quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. murphy: i'd ask that we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: i'd ask unanimous consent that i be able to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you. thank you mr. president. we had a wonderful event last night here in washington that i was able to attend. it was a night honoring champions for antigun violence measures across the country. it was put on by sandy hook promise, which is an organization that's grown up out of the tragedy in sandy hook. a number of parents have become the organizers of an effort to try to learn from what happened in sandy hook and make sure that we don't repeat the mistakes of the past.

we actually got to honor two of our colleagues there. we honored senator pat toomey for his work two years ago on the background checks bill as well as debbie stabenow. senator stabenow, of course, has been a great advocate for increasing resources in our mental health system. as wonderful a night as it was to honor these champions of change, it also was a night in which we were reminded about that terrible, terrible morning in december of 2012. we watched a short video of the news coverage and we listened to parents of daniel barden and dylan hockley the husband of mary sherlock talk to us about what their lives have been like in the years since that shooting in sandy hook. and i remember the hours and days after the shooting. i remember feeling like i needed

to be really restrained about talking about the obvious policy issues to me that were due for airing that sort of tumbled out of the facts surrounding that tragedy. i mean, this kid this really troubled young man who walked into a school with a semiautomatic weapon that's designed for the military and he shot 20 kids in less than five minutes. and the gun designed for the military designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible it killed every single kid it hit. there were 20 kids shot, 20 kids were dead in a matter of minutes. and so it seemed obvious to me that we should have an immediate discussion about why this kind of gun is still legal. but i held back because it felt like the mourning and the grieving should take precedence over action. and it took me only up to the first wake that i attended to

realize that i was wrong. senator blumenthal and i went to every single wake and every funeral that we could over the course of that first week. it was dozens. and at the first, i remember waiting in a really long line, standing next to senator blumenthal. and i remember like it was yesterday talking to a sobbing mother who was standing in front of us waiting in that line, telling us about how her child survived the shooting only because she had been sick that day. and she stayed home from school. but all her daughter's friends were dead. and as we approached that family, i remember struggling with what to say. and i'm lucky that my senior senator who sits behind me in the chamber, he had the words the right words ready. he said to the parents something like if you're ever ready or willing to talk about how we

make sure that this doesn't happen again we'll be waiting. and the dad didn't pause more than a few seconds before he said clear as day "we're ready now." and so in the years since these mat shootings have -- these mass shootings have become as commonplace as rainstorms, since 2011 the number of mass shootings in the united states has tripled -- tripled. and after each one the forces of the status quo the defenders of the gun industry, tell us that we can't talk about policy reform in the days after a shooting. one prominent commentator called those of us who dare talk about change in the wake of charleston sick. how convenient. how convenient that at the moment when the world is watching, when the country is asking themselves what we can do to make sure that another mass slaughter doesn't happen again the rules say that we can't say a word.

but think about how these rules would work. because charleston happens ten times over every single day across this country. 86 people die on average every day because of guns. last thursday the families of clementa pinckney, sick and cynthia hurd, susie jackson daniel lee simmons sr. and depain middleton doctor they lost their loved ones lost in charleston. but the day before, on wednesday, the families of angel feliciano and felice mercer and thomas whitaker and roy brown and maragite gentry and keith brown and ronald collins mourned

their loss. and those were just nine. there were dozens more. on wednesday, the day before who were killed by guns. you can't talk about antigun violence policy the day after a large number of americans are shot then you will never talk about antigun violence policy because on average 86 people die from gun violence every single day. but even if you accept that there is never a bad time to talk about how we can end this carnage, then we also have to have the courage to take on all of the other ridiculous arguments about why we can't act. now, the first one is familiar because it comes out right after the mass shooting happens, and it was a former n.r.a. board member that trotted this one out within hours of charleston. he said that the solution was to just arm more pastors and

parishioners in churches so that they can defend themselves. the more people that have guns, the less people will die from guns goes this logic. so don't act. the problem with that argument is that -- that argument, that's a simple argument, that the more good guys with guns equals less gun deaths. the problem with that argument is that it is a bold-faced lie. study after study shows that the more guns in a community the more crime there is. the more guns, the more gun homicides. and new evidence makes the case even clearer. as states more clearly separate between those with lax gun laws and those with stricter gun laws, we can look and see what happens. the second argument is that is one that i've heard from my republican colleagues in the senate in the last few days, that these laws, they can't stop

a mad man like dylan dyllan root. but again the facts these stubborn facts betray that argument. as i said, now that we have states that have loose gun laws and states that have tougher gun laws, we can see what happens. over and over again research shows us that jurisdictions that make it a little bit harder for bad guys to get guns have less gun deaths. in my state of connecticut johns hopkins concluded that our permit to carry laws have reduced gun crimes by 40%. similarly, they concluded that in missouri, the repeal of similar laws increased gun homicides by 25%. now, both studies controlled for all of the other possible factors influencing gun crimes and still found these shocking results.

