threaten the existence of israel also want to destroy america. over the years the united states has greatly benefited from the cooperation with israel on missile defense technologies, and we've got to continue that critical partnership. israel is our most faithful ally, our most critical partner in the whole region and acts as a roadblock against terrorism, terrorism that would be hitting the united states of america. the united states stands shoulder to shoulder with israel since his first budget president obama has been degrading our military while also making the world more dangerous through an apologetic and reactive foreign policy of appeasement. i often quote hirea man. no man, those who cried appease, appease, are hanging by those they tried to please. we've got to get out of that

system and stand by israel and hang tough with our best friend. we can't survive without it. i often look back and say that i look back wistfully at the days of the cold war. that was back when they had two superpowers in the world, the ussr and the united states. they knew what they had, we knew their capacities, they had m.a.d., mutual assured groks. that doesn't work anymore. now have you these rogue elements out there that are developing weapons that can wipe out an entire united states city and i'm talking about not just in the middle east but north korea also. so we're looking at the middle east, we're looking at our only way of defending our allies there and of working to stop the capabilities of countries like iran to have a weapon that would

reach the united states of america. so we've got to hang tough with our best friend, israel, and i pray that we do. thank you, madam president. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: madam president, i rise today in honor of a birthday. 49 years ago today, medicare was signed into law. every year, the trustees perform a report about the fiscal health of medicare and social security, and that report was issued earlier this week. so on this birthday, 49th birthday of medicare i want to come and talk about medicare's health. because there's some good news. the 2014 trustees report released earlier this week looks at the trust fund financing for medicare hospital coverage, and indicates that that trust fund under current projections will remain solvent until 2030.

last year, the 2013 report indicated that that solvency period would go to 2026 so in one year the fiscal projection for the health of medicare has improved by four years, solvency until 2030. in addition, the projected part b premiums, the part b portion of medicare which is prescription drug premium program for seniors, for the second year in a row the premiums will not increase one penny, second year in a row. mr. president, this improved health of medicare is significant. the health of it has improved dramatically even in the last year but where the improve really looks significant is if you compare the 2014 report with the 2009 report, the report that was done on medicare's 44th birthday five years ago. the 2009 report said the hospital insurance trust fund was not adequately financed for

the next ten years and it would be exhausted in 2017. so, again, just to compare, 2009, medicare's trustee report , the trust fund will be exhausted by 2017, 2014 medicare trustees report, the trust fund will be solvent all the way through 2030. there's a difference of 13 years of additional solvency in medicare according to the projections and the change just from 2009 to 2014. so, mr. president, i think you know where i'm going with this. what explains the improving solvency of the medicare trust fund? why would it have changed so dramatically from the 2009 to the 2014 project and added 13 years of solvency to the trust fund? well, the congressional budget office and others have indicated that it was not the 2009 recession that was the primary

driver for medicare spending reduction. instead, the c.b.o. and others are indicating that a large part of the improved solvency of medicare is because of the reforms that were included by congress when congress passed the affordable care act in 2010. mr. president, when it comes to reducing costs, bending the cost curve, the affordable care act is working. that's not the only reason that congress passed the affordable care act. coverage is expanding. certain health care indicators are improving. more people have access because they're not denied insurance because of preexisting conditions. kids can stay on family policies, businesses can get tax credits if they're small. but one of the areas -- and that was why the first day the a.c.a. was affordable care act was to try to do things to control health care costs and this medicare trustees report on

medicare's 49th birthday shows on cost reforms the actiona is working. the innovative systems of changing the model from pay for procedure to pay for quality -- for paying for value over volume, improving health care delivery systems are extending the solvency of medicare. not only is this cost containment good for the federal government, for the federal treasury, it's also good for medicare recipients. 8.2 million medicare recipients saved more than $11.5 billion on prescription drugs thanks to closing the medicare part d doughnut hole. and in virginia people with medicare saved $254.4 million on prescription drugs because the medicare part d doughnut hole was closed u.s.s. just since the a.c.a. was enacted. in 2013 alone, 37.2 million

medicare recipients received free preventive benefits, including more than 900,000 in virginia, because of the affordable care act. now, mr. president, the work obviously needs to continue to bend the cost curve the right way but the trustees report from monday is not the only evidence of the improving health of our fiscal expenditures. just this month c.b.o. again revised downward its ten-year estimate for spending on medicare and our nation's major health programs. since 2010, c.b.o. has lowered its estimates for medicare and medicaid and other health programs by $1.23 trillion, lowered projections of health care spending due -- since the affordable care act was passed. c.b.o. said in a recently issued long-term budget outlook that the government will spend 1.6% of g.d.p. less on health programs than estimated in 2010 before the a.c.a. was passed. a report released this week by

the office of the assistant secretary of planning and evaluation at h.h.s. reported no growth in medicare expenditures on a per capita basis last year and that report also said that medicare spending between 2009 and 2012 for beneficiaries in the transitional program were approximately $116 billion lower than it would have been if the average growth rates from years 2004 to 2008 had just been projected forward. so there are many reasons why we should be thankful that the affordable care act passed, that we should be absolutely committed to maintaining it, and that we should also be committed to improving it wherever we can, but as we celebrate the 49th anniversary of medicare today, one of the reasons we should be thankful is it is clear that the a.c.a. is helping us make health care more affordable. now, mr. president, i'll just conclude, the report that was issued this week was not all good news because it also had

some challenges with respect to social security. the social security trust fund will be exhausted in -- exhausted in 2033 and that is no change from last year. the solve vacancy of the trust fund was not changed at all in the interim year but in the area of social security disability income that insurance program at current projections will be depleted by 2016. secretary lew indicated this week that measures need to be taken to make sure that that program, which is of critical importance to millions of americans who are on disability, we've got to take action to fix that program so that they can count on it. so what we see is when congress and the affordable care act, it acted in a smart way to deal with medicare, we have improved the area of medicare costs and we're saving money, congress has not acted with respect to social security and the social security disability insurance

program which is critical to folks with disabilities is going to need some quick fix. so, mr. president, i conclude and just say it's good for congress to act. we can filibuster, we can debate, we can, you know, consider nominations. we can do a bill in one house and send it over and wait like immigration reform for a year plus for the other house to do something about it. none of that is action. none of that will fix any of the challenges that face us. but when we do act and we're willing to tackle tough problems like medicare cost growth and do it in both houses and take a risk, we will find that we'll be better off than if we don't act. social security needs to have the same kind of focused and careful attention to it, especially the disability insurance program, as we paid to medicare in 2010. medicare is one of the best programs that this nation has ever embraced. i want to wish it happy 49th birthday today, and congratulate those who are here

in the senate in 2010 for being willing to risk action and thereby finding a way to save costs and make medicare work better. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i rise to speak on the urgent supplemental bill and i rise as the chair of the full committee on appropriations that is actually trying to move the urgent supplemental. supplemental is an important word. it means it's in addition to fiscal years 2014 funding. there are elements we had to make a request for an urgent supplemental because of unexpected emergencies, either within our own country or affecting a treasured ally like the state of israel, or really the crisis at our border because

