wyoming know what they need much more so than the democrats in this body who voted the mandates on to these people and said they have to have all of this insurance. this woman doesn't need it, doesn't want it, is not going to use it but yet she's paying more out of her pocket, impacting that family's life so it can comply with the health care law instead of what's best for her and her family. she goes on to say, "my husband is self-employed on the family farm and i'm also self-employed at a beauty shop. needless to say, we have always pinched our pennies." she said, "my children are all grown, my two daughters are both kindergarten teachers in our wonderful state. my son is working with us on the farm. we've worked very hard not to

use any of the government assistance raising our children on less than $30,000 a year." you're talking about hardworking families from all across the country pinching their pennies, making sure that they use their money wisely, not relying on the government. that's what we have here. she says, "so now i am forced to enter the health care reform circus." that's what this is -- this is a circus forced down the throats of the american people by the democrats in this body and by the president of the united states, who forced this on to the american people. this health care reform circus. she said, "i know i missed the deadline because i was determined to not be part of this but now i simply cannot afford this insurance." she said, "i tried to navigate the web site last night and finally gave up after being kicked off three times." she said, "to make matters worse, my insurance was offering a one decreasing deductible that we were counting on but we also

lost that in our new policy." she said, we had our deductible down to $3,000. we had been saving in an h.s.a. but i'm afraid it won't last long. she said, i've just been told i have a real bone disease causing fibra displaisdisplaysia. she's facing surgery to remove some of the bone behind her eye. this hardworking wyoming family, she writes, "after working so hard to take care of ourselves, my husband and i are faced with having to have help. this makes no sense to us. we are doing fine until the government stepped in. there has to be an answer somewhere. thanks for your time." mr. president, i've practiced medicine for 25 years in wyoming, took care of many families just like -- just like we have here with shelly, knowing how hardworking people are, and you'd know that as

well, mr. president. in rural communities, people who roll up their sleeves, go to work every day, don't want assistance from the government, just do their job. and this is a family that has been hurt by the president's health care law. hurt dramatically. they had gotten their deductible down to $3,000. now it's up to $11,000. their premiums are higher than they were before and she has a lot more insurance than she's ever going to want, need, can afford or will ever use. we're seeing this all around the country. it's not just in stories from wyoming. cbs "money watch," the middle of june came out with a report called "for some, obamacare delivers sticker shock." and it is interesting just trying to follow the press from around the country. these aren't isolated cases. we're seeing this all across the country. the article goes on, "obamacare is delivering a hefty dose of sticker shock." well, what did the president of the united states promise the american people? he promised the american people that under his plan, insurance premiums would drop $2,500 per

family by the end of his first term. not stay flat, not go up a little, would actually lower $2,500 per family/per year by the end of his first term. "obamacare delivering a hefty dose of sticker shock." now, who's getting hurt by this? all americans are getting hurt but "the washington post" had an interesting story on june 24t 24th. the headline -- the headline -- and i wish the president would pay attention to this, the president of the united states needs to know that it's older women -- older women who bear the brunt of higher insurance costs under obamacare. headline, "washington post," june 24th. "new government report is out. women aged 55-64 will face a huge spike in costs when they go out to buy individual insurance on the federal exchange. these women bear the brunt of the increased premiums and the out-of-pocket expenses after the affordable care act."

winners and losers and the president has chosen, president obama has chosen older women to bear the brunt of higher increase in insurance costs under the president's health care law. you're going to hear that again, mr. president, again and again, as democrats stand up to talk about the issues facing our country, it is older women who are bearing the brunt of the higher insurance costs under the president's health care law, as reported in "the washington post." it's -- and then how incompetent is the web site? well, let's take a look at what "the new york times" said july 1. "eligibility for health insurance" -- headline, "eligibility for health insurance was not properly checked, audit finds." "an independent audit of insurance exchanges established under the health care law has found the federal and state officials did not -- did not -- properly check the eligibility of people seeking coverage and applying for subsidies, according to "the new york times."."

"the latest indication of unresolved problems at healthcare.gov." i remember listening to president obama talk and be interviewed by president clinton in september of last year in new york city at the clinton global initiative, or something like that, and president obama said, easier than shopping on amazon. cheaper than your cell phone bill. this is in a report to congress on tuesday, the inspector general for the department of health and human services said the exchanges did not have adequate safeguards to prevent the use of inaccurate or fraudulent information when determining eligibility. moreover, in a companion report, the inspector general -- we're talking about the inspector general of the department of health and human services of the bay -- ofthe obama administratid the government has been unable to verify much of the information reported by people applying for insurance coverage

and assistance to help pay premiums. as of the first quarter of 2014, this is the inspector general's report, the federal marketplace was unable to resolve 2. 2.6 million inconsistencies. because the web site that president obama has said would be easier to use than amazon, cheaper than your cell phone, it said was not fully operational. what kind of government incompetence are we talking about, mr. president? associated press july 1, health law signups dogged by data flaws. unable to resolve 2.6 million so-called inconsistencies. it is astonishing, and they call it another health care headache for the white house. the problems continued out of sight. the president is trying to hide these problems, trying to hide them from the american people.