and while the facts are still fresh out of charleston, there is evidence that a different set of laws could have -- not would have, could have stopped dyllan root without having any effect on law-abiding gun owners in south carolina. root had charges pending for trespassing and drug charges. neither would have disqualified him from owning a gun. but what if our rules were different so that a pattern of criminal behavior disqualified you from buying a firearm in firearm? or what about a permit to carry law? maybe local law enforcement knew enough about his criminal past to know that he shouldn't carry a weapon. maybe not but if south carolina had a permit to carry law, at least there would have been a chance that law enforcement would have withheld a permit from a young man as planly unstable -- plainly unstable as root.

but even if you don't believe that any specific law could have prevented the tranl i did in charleston -- tragedy in charleston or in new town, i'm not sure that it matters because separate and aside from the specific case-by-case impact of any law is the collective, moral, and psychological effect of nonaction. no matter how maligned congress becomes, we still set the moral tone for the nation. when we declare something to be morally out of bounds, especially when we do it in a bipartisan or nonpartisan manner americans listen. they take cues from our endorsements and fromments. that's why in my heart of hearts, i believe that our silence has made us complicit in these murders. i don't care that an assault weapons ban or a universal background check maybe wouldn't have stopped the slaughter in charleston. when we do nothing year after

year our silence sends a silent message of endorsement to the killers. now, i am neat saying that we are -- i'm not saying that we are in conscience alignment with these assassins. but when all we do in the wake of new town and tucson and aurora and charleston is rhetorical then those on the fringe those hanging on the edge of reason, those contemplating the unthinkable take a cue that we don't really mean it when we condemn mass violence because if we did we would, at the very least try to $something, anything -- try to do something anything, to stop it and we don't. and, quite frankly mr. president, removing one flag from one building in south carolina doesn't cut it. neither does a handful of retailers seasing to ceasing to sell

confederal rail flag -- confederate flag pair fenal paraphernalia. the flag has been perceived for a mainstream american symbol tsm shows that people from all stripes have been so emotionally moved by the shooting in charleston that they were inspired to some sort of action. that matters. but removing the can confederate flag is an insufficient response. taking down a flag from a build sag pretty easy giveback. deciding to spend billions of dollars to make sure that troubled young men get the help need for a sick n.a.s. is harder -- sickness is harder. so is taking on the gun industry and listening to the 90% of

americans who want to make sure that criminals aren't a continued profit center for the gun makers and sellers. wal-mart still tietionz advertise an assault weapon online. did you know last year that there were at least 92 shootings in wal-marts 16 people died in wal-marts, 42 people were injured by guns in wal-marts? getting rid of the confederate flag from their shelves isn't going to help that disturbing trend line. so we need real action, a real debate. we need real, honest policy to happen here. and, no, it is not all about guns. it is about mental health. it is about law enforcement. it is about a culture of violence and hate that we've just become immune to. in south carolina, reverend pinckney knew something about

real action. he supported things like expanded background checks and body cameras for police. maybe that's because he came from a family of action. his farther and grandfather were both pastors who fought to end white-only political primaries and segregated school busing. he wasn't just about condemnation. he lived his life to effectuate political chapping. and last night d. political change. and last night at the sandy hook promise dinner, i chatted with my friend mark barden. his son daniel massacred at sandy hook elementary school by a gunning man wielding a military assault weapon with 30 cartridges apiece, would have just finished third great last week. mark recalled how special daniel was. daniel just six years old

lived a life of action, too. daniel was that kid who sensed when other children were hurting. his dad told me last night how daniel would see little kids sitting alone at lunch with no one to talk to, and daniel would go over, sit down next to them, make a new friend, just because it was the right thing to do. reverend pinckney and little daniel barden new the difference between words and actions. they understood that actions are what really count. the u.s. gun homicide rate is 20 times higher than that of our 22 peer nations. 86 people die every day from guns. that's four sandy hooks ten