of what's going on in central america. remember, it's the crisis in central america that is creating the humanitarian surge at our border. i rise now, though, to speak about one element. i've spoken about the fires in our western states. later on today i will speak about the children, and actually try to paint a picture for people on what's going on in honduras, el salvador and other countries that are also affected. but right now i want to speak also about israel. mr. president, israel is under attack, and it's under attack by a terrorist group that denies its very right to exist. and it's under attack by an organization called hamas that is sending thousands of rockets toward israeli cities and

towns, targeting innocent civilians. it's very -- its very survivability is being defended by missile defense technology. the most crucial for short-range missiles is a technology called iron dome. this missile defense technology has saved hundreds of lives. i can speak to this when i say personally, not because i'm in israel, and see the horrific attacks, but i have a classmate from college, a very dear friend, we've stayed in contact over a number of years. she is a psychiatric nurse, she -- when she married, they he they moved to israel, her husband a distinguished psychiatrist. they live in a town called ashkalon. sunday she sent me the most poignant of emails. won't read it to my colleagues

but suffice it to say she wanted to tell us what's going on. every day there are these rockets going off. they spend their life going to shelters. they can only move in a small patch around because they can only -- they have to be under really safety rules within two or three minutes from a shelter. she said in her email to me that it is literally iron dome that is saving their lives. well, mr. president, iron dome is a technology that needs to be replenished. it needs to be replenished and the state of israel has discussed this with our government, and secretary chuck hagel wrote to our committee asking that this be in the supplemental because essentially this war or terrorist attack against israel. the committee has responded by

placing $225 million in there in order to replenish this. now, there are many who say, well, i don't know if i want to vote for this, what is iron dome, and is this an attack technology? let me say what iron dome is. iron dome is a high-tech defensive system. it's not an offensive system. it's used as a missile defense system. how does it work? approximately ten-feet-long missiles are intercept rockets. their rockets aren't designed to shoot out. they are designed to be rockets shooting at rockets that are being fired on israel from a range of between 2.5 and 43 miles. each missile, each missile, each interceptor missile -- remember, it intercepts another rocket --

costs about $50,000. stunning, isn't it? israel has invested over a billion dollars of its own money in iron dome. our government has worked with them to develop iron dome so they can maintain their qualitative edge, but just think -- in order to protect themselves, every rocket going off cost $50,000. as of july 30, over 2,730 rocket launches have been directed at israel itself. iron dome has sent over 515 interceptions, nine batteries have been deployed. more than 4,100 targets were attacked since the beginning of the operation. but remember, 2,700 rockets have been directed at israel. iron dome has deployed 515 at

the cost of $50,000 apiece. now what they're saying is help us replenish our interceptor rockets because we're using them up. essentially, it's bullets not directed at people. it's rockets in the air. israel knows that it has a 90% success rate in intercepting these rockets coming from the gaza. what they're asking for help from us is the ability to replenish these rockets. i hope that we do this in order for them to continue to be able to defend themselves. it's absolutely crucial that israel has the opportunity to defend itself while others are working on sphirs or political solutions. those are excellent, diplomatic

or humanitarian goals, but right now we have to make sure that israel can defend itself. this is important because israel is a treasured ally. it's important that we enable them to guard themselves against a terrorist organization. we all know that the long-range solution is that the hamas infrastructure must be eliminated. that's absolutely so. the so-called -- well, they are not so-called. you know, as a member of the intelligence committee, i have had many briefings on this. i can't go in detail, but there are tunnels that go right gaza and into the edge or actually in some instances into israel itself. during these -- during this conflict, israel has discovered 31 tunnels, extremely

disturbing. they can show -- and they are big. these aren't like -- you know, when you think of a tunnel, this isn't like a little pipe, you know, for water. this is a tunnel where as many as two people could cross themselves side by side going through, and in some instances actually weapons being able to be carried through. these tunnels are the very threat to israel's existence, and in addition to the tunnels, the rockets that are pummeling israel continue to be fired every single day. we believe that for our allies, the right to self-defense. we have signed memorandums of agreement to enable them with their missile defense system and to maintain their qualitative edge. now when they are in the very struggle for its safety and perhaps its future, we need to be able to pass this important

legislation. we also know that when we pass this legislation, iron dome shouldn't stand alone, and the people, many people who support the iron dome legislation like i want to also support those people who are also under threat. and, mr. president, that takes me to the children, because right now the children in central america are under threat. and what are they under threat? well, i'll talk more about that around 5:00. but what are they under threat? well, they are under threat because of the narcodrug dealers that have created the most vicious, violent gangs that then have now almost taken over these -- some of these central american countries. that they want to be able to recruit the young men to be part

of the gang, part of the drug trade, part of the couriers, part of what is involved in doing a drug trade. and then when they refuse, they either threaten them with death where the most grisly and ghoulish of torture. there are reported incidents, not in our classified briefing. in public media of children being tortured to death because they refused to join a gang. they literally were fighting for their lives. now, these children that are coming to our border are fighting for their lives, and the way they fight for their life is to flee. they are fleeing the violence. now, i know people are dismissive of some of this, and they say oh, there you go, you're a soft-hearted social worker, you're a liberal, you

love children. the answer is yes, yes to all that. yes, you bet you, i claim it, i own it, that's who i am. but i don't do that because of some gushypoo feeling here. i'm doing this because of the actual documented violence in these countries, and i believe we need to respond to the needs of the children, let them tell their case not only to a social worker, which is a good step in my mind, but also to an immigration judge, and using the law of our country, the legal criteria for asylum and refugee status. let's listen to the stories of the children, and if those children qualify for asylum or refugee status, then they should remain in this country. if they don't, there are other avenues for them to return home,

but for gosh sakes, could we stop punishing the children for the crimes of the drug dealers and the human traffickers? don't punish the children. there are those who want to further militarize our border by calling out the national guard. well, what are they going to do when the children present themselves with little slips of paper, saying what their name and their hometown is and where their aunt is living in langley park, maryland. that's not the job of the national guard. and if you want to use guns at the border, yes, don't use them about the children. use them about the drug dealers. and by the way, it is our insatiable, vociferous desire, appetite for drugs that has fueled this whole economy in these countries.

so, mr. president, i'm going to say more about this but i do want to say that what is in this supplemental is the tools for people to defend themselves. for our friends in the western states, this is money to protect themselves against firefighters, and gosh knows local communities need that help. it's for a great nation like israel, our treasured ally, to continue to have the interceptor rockets to be able to defend itself and defend itself it should, and it's also money here that we take a look at the border, we honor our law in terms of determining refugee status for those fleeing from violence in a home country, and then we go after what is creating the violence which is right there in central america against the narcotraffickers. because remember, mr. president, because you're very knowledgeable in this. if you're willing to trade in

drugs, you're also willing to view everything like a commodity. so they view drugs as a commodity and they view women and children, girls and boys as a commodity, and they are then moved into human trafficking and the most vile, repugnant sexual trafficking. we need to get some of our darker appetites under control, and we need to be able to fight -- if you want to fight with guns, join with central america and fight against the narcotraffickers. mr. president, i hope this clarifies the intellectual underpinnings of this bill, the compelling financial necessity and the humanitarian issues that are facing people in our own country, at our own border and with a treasured ally. mr. president, i yield the floor.

ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: i ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: i ask unanimous consent that josh what wolf, a fellow with the senate health, education and pensions committee be granted floor privileges for the remainder of today's session and ally boyson also be granted

floor privileges for today's session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: mr. president, i come before the senate today to call again for the ratification of the united nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. now, again, a little history. as you know, we passed the americans with disabilities act here in 1990. it was signed into law by president george herbert walker bush 24 years ago last saturday. of course that changed the face of america. anywhere walk you see ramps and curb cuts and automatic door openers and accessible bathrooms and education, kids integrated into schools under the idea and the a.d.a. it did change accessibility and also opportunity in the

workplace, for example, for people with disabilities. some years after the americans with disabilities act was passed, the united nations set up a committee to to study whether or not there should be a treaty, an international convention on the rights of people with disabilities. that committee drafted it after consultation with us here in the senate and looking at the a.d.a., in fact i was told by one of the persons instrumental instrumental in this the a. a.b.d.a. really formed the basis, the americans with disabilities act, i refer to it as a.d.a. -- it informed them on what they needed to put into the convention. that convention was sent out to member states for ratification in 2008. since that time 148 nations have ratified it. with one exception. well, there's between more than one exception but one glaring exception, that's the united states. now, it was sent down here

after it was sent to the president under our constitutional system, this treaty was sent to the president, the president sent it out to all of his departments to find out what laws we had that needed to be changed so it goes to the department of commerce, the department of state, department of agriculture perhaps and everything else to see what laws do we have to change to comply with this treaty. well, it came back after about a year of this and because the americans with disabilities act was so good, we don't have to change any of our laws. none. because we're if the best in the world on it. and it was send to o.m.b. to see if there would be any -- any budget implications. and o.m.b. said no, no budget implications, either. after that then the president sent it to the senate for ratification under our

constitution. it was sent to the committee on foreign relations, john kerry was then the chairman of that, senator kerry from massachusetts. they had hearings, in fact, the two first witnesses at the hearings were senator john mccain and myself. and me. and then there was a lot of other people that testified both republicans and democrats, business leaders, disability rights advocates and others. this was in 2011, and then in 2012 it was brought to the floor in december of 2012. and that was a lame-duck session. it turned out that 38 senators, all on the republican side, had signed a letter saying that we should not vote on a treaty in a lame-duck session. there were some other issues raised but that was a big one. and so we brought it up for a vote and as you know in the constitution a treaty requires

two-thirds vote of those present and voting. and so we fell five votes short. well, that congress ended, and so the treaty has to be resubmitted again from the administration to the senate, went through another hearing process, i know i had spoken with the ranking member on the foreign relations committee as to what we could do to advance it, and he wanted more hearings so we did. so senator menendez from new jersey is now the chair of the foreign relations committee, and so he had hearings, more hearings on it. and thanks to the leadership of senator menendez, the bill was reported out of the committee last week, it was put on the executive calendar yesterday. there has to be three days before they can send it, they send it to the floor on monday, 24-hour layover, it is now on

on the executive calendar ready to be brought up. i understand that we have a busy week this week, and a lot of things happening, i suppose people looking around and saying not much happening here today. but we're in, what, postcloture, and under the rules there's 30 hours of postcloture unless time is yielded back. and evidently i don't know if that's going to happen or not. i'm hopeful that sometime today or late today maybe or tomorrow that we will have a unanimous consent request in terms of bringing up this athletey, this -- this treaty, the convention on the rights of people with disabilities. that's what i wanted to talk about today but i wanted to give a history of where we are and why we're at this point. during the past weeks we've seen extraordinary efforts to move forward with this treaty. senator menendez, the chair of the foreign relations committee has marked up the treaty, brought it out with a 12-6

bipartisan vote. the committee added new reservations, understandings and * and declarations that thoughtfully addressed the concerns that have been raised including the matter of a parent's right to side decide how their children are schooled schooled, as well as issues related to federalism and sovereignty. this week we're hearing from disability advocates across the country. yesterday afternoon there was a rally on the mall calling for passage of the treaty. many of our orders have been flooded by calls and visits from people with disabilities, veterans' groups, business leaders asking us to vote and pass this treaty. businesses such as wal-mart, at&t, sprint, coca-cola, have urged passenger of this -- passage of this treaty. in the days ahead we'll hear from many, many more calling for its passage. let me talk about a few of the issues that have been raised and let me first talk about the

issue of sovereignty. some of our colleagues continue to express concern about some aspects, particularly with regard to sovereignty and reproductive health. let me talk about sovereignty first. but i want to say this first of all. it's important to address these issues thoughtfully and respectfully. the senate foreign relations committee in a bipartisan fashion did so last week when it approved a series of new reservations, understandings and declarations. for those who don't know what that means, every treaty we adopt has what's called ruds, reservations, understandings and declarations. what are those? those inform other treaty nations on how we will adopt this treaty, how understand our laws and constitution we will exhort with that treat -- come

forth with -- comport with that treat writei. just about every treaty has some reservation or declaration. that's what they are. the foreign relations committee adopted a new reservations, understandings and declarations. but reservations remain. my good friend from utah talked about the possible loss of u.s. sovereignty. and answering my question as to why this convention is different from the convention on the worst forms of child labor treaty, he expressed his fear that the disabilities convention would -- and i quote -- "threaten american sovereignty and self-government" -- end quote. now let me just tell you the senator from utah stated that the child labor convention which we passed here in 1999, that's what we're talking about. it's the convention on the worst forms of child labor.

we adopted it here in 1999. and so the senator from utah said that that convention gives authority to ratifying countries to determine whether they are in compliance with the convention while under the disabilities convention that we're talking about now, the crpd as it's known, he says that that, under that the u.n. determines whether ratifying countries are in compliance with their treaty obligations. here on the floor my friend from utah stated that -- quote -- "the disability treaty gives the last word on whether this nation is in compliance to the u.n. the child labor treaty leaves that entirely up to each nation" -- end quote. well, the fact is, mr. president, that the review process of compliance is

essentially identical in both the worst forms of child labor treaty that we adopted in 1999 and the crpd that we're discussing right now. now, let me further explain that. when an ilo member, the international labor organization under which that treaty was signed, when an i.l.o. member state ratifies this convention, it's required to submit regular reports. those reports are reviewed by the i.l.o.'s independent committee of experts. keep that phrase in mind, committee of experts. it's reviewed by them on the application of conventions and recommendations, and they're known as the committee on experts. the committee of experts, i should say. the task of the committee of

experts is to assess the extent to which the ratifying members' legislation and practice are in conformity with the ratified treaty. this is an external review committee, and the united states has always supported this type of review. the process guarantees fairness and openness in implementation of treaty obligations. now, while it's been suggested that the united states should conduct its own compliance with treaty obligations, i ask my colleagues, would we be comfortable with all countries assessing their own compliance with important international standards? i don't think so. for example, just take any treaty. take the start treaty.