the president says one thing, tries to sell a story, now has his own war room setup. not to solve the problems. oh, no, he's not trying to solve the problems. he has a war room out to try to spin the information so the voters don't get to see what they're not being deceived by. they can see through this, mr. president. you have a war room with six people trying to spin the health care numbers. they should be actually trying to solve the problems, trying to lower the cost of care, trying to help patients get care, not empty coverage, expensive coverage. there are so many problems in this world that what the white house decides to spend its time and money on is set up a war room to try to spin the issues of the obamacare health care law, not to solve the problems. go around the country state by state. california, obamacare, massive backlog stalls medi-cal

expansion. connecticut, anthem seeks 12.5% rate increase. back to california, confusion over doctor lists is costly for obamacare enrollees in the state. you can work your way around the country, mr. president, and state by state, whether you do it from east to west, north to south, do it in alphabetical order, every state, there are horror stories about the impact of this health care law. connecticut again, obamacare glitch leading to canceled policies. constituents calling to talk to their state representative say that their insurance policies have been canceled because the subsidies that help discount the premiums hadn't been paid, hadn't been paid. according to people involved with insurance, the issue of mistaken policy cancellations is real. so the insurance companies are saying it is absolutely true, it is absolutely real. and then, mr. president, i see other colleagues on the floor.

i would just say that in colorado, a state that i go through every weekend at least twice, going to wyoming and coming back to d.c. from wyoming, people in colorado are very concerned. colorado health exchange site needs surgery. this is nbc 9 news colorado. a reporter says i'm not going to sugarcoat this. the official state web site where coloradans can shop for health insurance is a mess. sure, the web site looks pretty slick at first glance. it lets you window shop for plans and lets you offer some but not all good information about the health care law, but when you actually create an account and start shopping, the site offers an experience that is clunky, counter intuitive and often confusing. that sounds to me like the obama

administration -- clunky, counter intuitive and often confusing. so that's the web site product being offered to coloradans v.f.w. receiving nearly $179 million -- after receiving nearly $179 million in federal grants to fell the state exchange. this reporter says if you're looking for a passionate argument of the pros and cons of the affordable care act, look elsewhere. as a reporter, i avoid making policy arguments. however, if this is the official system the people of colorado are getting to shop for individual coverage, it says it should be a good one. nine months after it began selling health plans, this web site is not a good one. it should be upsetting to everyone in the state of colorado, especially supporters of the health care law, and i would apply that to anyone from colorado who on this senate floor or in the house of representatives voted for the colorado -- voted for the health care law. said it should be upsetting to everyone in the state,

especially supporters of the health care law. my family obtained a health plan despite the web site. by way of a background, he says i am not remotely antitechnology. he says i grow up in the silicon valley, built my own computers as a kid. once had a job working in tech support for a dot.com company. my point of view is to shine a light on some basic and frustrating problems that any commercial dot-com would be pulling all nighters to fix. that shows you the difference between a commercial dot-com and the government of the united states. he says for some reasons, these issues have been allowed to hang around for the better part of a year by the connect for health colorado. and then today, the denver post, colorado exchange expects more to drop health insurance. giving up, not paying their

premiums, not renewing their coverage. they are expecting double what would initially -- was initially anticipated of the number of people that aren't paying their premiums. they realize that this empty coverage that they are paying a lot of money for isn't actually good for them. they are paying too much in premiums. their deductibles are high. their co-pays are high. i could go on and on, mr. president. the people of america know what they wanted with health care reform. they wanted to be able to get the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs. that's not what they got from president obama's health care law that the democrats in this body voted for. what they got are higher premiums, higher co-pays, higher deductibles. maybe can't keep their doctor, can't keep their hospital. not what the president promised. not what people wanted. and it is time to go back and start over to really work on a health care system that gives the american people what they truly want, truly need and

deserve. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: mr. president, i thank my friends who have been here talking about this. both senator thune and senator barrasso have spent so much time on figuring out ways that this could work better, and obviously, it's not working as well as people hoped it would. i mean, there are a series of headlines i saw on my desk today. cnn money said were obamacare applications accurate? who knows? reuters says obamacare exchange is not properly verifying applicant data. the "new york post" -- obamacare data errors could jeopardize coverage for millions. "the washington times" -- obamacare market foul-up eligibility and verification in applications. "the new york times" -- eligibility for health insurance was not properly checked, audit finds. "the wall street journal" --