charlstons -- every day. since sandy hook, there has been a school shooting, on average every week. how on earth can we live with ourselves if we do nothing or, worse, if we don't even try? i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: i'd ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate which has been approved by both the majority and the minority leaders. i'd ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i want to spend the next few minutes talking about the supreme court and particularly the fact that the supreme

court's got some big cases that they're going to hand down probably tomorrow friday and monday before they adjourn for this for the summer. but i particularly want to come to the floor and talk about king vs. burwell which as the presiding officer knows, could be the beginning of the end of obamacare. but it also in the process will potentially disrupt the health care coverage for more than six million americans. the court could issue its decision as i said, as early as tomorrow. and what they will decide is whether the i.r.s. is bound by the law that the congress writes and is signed by the president or whether they can make it up on their own. but specifically what the case does is challenge the legality of subsidies provided to six million people in up to 37 states that they've depended on to buy their obamacare-approved policies including about a

million in my state of texas. if the court rules against the i.r.s., it will literally be the third strike against obamacare from the supreme court of the united states. and it would serve as yet another reminder of the administration's overreach of its authority under the constitution, something that's become disturbingly routine. this administration and our friends across the aisle have failed to own up to the repeated demonstration of the flaws of obamacare since it passed in march of 2010. and the biggest problem was that this is partisan legislation jammed through congress that no republican in the senate voted for. and so the responsibility lies clearly at their feet. through this law the administration has wasted billions of dollars on exchanges that have failed to function properly. you may recall the president even called the healthcare.gov

exchange that was so broken it didn't work, called it a disaster. and that's the president himself. but it's also based on a system that grows the bureaucracy at the expense of legitimate needed health care delivery. i would have thought that if congress was going to reform health care, that it would certainly include reducing the cost and making it more affordable. but time after time after time we've seen that obamacare has actually driven costs up. just last month one study noted that nearly $274 billion of projected obamacare spending will end up going to its implementation bureaucratic and administrative costs and not actually for health care. $274 billion. don't you think that money could have been better spent providing people health care policies they could afford and access to the doctors and the hospitals they

need? so today obamacare has utterly failed to live up to the many promises that the president and congressional democrats made to the american people. just seeing the presiding officer in the chair reminds me that both he and i served as attorneys general in our state and one of my responsibilities in texas no doubt yours was as well was to enforce our consumer protection laws. can you imagine if anybody other than the federal government had made the series of promises like the president and congressional democrats have made under obamacare, that it proved over time to be demonstrably force whether anybody in the private sector could withstand the flood of lawsuits by the attorney general and other consumer protection officials against that company. so i guess the fact of the matter is that there is very little recourse to the american people certainly in the courts,

to enforce our consumer protection laws against the outright deceit and misleading promises that were made in order to sell obamacare which are clearly, as time has demonstrated not true. so the president's trail of broken promises has instead led us to a damaged health care system and a limping economy. i mean, there's a reason why the economy shrunk last quarter by .7%. what that means is that fewer people can find work. their wages are depressed. we need our economy to grow. but as long as additional and heavy burdens like obamacare and unnecessary regulation are imposed on the private sector, those jobs and those rising wages are simply not going to exist. well this week many are rightly concerned that depending on what the supreme court decides that millions of people will lose their access to health care should the court rule against

the president. and i must point out mr. president, that that is a feature of obamacare. that's not the supreme court's fault. that's not the opponents of obamacare's fault. that is the president and the people who passed obamacare's fault, because this will be a feature of obamacare this failed law. but having said where the responsibility lies, while we didn't contribute to getting the country in this mess, we are ready, willing and able to provide an off-ramp for the millions of people who may have their health care interrupted. my state as i indicated earlier, is not immune. close to a million texans could suddenly see their costs shoot up. so i'm here emphatically to say to the texans whose health care coverage may be disrupted we will not leave you out in the cold as a casualty of this

flawed law. and we will not -- we will no longer allow this flawed piece of legislation to cause additional hardship for hardworking texas families. so in order to protect the americans and the texans who may lose their health care coverage if the court decides against the president and against the i.r.s., we are prepared, having worked for months now to protect those who need it as they transition out of obamacare. make no mistake about it, this will be the beginning of the end of obamacare if the court rules for the plaintiff in king vs. burwell. at the same time we plan to provide an end to the individual and employer mandates. the opportunity for states to opt out of obamacare. and finally an end to government-backed health care that the american people don't want they don't need, and they cannot afford. there is a better alternative.