the arms control reduction treaty. would we be content to say okay, russia, you tell us how you're in compliance with that and just accept their word for it. we wouldn't do that. we wouldn't do that with any country with which we have a treaty. that's why there's always an external review process. an -- an external review to see whether country a, b, c or d who have signed onto a treaty, in fact any treaty, is in fact in compliance with it. so you wouldn't make treaties and say okay, country x, you tell us whether or not you're in compliance or not and we'll just accept that. no one would do that. it goes back to ronald reagan's phrase trust but verify. yeah, we'll trust but we want verification. so in the situation with the worst forms of child labor, the one that we adopted here in 1999, the conclusions and recommendations of this

committee of experts on an external review, and it's the same in the crpd, the same word. the conventional rights of people with disabilities sets up a -- quote -- committee of experts, just like under the worst forms of child labor, a committee of experts. to review whether or not a country is in compliance, basically. are they really implementing the treaty as -- as they said, as they said in the treaty? now, again, so we have both -- we have these two committees of experts, one in the crpd, one in the -- the convention on the worst forms of child labor. that treaty again as we adopted here unanimously in 1999. the senator from utah supported that. now, the recommendations and conclusions of that committee of experts under the worst forms of

child labor that was set up in 1999 are not legally binding on the united states or any other country. although these recommendations often have great moral weight and persuasive value, the findings cannot be imposed on any government. it is up to each ratifying member to determine whether and to what extent it will act upon those recommendations. that's the same as the convention on the rights of people with disabilities. this people of experts will certainly go in and do external reviews of whether a country is in compliance or working to be in compliance. they may issue findings and conclusions and recommendations, but they are not binding on any country. they are not binding on the united states.

let me repeat. it is up to each ratifying member to determine whether and to what extent it will act upon those recommendations. a review of practices is common whenever a nation undertakes an international obligation, whether it's by treaty or any other international agreement. now, this does not equate to forfeiture by the american people of our right to govern or of our sovereignty. it does not amount to any abandonment of our cultural and social values in america. so, mr. president, in terms of this external review of compliance, there is no substantive difference between the child labor convention we passed in 1999 and the u.n. disabilities convention that we hope to bring up. both treaties have much the same reporting requirements, oversight mechanisms,

recommendation process and -- quote -- committee of experts, and just as in 1999, with that earlier treaty, the united states is in no danger of losing any of its sovereignty with the disability treaty. none whatsoever. we weren't before, and we aren't now. these are recommendations. and why should we be afraid of an external review by a committee of experts to see whether or not we are in compliance with this treaty on the rights of people with disabilities. it was models after the americans with disabilities act, for crying out loud. we were already in compliance. we're far ahead, quite frankly, of any other country. why should we be afraid of any review of our laws and practices in terms of people with

disabilities. they shouldn't be. we ought to be proud of it. in fact, we ought to be proud of exporting the americans with disabilities act. so given these facts, i ask my colleagues why is it acceptable, why is it acceptable to have sufficient reservations to protect our sovereignty for a treaty about the worst forms of child labor and a treaty on torture and a treaty on degrading punishment and not be able to have sufficient reservations that protect our sovereignty when it comes to a treaty regarding people with disabilities? what's the difference? from my review of this issue and the review of legal experts, there is no substantive difference to the threat of our sovereignty, and as i have stated previously here, scores of republican policymakers agree with us, agree with me.

you are concerned about soferrity. some of my fellow republicans are concerned about losing their sovereignty under this treaty. i would point out that former president george herbert walker bush who signed the americans with disabilities act is in strong support of this treaty. are you telling me he doesn't care about our sovereignty? i don't think so. former president bush, a strong supporter of this. i kind of think he cares about our sovereignty. every former republican leader of this senate since the americans with disabilities act was passed -- i'm talking about senator dole, senator lott and senator frist -- are all supporters of this treaty. i kind of think they care about our sovereignty a lot, too. i know every one of them. dick thornburgh, former attorney general under george herbert walker bush, attorney general of

the united states, is in strong support of this treaty. don't tell me he doesn't know what's in the treaty. he knows every legal part of it. and he cares deeply about our sovereignty, and he says this is no threat to our sovereignty whatsoever. the american legion, big supporter of this. are you telling me the american legion commander and all those veterans aren't concerned about our sovereignty? you bet they are. but they know this bill, they have read the treaty and they say it doesn't affect our sovereignty. every veterans' group supports this bill, and they do care about our sovereignty. so i hope that we can lay that issue aside. this does not impinge and does not threaten our sovereignty any more than other treaties, and we have a reservation in there. every treaty that we signed has a reservation in there that says basically this treaty shall be applied in the united states in

accordance with the constitution as interpresented by the united states -- as interpreted by the united states. basically every treaty we sign says basically we're sovereign, our constitution is sovereign. there was a court case called the bond case which was recently decided, i think, in may, the supreme court. a lot of people are wondering whether or not that would affect the -- this treaty because it was a case brought by the united states, i guess a woman, for violating the chemical weapons ban treaty because she had been trying to poison one of her husband's lovers or something like that. the supreme court said it was nonsense, get out of here. those laws are covered by the state of pennsylvania. not by a treaty. so that kind of put to rest any idea that somehow this treaty overrode our constitution, our federalism and the fact that these criminal laws are state

laws. that just happened in may. the other issue that has come up is reproductive health. some of our colleagues have also voiced concern regarding the provision on sexual and reproductive health of women with disabilities as it was mentioned in article 25 of the treaty. now, for those not familiar with this provision, the treaty says simply that -- quote -- persons with disabilities have the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health without discrimination on the basis of disability. the article goes further and says that those countries ratifying the treaty shall, and i quote, provide persons with disabilities with the same range, quality and standard of free or affordable health care and programs as provided to other persons, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health.