report false controls of health exchanges. this is just simply not working. it's not like there wasn't a lot of time to make it work either. it was from -- from early in 2010 until the law was implemented in -- the end of 2013, and just one problem after another, which is a good indication of what happens when the government tries to do more than the government's capable of doing. when the government tries to prescribe all kinds of decisions that would be so much better left to individuals as long as the government's done what it could to ensure a more aggressive, active, competitive marketplace, but that's not what happened here. the associated press this weekend had a headline that read read -- "senate democrats try to pull focus from obamacare." well, of course they would because every democrat who was in the senate when this bill passed voted for the bill. if there is one long-term

political lesson to learn here, mr. president, surely it is that when you do something this big, you should do it in a way that no matter what you have to do to find a way to get people on both sides involved don't do this in a way that shoves it down the throats of the country or your colleagues. more bad news, more broken promises, higher premiums, the anticipation this fall is that premiums, notices of which will go out later this year, are going to go up. they are going to go up in double digits. the promise in 2009 not only that families would pay less money but they would pay $2,500 less money. we were -- somehow, the people who were for this bill in the administration knew so much about health care and so much about the impact of what government having more control of people's health care would do is that not only that the premiums were going to go down, they were going to go down

$2,500 per family. now, most families are finding that the -- there is a $2,500 number, but it's the one you feel lucky if your insurance for your family just went up that much. july 1, health and human services office of inspector general released that report that was the subject of all those headlines i just read. the report that said -- just didn't do enough to verify, haven't checked this closely enough, don't know if people are really eligible for the government assistance they are getting for their insurance or not, said that the administration was unable to put safeguards in place to protect taxpayers and to prevent incorrect subsidy payments from happening. the report also found that the administration didn't even follow its own eligibility verification in many instances. they didn't go through the procedures they had set up for themselves, and in fact

2.9 million verification inconsistencies they were unable to resolve 2.6 million of them. so they wind up with 2.9 million problems that they find out when they find their verification inconsistencies, and 2.6 million of the 2.9 million, hey, we just can't figure this out. we didn't get enough information. we don't know why this system is not working, but it's not. in january of 2014, the secretary of health and human services, secretary sebelius, certified to the congress that the obamacare exchanges could verify that individuals receiving tax credits and cost-sharing assistance were actually eligible to receive taxpayer-provided assistance. now, apparently by july of 2014, six months later, the people that checked to see if that was true or not find out it's not true at all. middle-class americans have enough pain with this law

already without finding out that their tax dollars are going to pay bills of people who don't qualify to have that much of their bill paid or maybe not even any of their bill paid. recently, i spoke on the floor about a contract in missouri and three other states with a british company, serco, about the lack of transparency and accountability in the act. as the "st. louis post dispatch" repeatedly reported, they said -- quote -- "whistle-blower allegations last month that claimed workers slept, read or played games at wentzville -- this is the wentzville facility back to their quotes exactly, played games at wentzville invoked a flurry of questions from missouri's congressional delegations." further quotes in that story -- "we played picksary, we played 20 questions, we played trivial pursuit, one employee told the post dispatch. she estimated that she had

processed six applications the entire month of december. c.m.s. didn't acknowledge these allegations but they said they had adjusted serco's work to accommodate changing operational needs. two months ago, senator alexander and i called these reports into question, and we sent a letter to c.m.s. saying what are you doing there, why is this not working, why would you -- i don't know what we said in the letter, but we could have said why would you contract with a british company that already was in trouble with the british government for not providing these services? these are not particularly technical services. there is only one in the world that can provide services to the united states, but we found the one place in the world where we found a company that was already in trouble with their own government for not providing services and said you're the company for us. we want you to be the ones that provide these services for people who can't apply over the

internet and send in their applications in some other way, and so senator alexander, i said what about these charges that people just simply don't have anything to do, and rather than admit they have nothing to do, you say well, here are library books stacked up on the table, here's the trivial pursuit game. touch your computer every once in a while, refresh your computer at least once every ten minutes so it looks like you're doing something, and two weeks ago, we finally received a reply after two months of having this question out there, and i think i put that reply in the congressional record. it was so much of a nonanswer answer. it was more like we got your letter, we are going to look into this and see if we can figure out what's happening. i don't think it would be that hard to figure out. i recently learned that c.m.s. determined that serco had met the terms and conditions of the contract, which apparently

involved, if you believe these employees, playing board games and reading library books, and c.m.s. decided this british company had done such a great job, they were going to exercise the first option of the contract, and on june 28, they awarded an extended contract to the company through what they said was a full and open competition to provide these services.mr. president, the lese is that the government needs to think long and hard before it gets into the world of making decisions for people that people can better make for themselves. the government doesn't immediate to think long and hard to believe that there is a government responsibility to ensure a certain amount of consumer protection, that what companies say they're going to do, they're required to dot