if the supreme court rules for king, we will offer the american people what obamacare never could do: options choices the freedom to choose the health care coverage you want at a price you can afford. and most importantly, we want to allow individuals as well as the states to opt out of this disastrous law. all across the country. in doing so, americans can get what they actually need and not what government tells them they must buy. by empowering the states to opt out, we put the states back in the driver's seat. and i must say every public opinion poll i've seen, mr. president, indicates that the people have a lot more confidence in the ability of the states to deal with their health care needs than they do the federal government, particularly in light of the failed experiment here of the last five years. but we put the states back in the driver's seat and allow them the flexibility they need to more effectively lower costs and

increase choices. so while we didn't create this mess, we are ready to do our best to work together to protect the american people from any more harm caused by this legislation. the american people deserve real patient-centered reforms which again, lower costs making it more affordable and increasing access to the care. not the opposite. so if the court delivers what could be a third strike against obamacare, my colleagues and i are eager to provide the american people with the freedom and the options that they need in order to get the best health care available at a price they can afford. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i'd suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. a senator: i ask unanimous consent what the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president as we are moving toward concluding

debate on trade promotion authority, i rise to speak about what the trans-pacific partnership will mean for our nay's -- nation's global standing. according to the congressional research service trade between t.p.p. members reached $6.3 trillion in 2014, the nations represented in t.p.p., $1.6 trillion in trade between those countries. mr. gardner: representing nearly 40% of all global trade. in my own state of colorado countries involved in t.p.p. currently supports over 265,000 jobs the nations represented by the t.p.p. agreement 265,000 jobs in colorado. result from those nations. but we know the t.p.p. is more than just an economic agreement. it's a critical test of u.s.

strategic leadership in the asian pacific region, a region integral to our economic and national security for generations to come. as stated in the 2015 national security strategy, escaping our leadership depends on shaping an emerging global economic order that continues to reflect our interests and our values. despite its success our rules-based system is now competing against alternative less open models. to meet this challenge we must be strategic in the use of our economic strength to set new rules of the road strengthen our partnership and promote inclusive development. those are important words from the national security strategy issued in -- just this year. defense secretary ash carter echoed that sentiment when he said on april 16 of 2015 that the t.p.p. is as important to me as another aircraft carrier. if we fail to pass the t.p.p.,

we know others will rush to fill the vacuum left behind with such alternative less open models as the national security strategy laid out. so we should not be surprised when a rising china tries to fill the vacuum and that they would, indeed, exert efforts to fill that vacuum with symbols and programs crafted from their own vision of what is beneficial to themselves and their region. let's take china's recent establishment of the aiib as an example. on the face of it the aiib is a positive response to address the infrastructure challenges in the region it's also the clearest evidence yet that the united states faces a serious credibility gap in the asian pacific. -- asia pacific. the aai b is envisioned as a $100 billion enterprise with china as the largest shareholder that will hold veto power.

its rules are unclear. yet 56 nations including some of the strongest u.s. allies and including the united kingdom australia and south korea have indicated they will join the aiib and we need to understand why. do they believe the aiib is primarily an economic opportunity for their companies? they might. but i contend the reason is a lack of leadership from the united states, again going back to that credibility gap. china is also part of ongoing negotiations for another regional trade pact, the regional comprehensive economic partnership which would join china, australia india japan, new zealand and south korea with nations comprising the association of southeast asian nations. in addition to the economic partnership, beijing is also entering negotiations to consider six agreements comprising an additional 11 countries. that brings china's total trade agreement portfolio to 33

countries. while the united states should continue bilateral and multilateral economic engagement with china that brings high levels of transparency and accountability the fundamental question before us today is this -- do we want the united states or do we want china writing the rules? it's clear that while our partners and allies in the region may welcome additional chinese investment, they want more american leadership, not less. they want more american standards, not fewer. we know that the standards of the t.p.p. and u.s. engagement brings not only important economic benefits such as removal of tariff or nontariff barriers but fundamental american values such as transparency good governance and respect for the rule of law and basic human rights. u.s. economic state craft in the asia pacific cements our leadership in the critically important region. we must look at t.p.p. as just one step forward in this enduring commitment.