end quote. critics of the treaty say this phrase creates and expands rights to abortion. this is not correct. this phrase has nothing to do with abortion. what it is is about equality, equality and access. historically, people with disabilities have been disproportionately discriminated against when it comes to health care, especially women with disabilities around the world. because they are blind or have cerebral palsy or autism or any number of physical or mental i am pairments. they were often viewed as not being able to be mothers or wives or partners in a family. in fact, because of this prejudiced attitude, which still exists in so many places of the world, and probably some places here in america, too, women with

disabilities were and in many cases still are denied, denied such a vital service as pap smears, gynecological exams, breast cancer screenings, cervical cancer screenings simply because they are disabled. denying women with disabilities the same health prevention, screening and intervention services that are provided to women without disabilities is blatant discrimination, prejudice additional, unethical. the entire purpose of article 25 of the u.n. convention is to address this prejudiced view of the world that has led to thousands of unnecessary deaths of women because they have not been afforded the same access to reproductive health care as women without disabilities. that's why that was put in there. it has nothing to do with abortion. it simply says article 25 simply

reflects the underlying principles of the treaty, equality and access for all. these same principles are the bedrock of our own americans with disabilities act. it has nothing to do with abortion, but some people have whipped it up and said it does. i want to point out. in some countries, women with -- women with disabilities have been the most preyed upon, most preyed upon. it's women with disabilities, physical, intellectual disabilities who are the subject of maltreatment, mistreatment, sexual abuse. all we're saying is they have got to be treated the same as any other woman without a disability under the laws of that country, so if a country

banned all abortions, that's their -- that's their right to do so. they cannot then say oh, except, except you can have abortion if your unborn child is disabled. you can't do that. you can't -- you can't make exceptions. or if they provide any kind of services, they can't say to one woman because you're not disabled, you get this service, but if you're disabled, you don't get it. no, no. equality of access. i want to point out that 71 countries, 71 countries that have absolute prohibitions or significant restrictions on abortion have signed the treaty without reservations about reproductive health. imagine that. 71. they felt that no harm would come for a reservation because they correctly determined that the treaty is no threat whatsoever to their sovereignty and their national laws limiting

access to abortion. for poland, a country with strict abortion limitations. they weren't going to sign this treaty. they were concerned about article 25. but let me read you the exact language of the reservation put in by the nation of poland. quote -- "the republic of poland understands that article 23.1-b and article 25-a shall not be interpreted in a way conferring an individual right to abortion or mandating state party to provide access thereto unless that right is guaranteed by the national law." end quote. well, when they adopted that reservation, poland signed onto the treaty. poland's reservation states exactly what this treaty is about. they guarantee that women with disabilities will have access to

the same health care services guaranteed to all other citizens by their national law. to say that the treaty is about creating and expanding abortion rights is just plain wrong. and to make such a claim is utterly unfounded and unfair. it's unfair to women with disabilities around the globe. it's creating a false claim out of thin air with no other purpose than to prevent ratification of this important treaty. mr. president, most of the concerns raised by my colleagues are serious concerns. they are also concerns that can be addressed by thoughtful reservations, understandings and declarations to the treaty. indeed they have already been addressed by the senate foreign relations committee. they've acted. now it's time for the full senate to act. let us bring the treaty to the floor of the senate. listen to senators' concerns, address those concerns and then vote on the treaty. we owe this to millions of americans with disabilities, our veterans, and others who want

the same rights and access afforded by our own americans with disabilities act. they want it to apply to the globe. we owe this to our veterans who want to be able to travel and pursue opportunities in other countries knowing that they can enjoy the same rights and access that they have here in america. senator mark kirk from illinois said it very eloquently at a press conference we had with the veterans groups last week. he said our veterans fought for freedom around the globe. they ought to be able to move freely around the globe. we owe this to the u.s. chamber of commerce, the business round table, countless companies who know not only this is the right thing to do, it's the right thing to do for business. there's all kinds of markets opening all around the world where people with disabilities -- software, new software, new kinds of equipment, new devices that are helping people with disabilities live more full and meaningful lives. one of that was developed here

in america. i know our businesses would like to be involved with this treaty to be able to be involved in raising the level of accessibility and opportunity for people with disabilities around the globe. scores of religious groups want to see this treaty ratified. in closing, mr. president, it's time to bring this to the floor. as i say, i know members have serious concerns about this, and they should be addressed. i believe the foreign relations committee has addressed them. if not, then let's have a discussion about how we meet those reservations. we shouldn't just say that i don't like the u.n., so, therefore we shouldn't adopt it. i think some people maybe don't like the u.n. okay, fine. i remember when we passed the convention on the worst forms of

child labor. i was in geneva with president clinton when he signed it. came back here, he submitted it to the senate. i went to see senator helms, senator jesse helms to ask him to move this. there was probably no one in my 30 years of history in the senate that disliked the united nations more than jesse helms from north carolina. so he went on to tell me just how bad the united nations was and everything, but he would bring the treaty to the committee and have hearings and markup. he called me as the first witness. i always appreciated that. and so, senator helms, chairman of the committee, republicans were in charge of the senate at the time, brought the convention to the treaty, reported it out. i remember him saying one time, well, he said he didn't like the united nations, didn't care for the united nations. but if this makes them do something good for a change, he'd be all right with it.

and it passed the floor unanimously. well, i ask those who maybe don't like the united nations, fine, that's your right. perhaps you have good and sufficient reasons not to like the united nations. i have some problems with the united nations myself at certain times on some of the things they do or don't do. but i see this in the same light as the convention on the worst forms of child labor. if this makes countries change and do things for the better through persuasion, not through mandate. no country has to change their laws because what the committee on experts say. but through moral weight, through persuasion, through working with other countries under this umbrella of a convention on the rights of people with disabilities, if this causes countries to change their policies and make life better for people with disabilities around the globe, shouldn't we do it, even though

we may not like the united nations? does this make something do something good for a change, we ought to be for it. i hope my colleagues will listen to the veterans groups who are all for it. all the business groups i'm familiar with support it strongly. the religious groups, disability groups are united behind this. listen to our former republican leaders, former president george herbert walker bush, president bush, former senator bob dole, majority leader of the senate, worked his heart out on this. he cares about our sovereignty. he knows this is not going to take away our sovereignty. every former leader of the senate, republican leader. senator john mccain. tell me senator john mccain doesn't care about our sovereignty? i happen to think he cares a lot about our sovereignty. he gave a lot of his life protecting our sovereignty. mark kirk, senator kelly eye

up-or-down -- ayotte, nor -- senator barrasso, all stronger supporters of this. i've been a supporter of disability rights since i got here in 1975 in the house. everything i worked on, education of all handicapped children's act, the television decoder circuitry act, the rehab act, rehabilitation act, americans with disabilities act, the a.d.a. act amendments, later on in 2008. these were all nonpartisan. they didn't devolve into any kind of partisan issue. now that doesn't mean everybody voted for it. they passed overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly with both republican and democratic support. that ought to be the case with this too.

yes, we should address the legitimate, honest concerns that people have about home schooling and abortion and sovereignty. i believe we can do that with reservations, but i want every senator to know that nothing that this committee on experts will ever do under the crpd takes precedence over our constitution or over our laws. it does nothing to take away our sovereignty. and we can spell that out just as we have in every other treaty that we have signed in the past. so, mr. president, i hope that we can bring this to the floor and have a discussion. i hope we can work these out to have a strong support and vote to pass this treaty and help change the face of the globe as we've changed the face of america for people with disabilities. i yield the floor.

mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: if i might reclaim a little bit, i'd like to correct or add something. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: pardon? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: thank you. i see the senator from wyoming is on the floor and i listened to l all the people who supported it and one of the

strongest supporters of this treaty from the beginning has been senator john barrasso. i inadvertently, i don't know why, left him out of it. but sigh him here and -- i see him here and he has been such a strong advocate for people with disabilities in the country and a strong advocate being a leader in the world for people with disabilities. i personally want to and publicly thank senator barrasso for his great leadership on this issue. mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: i thank my colleague from iowa. i do this as a physician who has taken care of patients in wyoming for a quarter of a century. so many friends, so many folks who have extra challenges in life, and i was happy to stand with senator dole and senator mccain and others in this effort. so i thank my colleague for his comments. but as a physician, i come to the floor today, mr. president, as i have week after week since

the president's health care law was passed because i have many concerns about the way this health care law is impacting families in my home state of wyoming as well as across the country. people who find out that their rates are going up, they're paying hire deductibles, higher co-pays, higher premiums. they feel that government is in control. washington is in control rather than them, when washington decides if the policy insurance that they have had that worked for them is something that they would be able to keep. and many times they weren't because the president's law said, no, it wasn't good enough for you even though the families in wyoming i think are better able to make decisions about what's better and more important for them. when the president tells them they need to buy insurance that they don't want or need or can afford, in many ways, with a long list of things that washington mandates that be included. and i hear every week, as i did last weekend in wyoming, from

folks who have had hours cut, lower take-home pay because of the impact of part of the law that resulted in bipartisan opposition that says that the workweek is 30 hours, so people who are working part time have had their hours cut to below 30 hours and lower take-home pay. i talked to e.r. doctors at home and around the country where i've trained and where i've gone to medical school and the "wall street journal" even wrote about it last month, "e.r. visits rise despite the law. health act isn't cutting volume." front page -- or the lead paragraph, "early evidence suggests that emergency rooms have become busier since the affordable care act expanded insurance coverage this year despite the law's goal of reducing unnecessary care in emergency rooms." it says "democrats who designed that law hoped it would do the oppose." hasn't been the case. i heard last weekend in wyoming

the story about all these fake applicants, fake applications that actually, i guess the government accountability office said let's see how well this works. is the obama health care law working? so they made up ten fake applications, sent them in, and they found out that actually for a dozen fictitious applicants online or by phone using invalid or missing social security numbers -- and this is in "the washington post" writing about -- this isn't "the washington post" writing about this but it made the stories across the country. invalid or missing social security numbers, inaccurate citizenship information. all but one of the fake applicants ended up getting subsidized coverage. so here we are, a health care law that is supposed to provide a number of things, including integrity, and we find out that when the government accountability office says let me put in a number of of applications and see what

happens, it's not working. the administration set up the health insurance marketplace in ways, we're hearing from the government accountability act, that leave it vulnerable to fraud and waste of taxpayer money. i mean, that's what we're dealing with with this health care law. so i come to the floor today, and i know that many senators are preparing to head home. they'll be traveling around their home states in the month of august, and i expect that every senator who goes home will hear from people in their state about very damaging side effects that so many people across america are feeling from the president's health care law. so i hear it every weekend. but i hear it when i travel as well, as chairman of the republican policy committee, one of my responsibilities is to study how policies that come out of washington, like the president's health care law, how it affects people all across america, and that's what i try to look at. in looking around the country, here's what i found in louisiana.

last month the shreveport times in louisiana had an op-ed written by a doctor, regina fatener. the headline in the shreveport times was "washington ties doctors' hands." not the doctor, not the hospital, not the patients. washington ties doctors' hands. the doctor who wrote this op-ed says she's practiced pediatric medicine in shreveport since the early 1990's. we need pediatricians, we need people to take care of children, we need primary health physicians. there is a gross shortage of nurses, of physicians, additional health care personnel. she says that health care was and is impossible to navigate because it is wrapped in layers of red tape and government regulations. this doctor knows that america's health care system needed reform. we needed to do something. that's what republicans here in the senate have been saying too. need to do something.

the american people wanted reform. it gave them access, access to high-quality affordable care. it is not what people got. as this doctor writes in the shreveport times, obamacare only adds to the mess. she said, this pediatrician takes care of lots of children. she said patients and health care providers suffer for it. government doesn't suffer. senate democrats who voted for it don't u.s. patients and health care providers are suffering. she puts patients first, which is what doctors do. the president's health care law has added tens of thousands of pages of red tape and washington mandates, thousands of pages of red tape and mandates. the scr say doctor says this one-size-fits-all approach limits options for patients. she is seen forker self in louisiana how washington is standing between her and her patients. nothing should be between a patient and that person's doctor.

nothing, not a government bureaucrat, not an insurance company bureaucrat, no one. the doctor-patient relationship is one that is sacred. well, this doctor's experience is typical of what i'm hearing and what we're hearing from all across the country from doctors. every democrat in the senate voted to pass this terrible health care law. president obama says democrats who voted for the health care law should he said, "forcefully defend and be proud of the law." is the president proud that patients and health care providers like this pediatrician are suffering because of his health care law and all of its dangerous side effects? where are the democrats ready to forcefully defend between standing between patients and their doctors? democrats in washington were so eager to pass the president's health care law that they made a lot of promises and they just were not true. they said people could keep their insurance.

that wasn't true. it seems like 5 million people received letters saying that their insurance had been canceled in spite of what the president had promised them. people in wyoming, people in louisiana, people all across the country lost the insurance that they had because it didn't include all the unnecessary coverage that the president's health care law mandated. democrats said people could keep their doctor. that wasn't true. people in wyoming, louisiana, all across america lost their doctor because the new, narrow provider networks made people lose the doctor that they had worked with, who had treated them, treated members of the family, who they knew and trusted. the president said the american people would save $2,500 per year per family on insurance premiums. democrats in the senate who voted for the law promised the same thing. i remember them standing here. i can see one after another saying that. it wasn't true. people all across america are

paying more than ever because of the health care law. well, people in louisiana specifically where this pediatrician lives and works and takes care of patients, they are paying a lot more. there's an article from the associated press in lake charles, louisiana, last thursday. "health insurance price increases could top 10% for thousands in louisiana." that was the headline, front page above the fold. according to the article, blue cross -- that's the largest health insurer in louisiana -- is planning to raise rates by more than 18% next year. is president obama ready to forcefully defend these premium increases because of the law? he's the one who said that premiums are going to go down. the americans see what's happened. the president said they're not going to go up as fast. he said they're going to go down $2,500 per year per family. so we're seeing large increases all across the country. are the democrats in the senate

proud that families in louisiana are getting hit with another 18% premium increase in some locations? higher premiums, higher co-pays, higher deductibles -- all to pay for coverage that people don't want, don't need, can't afford, but were mandated to have. people in louisiana were already paying more because of the president's health care law. a recent study found that health insurance premiums forage average 27-year-old man in louisiana are over 100 per higher this year than last year. double -- double this year from last year. that's before they were forced into the obamacare exchange. premiums for an average 64-year-old woman, $2,000 more this year than they were last year. mr. president, these are very expensive side effects for families in louisiana as a result of the president's health care law. well, what does the president have to say about these outrageous rate hikes that he caused, that he caused because