despite the crises of the day that are occurring in the middle east where the united states does and should play an important role, our nation's futchels lies in asia. just consider the following the development of the asian development bank. by 2050 asia will account for half of the population and half of the gross domestic product g.d.p. asia's population will rise to $2 billion. it will rise to the europe of today. we cannot miss the opportunity to be a part of this historic transformation. working with japan and regional partners we must eninjure you sure that our policies strengthen existing friendships and build new partnerships that will be critical to u.s. national security and well-being for generations to come. but, unfortunately, the administration's efforts to date with regard to the asia pacific

region have fallen short. while i commend the president's leadership on t.p.p. and our asia rebalance which many of us agree to, the asia rebalance policy has yielded few tangible results and it is in need of a serious overhaul. the administration has consistently stated that the rebalance represented a -- quote -- "whole of government effort to redirect u.s. military, and commercial resources toward the asia pacific region." but in april of 2014 just a year ago the senate foreign relations committee released a report stating while the united states has successfully moved forward with the initial phases of implementing the military aspects of the rebalance the state department and department of commerce not have substantially prioritized their resources to increase engagement with the asia pacific region. the report concluded that the administration can improve the effectiveness and sustainability of the rebalance policy by increasing civilian engagement,

strengthening diplomatic partnerships and empowering u.s. businesses. it's clear we need an integrated planning and budget strategy for rebalancing of the united states policy in asia. that's why i was proud to offer an amendment to the national defense authorization act that passed unanimously that would require the president to submit a strategy within 120 days to promote united states interests in the asia pacific region. our partners in the region must know every day that the united states is here to stay and the t.p.p. is the first step in the process. this is an important gate that we have this week -- debate we'll we have this week. later on we'll vote for trade promotion authority and i hope this chamber will see the wisdom of passing that legislation. 265,000 jobs in colorado from a region responsible for t.p.p., responsible for increasing economic opportunity increasing wage growth and the number of jobs we have in colorado and around this country. i thank you mr. president and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois.

mr. durbin: thank you mr. president. across the street from the senate chamber here is the united states supreme court. the court this week as several important cases pending. we're waiting anxiously for decisions. but probably the one that affects as many americans as any other is a case called king versus burwell. king is a case brought by someone who is objecting to the affordable care act obamacare, and they are arguing that the bill we passed in the senate and the house did not include a subsidy a tax credit for those who are under federal marketplace plans. my state of illinois is one of those states. in illinois there are about 232,000 individuals who receive a tax credit that allows them to pay for their health insurance. their income levels are such that they need a helping hand. otherwise the health insurance premium would be too expensive.

in my state the average tax credit that goes to these 232,000 is $1,800 a year. not insubstantial. $150 a month. now, those who brought the lawsuit say that the law does not provide this tax credit, i believe it clearly does. no one during the course of debating this bill ever suggested otherwise. in fact, there were many times we calculated the impact of this law, we always assumed the tax credit would be there for families whether their state had its own state insurance exchange or used the federal exchange as we do in the state of illinois. but the big problem we have here is if the court rules the other way, if those who are critical of the affordable care act and some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle have been on the floor this morning talking about getting rid of the affordable care act if the court rules in that direction

we're going to have a problem on our hands because at least in my state, 232,000 people will see their health insurance premiums go up 35% on average based on that court ruling. there aren't many working families that can nays that kind of increase and say well, it doesn't make any difference, it makes a big difference. on average, $150 a month. and for families living paycheck to paycheck and struggling, that qualify for this tax credit it's a big problem. and many of them won't able to afford insurance. so what happens next? we go back to where we were before. more uninsured americans. mr. president, i don't know how many people in the senate chamber who serve here have ever been a in a position in their lives where they didn't have health insurance and needed it. i have. newly married my wife and i had a baby with a serious health issue and we had no health

insurance. it is a humbling experience as a father as a husband, to be in that position. and it means hoping that you get the best medical care and hoping you can pay for it. for many families across america that was the standard before the affordable care act. but because the affordable care act, the obamacare we now have fewer people uninsured in america. that's a good thing. not just because it gives you peace of mind and access to quality health care, but because uninsured people still get sick and when they get sick and go to the hospital, their expenses they can't cover because they don't have health insurance are passed along to everyone else. how can that possibly be a good outcome? so the affordable care act has increased the number of people across america who have health insurance by about 11 million people. not insubstantial. it's reduced the uninsured rate

as i mentioned 3.5% in just a one or two year period of time. and six million receive these tax credits. so there are six million families who may not know it but what happens across the street at the supreme court this week or next week could have a big impact on the family budget. i struggle to try to understand those who hate the affordable care act like the devil hates holy water. they can't stand this notion that 11 million people have health insurance. they want to get rid of it. there are proposals from the other side of the aisle to get rid of the affordable care act. they want to eliminate the individual mandate. what does that mean? that's the part of the law that says you have a personal responsibility to have health insurance. do we run into any other aspect of life where we are required to have insurance? drive a car in my state you better have automobile insurance. buy a home in my state virtually every bank requires

fire insurance. it's a matter of responsibility. so the individual mandate not only says to everyone you need a buy health insurance it helps those who are in low-income categories and it's a critical part of the big picture and here's the big picture. if we are going to say as we do in this law that no health insurance company can discriminate against you because of a preexisting condition that you have or someone in your family has if we are going to say that, the only way it works in the insurance business is if you have a lot of people who are in that insurance pool that includes people with preexisting conditions. so when the republicans argue we're going to get rid of the individual mandate sign up if you want to, the people who run insurance companies say it doesn't work. you've got to have a pool with a lot of people in it, healthy and those not so healthy. otherwise, you can't write insurance that's going to work.

what else has happened because of the affordable care act? the rate of growth in health care costs has started to -- started to come down. and it doesn't have to come down much to have a dramatic impact on our economy. this affordable care act incidentally, which many on the other side are cheering to have it abolished this affordable care act according to the congressional budget office is going to cut $353 billion in deficit. how could that be? because one of the largest drivers of cost to the federal government is the cost of health care and if the rate of growth in the cost of health care just takes a little dip down and you project it out it's big dollars. we even used what many republicans believe is holy writ called dynamic scoring. we even said take a look -- use dynamic scoring and tell us what impact it has on the deficit. it turns out even with dynamic

scoring, our affordable care act reduces the deficit by $137 billion. it works. it works. more people are being insured folks cannot be denied insurance because of a preexisting condition, the overall cost of health care is starting to dip down it brings down the deficit, what part of that isn't good news? i think it's all good news. and for a lot of individuals who live in my home state of illinois, it's really pretty personal. i've met with them. last week, i asked people in my newsletter to share with me any of their experiences with the affordable care act. the response was overwhelming, and the majority was positive. danny blythe lives in germantown illinois. he was diagnosed with bladder cancer in 2005. at the time he was lucky enough to have health insurance. then he was fired and let go.

he lost his health insurance and he couldn't afford coverage because of a preexisting condition, a history of cancer. and he required surgery to treat his cancer. according to danny he relied on the local sisters of st. francis to provide basic care for him and his family when he couldn't afford health insurance. until the affordable care act became the law. now danny blythe and his family have health insurance. is this an important law for them? maybe the most important thing we've done here when it comes to this family. i -- i got into a debate back in my hometown once with a group that opposes this law and they were the opposite political faith, and i knew it, and they had some pretty strong feelings about the role and size of government, and they said as much and i would tell them -- i'd answer them by saying well, let me tell you about a family that i met. let me tell you about this family. and finally one of them stood up and raised his hand and said stop telling stories. we don't want to hear these stories. i know why they didn't want to

hear them, pause these stories are reality -- because these stories are reality. these stories don't reflect fulfill philosophy so much as -- political philosophy so much as the reality of life for a lot of people across america. we know that discriminating against families because of preexisting conditions is a real problem. we know there are many families, for example with a history of some illness even mental illness, who in days gone by had no chance to have health insurance. there were two other things we did in this law and i don't understand why the other party wants to get rid of these provisions. the affordable care act says if you have a child graduating from college your family health insurance plan can cover them until they reach the age of 26. why is that important? because many times young people coming fresh out of college have a lot of student debt and no job, no full-time job and very few of them have health insurance immediately.