of his health care law, what does he have to say to the people suffering from the costly side effects of the health care law? well, the president went to kansas stirk city, missouri, tht couple of days. i think when he travels outside of washington, the president should actually meet with doctors who live in those communities, doctors like this woman, this pediatrician who practices in louisiana. he should sit down with the women whose children are patients of doctors like this one, talk to the parents of these children about what the impact of his health care law has been on them. the president should hear directly -- directly from these people about the devastating side effects of his health care law and how it's hurting them and hurting their families. every democrat in the senate voted for this health care law. every one. where are the democrats willing to forcefully defend the side

effects of their health care law? democrats don't want to defend this health care law and awful its devastating side effects. republicans are going too keep talking about this law. we're going to keep standing up for the american families that are being hurt by this law. we're going to continue to come to the floor to talk about stories that we hear from back home, what we hear about from families in our home states, people who have lost their insurance insurance they don't need or they're never going to use because it is much more expensive than before because the insurance that worked for their families, the president said it wasn't good enough. families see their take-home pay go down because instead of being able to take that money home, they've had their hours cut not because they weren't needed at work, not because there wasn't a demand for their services, but because of the health care law that says anybody working over 30 hours a week is then considered full-time and by the

president's mandate they have to be supplied with health insurance at work. so what happens? businesses -- aintsdz not just businesses -- and it's not just businesses, mr. president. what we're seeing is school districts, county governments, the whole state of virginia, all of the different governing bodies. any part-time workers, they're saying, well we have to keep them below 30 hours because we can't afford the insurance for these folks. so the thecae -- she is folks s, well, i lose my take-home pay. school district districts are ho say, well, we can either keep them above 30 hours and have to pay for their insurance but then we're going 0 have to fire a number of reading teachers, fire the coach, fire the bus driervetion fire someone else who works in the scoosm that's no way to help people in a comiewfnlts -- in a community. that's good for anybody's health. those are the side effects of the president's health care law. a bill that so few people

actually read before they voted for it because, as nancy pelosi famously said, first you have to pass it behalf you get to find out what's in it. so we're going to to i talk abot patient-interested reforms, reforms that get people care they need from a doctor they choose at a lower kovment we're going to talk about restore people's freedom, freedom that works for them and their families, because they know what's best for them. i.t. not washington control. it's local decisions, families making decisions force their own. and we're going to talk about giving people choices, not washington and makes. -- not washington mandates. republicans are going to keep offering better solutions for better health care without all of these tragic side effects. thank you, mada mr. president. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: thank you, mr. president. there are a long list of items on the senate's agenda that are important to our country, including addressing the v.a. crisis, addressing the crisis at the border and ensuring funding is available for improvements to our roads and bridges. while it may seem like other issues are on the back burner, they are not. i want arkansans to know, i hear you loud and clear about your dislike for obamacare. recent court rulings confirm obamacare is unworkable. americans understand how this law infringes on their rights. the supreme court spreerved the right -- preserved the right for business owners to observe to the overbearing government mandates that would violate our religious beliefs. the promises that were made were

not true, like the law would lower our premiums. the reality is, obamacare drives up health insurance premiums and co-pays, and that's what hurts our wallets. sean from hackett,, a, wrote to me about a blood test that his fiance needed to help diagnose her illness. in the past she paid a co-payment and the rest of the bill was paid by her insurance. but caisso sean wrote, normallyd would only cost $25 for a co-payment. now she received a $2 00 bill. you remember the other promises like you can keep your doctors and medicare will not be cut. cindy, who lives in rural arkansas, detailed the problem she is having with medicare because of obamacare. the changes made through obamacare have cost her both time and money. not everyone lives in the big city where clinics, doctors, and hospitals are easily available, she wrote.

many of these facilities have closed their doors or the doctors are not accepting medicare patients. connie, a registered nurse in arkansas, told me that she's sick of obamacare and she is the problems her patients and family have to deal with under the law, which includes losing their doctors and the use of their local hospital. she wrote that the cost of the insurance payments increased and customers have to pay such high deductibles that they cannot afford to go to the doctor. these failed promises are negatively impacting arkansans. the ugly reality is, people are struggling under this law. amanda's story is what so many middle-class families are experiencing. her family is already trying to make ends meet, but she says obamacare is not affordable. there is no way humanly possible that my family can afford a monthly fee of $654, she wrote.

obamacare costs american taxpayers more than $2 trillion, but like in the case with amanda's family, health care is more unaffordable. i believe that we need to start over by creating real reforms of lower cost, increased choice, and eliminate washington's control of health care. we need health care reform, but obamacare is not the answer. we need to transition the employer-based private insurance market towards one that allows for flexibility, choice, portability, and fairness. let's allow small business owners to pull together to purchase group insurance. let's allow individuals to purchase insurance across state lines to increase competition. let's expand health savings accounts and flexible savings accounts. let's address medical malpractice reform and prevent lawsuit abuse.

i want you to know that unrave unraveling obamacare and starting over is at the top of my agenda because health care needs to be much more affordable than it currently is under obamacare. i yield the floor. mr. blunt: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator sno missouri. mr. blunt: i am glad to join my colleagues to talk about some of the stories we're hearing for the people we work for. i have been to the floor many times talking about the stories we're getting from families, from moms, from people trying to get that first job, from people who suddenly is are no longer working the 40 hours they used to work because of the impact this has had on the 40-hour workweek. let me just mention as i'm here between senator boozman and senator johanns, just two recent contact. we've had one from jo ann in fulton, missouri. her premiums went up from $110 a

month to $311 a month, an increase of $201 a month. she said, our monthly premium has gone up to $311 a month. it's a large increase for us. it's nearly triple when we paid before my husband's retirement. it really takes a bite out of the ow budget. she believes that this would not have happened without what's napped our health care system. i had a list of employees from one of our counties in missouri the other day who, because of -- it's a small county, they rate their employees -- each one of them pays a different premium even though the county helps some with that premium. everybody who is over 50 had their premium that's going to be the premium next year at least double. now, if you were 19, 20, 21, your premium was about what it had been the year before. if you were 51 or 61, your premium was twice what it had been before. then we got a letter from gerald

at kansas sthoi says he's seen significant increases in his out-of-pocket costs both of what he pays for premiums and prescriptions. said instead of retiring at 65, gerald says he's had to keep working to help pay for his medical and prescription costs. started paying $130 a month for health and $31 for prescriptions. as soon as this -- the health care plan -- he calls it obamacare -- as soon as obamacare was faces i. phased in, my premiums went up to $141, my prichtions went up to $49. like many other peoples, expects his plan to go up even more that year. so these are real impacts on the lives of families, of people that are paying more for the care they get and finding the choices they have to where they get their care are less than they've been before. these stories keep coming in. this is affecting the health

needs and the health care of individuals and families, and, mr. president, we need to do something about it. i thank senator johanns for letting me tell these two stories before it was time -- before he took time to speak. mr. johanns: mr. president, thank you. i was here during the days when the affordable care act was being debated, if you can call it there. i was here during the time when the effort of senate democrats was simply to keep 60 together so they could pass this bill under any circumstances. there were all kinds of promises made as to what this bill was going to do. president obama himself, when he talked about his plan for health care, said, i'm going to reduc reduce -- my plan's going to reduce your premiums by $2,500 a

year. but i could go on and on. i could spend the whole afternoon talking about the promises that were. now it's time, though, to take stock and determine whether those promises were, in fact, kept the people of our states tell that story. a nebraskan from the central part of the state wrote to me recently and said this. he and his wife are losing the health insurance they've had for over 21 years. their premiums have doubled, threatening their retirement savings. he went on to say -- quote -- "obamacare has ruined the lives we planned and we worked so hard for." so let me compare what this gentleman from central nebraska is saying with the promises that were made.