and they think they're invincible. i remember reaching out to my daughter when she graduated from college. jim, i said, what about health insurance? dad, don't worry about it. i feel fine. well i did worry about it, and a lot of parents do. so our law says you can keep your recent college graduate under your family plan until they reach the age of 26. why would you want to get rid of that? why would someone want to eliminate that provision in the law? the other thing it said was if you are a senior and you are under medicare, the part d that provides your prescription drugs used to have what's called a doughnut hole in it, and what it meant was medicare would cover your prescription drugs to a certain point and then stop and then you had to go to your savings account pull out about $1,200 pay for your prescription drugs then coverage would start again. the doughnut hole, we called it. we filled it. we filled it so seniors don't have to worry about going to their savings to make sure that they can keep taking

prescriptions that keep them independent, strong and healthy. what's wrong with that idea? why do they want to get rid of that? that is part of the affordable care act as well. i just wonder sometimes if those who get all tied up over the philosophy of this legislation deal with the reality of family life in america. jean terry and her husband michael live in evanston, illinois. they are both cancer survivors. jean had breast cancer at age 45. michael prostate cancer same age. neither could purchase insurance before the affordable care act because of the preexisting medical conditions in their family. because of this law, they have an affordable policy and jean is able to do freelance work without having to worry about health insurance. she told me she worries about losing her coverage if the supreme court goes the wrong way or if the majority party here gets their wish and abolishes the affordable care act. i think we owe it to them to

strengthen the law and not to repeal it. the affordable care act incidentally has been very, very good when it comes to medicare. because of the affordable care act and the slowdown in the rate of growth and roll health care costs medicare has an additional 13 years of solvency. how about that? i worried about it for many years, still do, but it's good news to us to know that we have medicare part a trust fund 13 years more solvency since the passage of the affordable care act. the trustees, the medicare program in 2010 said that the affordable care act substantially improved the financial status of medicare. is that a good thing for america? 40 million americans think it is. those are the people who depend on medicare. the law's helping seniors with their prescription drugs as i mentioned earlier and it's a savings of about $925 a year for each senior in america. so for those who are cheering

and hoping that the supreme court will somehow derail the affordable care act my question then is very direct. what do you have to replace it? what will you do to deal with preexisting conditions and denying health insurance? what will you do to make sure that parents can keep their kids under their health insurance plans until the kids reach age 26? what will you do to fill the doughnut hole? what will you do to replace the deficit reduction which the affordable care act has achieved? what will you do in terms of the long-term solvency of medicare to make up for the 13 years that the affordable care act has purchased? and the answer is they don't have an idea. they just don't like it. they don't like obamacare. and they don't want to hear these stories. just like the folks back that i i -- that i debated with back in my hometown, because these stories reflect the reality of life. under reality of life, mr. president, i'd like to make

a statement at a separate place in the record with consent. it was two mandates ago when i came to the floor here, talked about tornadoes in my state of illinois. the north central part of the state. we've had it again on monday night. nine twisters tore through the small towns of five illinois counties monday evening accompanied by baseball-sized hail flooding rains and wind damage. these five counties all experienced severe damage. one of the towns that was hardest hit cole city in grundy county illinois. here is a photo of some of the damage. you can see the destruction. the national weather service said that tornado was an ef-3, winds of 160 miles an hour. some homes had their roofs ripped off others were just flattened. debris was scattered across the town. many streets were impassable.

downed power lines trees and flooding. this is the second tornado to hit cole city in two years. as soon as the trifer passed monday night the first responders god bless them, went door to door, trying to make sure the 5,000 people there were accounted for and thank goodness there were no fatalities. this tight-knit community is pulling together to help the victims. one man who lives in cole industry rick drew, said he was lucky that one of his neighbors came to find him. he and his family were trapped in their crawl space. the homeowner across the street from rick also trapped in his home that had been flattened by the storm. power was knocked out for 61,000 people in the area. some are still waiting for it. yesterday, we reached out to terry holiday the mayor of cole city. we have spoken to grundy county board chair lee county board chair. my staff connected up with the sterling mayor skip lee and whiteside board chair about the tornado that struck sterling.

it's another town that is also dealing with flooding. i reached out to each of them last night not surprisingly leaving voicemails. i know they were out and about but we're there to help them if we can. as so often is the case with disasters like this, first responders friends and family waste no time helping their neighbors. it isn't just a midwestern thing, but we're pretty proud of it in the midwest. i have no doubt that the people in cole city sterling and all the others are going to stand up and help one another clean up, rebuild and get on with their lives. our thoughts are with the many people today who have lost their homes and other property. mr. president, at this point, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: could we suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blunt: mr. president, i want to talk a little bit about an agreement that could be reached between now and the time that the senate returns right after the fourth of july. the agreement that's been negotiated for two years now with iran, though it seems to me that using the term "negotiation" is a stretch. most of what we said we wanted to achieve in this so-called negotiation, the iranians have said they didn't want to achieve, and we seem to have