remember that promise that the president made over and over again? members on the democrat side of this body made the same promise. the promise was, if you like your plan, you're going to get to keep it, period. and the promise that your health insurance premiums go down. well, this gentleman from central nebraska is living proof that those promises were not kept. another central nebraskan wrote to me about the effect of the health care law on his wife's job and on his family. quote -- he says, "because of the a.c.a., she was cut back to less than 25 hours a week and we lost our health insurance." he went on to say that their new premium is twice as much as the

plan they liked but lost -- twice as much as the plan they liked and the one that they lost because of obamacare. so you see, mr. president, again we have a situation where we can compare reality with the promises that were made. the promise that your premium would go down, that you could keep the plan that you had if you liked it went out the window for these two families. a small construction company from western part of nebraska shared this with me. they will pagan additional $5,000 in obamacare fees this year. they expect to dedicate over 52 hours to report and comply. to them, this is incredibly frustrating because these fees

and hours of compliance have no direct benefit on their employees. their employees' benefits or their business mission. it's just the federal government has now taken this small company and forced upon them additional cost and additional compliance requirements. one of the most compelling stories comes from a mother of a family in omaha, nebraska. she explained in her letter that they qualify for a subsidy on the exchange but the options on healthcare.gov were still unaffordable for this family. the lowest-cost plan had a $9,600 deductible. mr. president, do you know what a $9,600 deductible means to most americans and to most

nebraskans? it means that if you have the kind of illness or accident or whatever it is that requires significant medical care and if you have to eat through a $9,600 deductible, that means bankruptcy. when considering this massive deductible, she writes to me and says -- quote -- "it makes more sense to put money away in savings and just pay for the whole doctor's visit." due to the high cost of plans and their other expenses, she says -- quote -- "we are forced to make the choice to go with no insurance." mr. president, i was here on the floor during this debate. democrat after democrat promis promised, you're going to have insurance now.

promised that premiums would go down. promised that if you liked your plan, you got to keep it. unfortunately that has not been the case and now with the new enrollment poard th period on te horizon, the stories, of course, will continue to roll in. now, the supporters of obamaca obamacare, just like when this bill was being debated, would like us to believe that their train wreck has been cleaned up, the tracks are -- or the train cars are no longer lying next to the track and this law's finally, finally on track. but that's not consistent with recent headlines, reality, court decisions, inspector generals' reports, or just the average american that takes the time to write to us.

"politico" reported earlier this month -- quote -- "most state health insurance rates for 2015 are scheduled to be approved by early fall and most are likely to rise." mr. president, this law should have never been passed. but now it's time to scrap this law and its washington-knows-best mandates and instead work towards solutions that truly do address the cost of care and give americans the flexibility to choose a plan that makes sense for their families. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, we're now several months into the implementation of obamacare. the dust has settled and people

from my state, hoosiers, continue to see the reality of this law. and, unfortunately, what they see is not what they had hoped for. earlier this month, a news report revealed that health insurance rates will increase fairly dramatically in -- i quote -- "most states." not just a few and not some but most. and they said they're likely to rise in the coming year. unfortunately, my state is one of those states and unfortunately likely to rise is an understatement. dramatic increase would be a better phrase. a recent headline from the "indianapolis business journal reads," "indiana's obamacare rates for 2015 are all over the map." the first sentence of the article states, "initial 2015 premiums filed for the obamacare

exchanges in indiana range from as high as a 46% increase in premiums to as low as a 9% cut." the article continues, "those are the average changes in premiums proposed by the four health insurers that sold plans on the obamacare exchanges for 2014. one of those insurance companies providing health care through the state exchange we now learn is requesting rates that range from a 31% to 59% increase in premiums. and so the picture ahead for those who have been incorporated into obamacare in my state is the shock of double-digit and significant double-digit increases in their premiums. not to mention that under their

current plans, they are paying higher deductibles which result in higher costs that they first have to put out before they're reimbursed but now an increase of significance for their premiums going into next year. now, i know the majority leader said all the stories we've been telling about real people and the reaction to -- their reaction to the affordable care act, obamacare, are fiction. i was on the floor when he said that. we all did a double take because we had been receiving thousands, literally thousands of e-mails, malmail into our office, phone calls, phone calls were ringing off the hook from people, alarmed over what they were experiencing in first signing up for the obamacare and, secondly,

what the terms were going to be. and so we collected all these and we have hundreds, if not thousands of real-live examples -- not made up, not fiction -- basically describing the impact on them and their families as this so-called affordable care act was put in place. let me just state one of those incidents. i'll use just the first name. i don't want to put this person at risk here from some kind of a pushback. but charles from auburn, indiana, e-mailed me and shared that his wife had just received a cancellation notice from her insurance provider. charles said that the notice indicated that the wife's -- he said, "my wife's policy did not comply with the requirements of obamacare and the replacement policy which she would have to take if she wanted the coverage would be $695.38 a month as

compared to her current policy premium, which was $316 a month. by my math, that's over a 100% increase. that's more than a double. double what she paid before. also the notice said, your deductible will be $6,000, and that is every medical expense that she has will have to be paid by charles or his wife or both before they can get any reimbursement. now, i wish these stories were fiction but unfortunately i receive e-mails like this on a regular basis. thousands of hoosiers have lost their coverage that they liked, that they chose and relied on because of the implementation of the so-called affordable care

act. we have been talking about replacing this act with something far more sensible and something far more reasonable, yet we've been denied the opportunity to go forward with offering any kind of amendments, modifications, repeal or any other process and that's unfortunate. but not just for us but it's unfortunate for the country and unfortunate for all those people that we represent that would like to see modifications and a much more affordable and much better range of choices for provision of their health. the 2,000-page obamacare law was sold to the american people on what has now turned out to be false pretenses, and i believe we owe it to them to replace this law with some commonsense solutions that increase access to quality care without increasing costs. it is doable if we have the

opportunity to do it and unfortunately we've been denied that. but the american people are speaking and i think they will continue to speak about the need for these reforms that will have to take place if we're going to provide affordable care for americans. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i would ask unanimous consent to vacate the quorum call, mr. president, and speak for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president, today there are wildfires that are burning across the west, and i want to speak for a few moments about some very important work that chair mikulski and her colleagues have done on the senate appropriation committee that has really built -- that is