then moved forward to the next point once we concede that point. yesterday i read in press reports that the state department has now decided it won't demand a full accountability for the past nuclear research on the part of iran before they conclude a deal. one of the early statements was we want to know what iran did, how long they have been doing it, what scientists were involved, what material and what information they had achieved in their efforts to actually have a nuclear weapon. it appears now that we're happy if iran is just nuclear weapons capable with a clock that would start at some time and we seem to feel we have suddenly new ability to monitor everything iran does, even though we don't appear to have the ability to get them to tell us what they have done. as i've said before, mr. president, this is one of

the areas where there is no question that no deal is better than a bad deal. according to the state department who just recently reported again that iran should still be considered a country that encourages terrorism that in fact you can make the case that there is no greater encourager of terrorist activities in the world today than iran but all of those things seem to be off the table as we talk to iran. the true nature of the regime why we want to have an agreement on just a nuclear program and let all of the other things iran is going on continues to be of great concern to me. news reports today were that the iranian parliament, the iranian legislature has -- will now

finalize legislation demanding that we -- that we not be able to look at military sites as part of our inspection. well, if the goal here is to stop iran from having a nuclear capability, having a nuclear weapon having the military capacity to use a nuclear weapon, why would we take military sites off the list of things we're supposed to pay attention to? where would we expect them to be finally developing a weapon if not at a military site? the iranian parliament appears to have a whole lot more to say about this negotiation than the united states senate appears to have a lot to say. in fact, i'm afraid we're going to find with the legislation that we did vote on that it's going to be a lot easier to prevent disapproval than it would have ever been to get approval of this agreement that looks like it's headed toward a

very bad agreement. the supreme leader in iran has ruled out any long-term freezes on nuclear activities and demands that sanctions be lifted immediately. now, when we a few weeks ago said what -- when the united states said our understanding of what the framework of moving forward would be, it seems to be about 180 degrees different from what iran is announcing every day. they want immediate sanctions relief. we say they're only going to get sanctions relief when they begin to comply. they don't want to have inspections at military sites. we say one of the reasons that we want to have this agreement is so that we can ensure that nothing happens at military sites. meanwhile, iran advances violence and instability around the world supported by iran, assad. syria is mass -- massacring his

own people. at least 190,000 syrians have been killed in the -- what's going on in syria today. iran is supporting that regime. shiite militias support assad they promote division and wage violence outside of syria now into iraq, encouraged by iran. supported by iran, houthi rebels have seized key territory in yemen and seek to overthrow the government and by the way i'd remind the president that this was something that less than a year ago president obama said was a great example of how our foreign policy under his leadership was working. the yemen was an -- that yemen was an example. only a few months later, we are fleeing the country and closing our embassy which actually the president may have been right. maybe yemen is a great example

of how our foreign policy is working. hezbollah and lebanon wages terrorism against israel, encouraged by iran. palestinian terrorists in gaza encouraged by iran continue to lob mortars and rockets into israel. last april iran's islamic revolutionary guard stopped a marshall islands flagship in the straits of hormuz. iran continues to hold hostages without any reasonable charge. three american citizens, pastor saeed abedini foreign minister hakmati and "washington post" journalist jason rasanian are all being held by iran. a fourth american, a former f.b.i. official robert levinson, is missing is in iran with no

assistance from iran to find him. in fact, they don't know exactly where he is. i have repeatedly called, as others in the congress have on the administration to just stop negotiations until some show of good faith to let these americans go. i saw just a few days ago where pastor abedini was beaten again in the prison he has been put in the most dangerous prison in iran. how could we not get three people that they're holding under charges that won't stand up in any -- to any public view, how could we allow them to continue to hold these people, and we continue to have talks about something like letting this country become nuclear capable? "the washington post" reporting jason rasanian was arrested after security forces raided his home. his case was referred to a

revolutionary court on january 14 of this year, but details of his charges or details of his court date have not been released. his mother is concerned as we all should be, about his health which is deteriorating as he is being imprisoned. this "washington post" reporting is being charged with espionage. pastor abedini was imprisoned in 2012. in 2013, he was sentenced to eight years in prison for -- quote -- practicing his religion -- end quote. that's his crime practicing his religion. the iranian government charged that pastor saeed abedini was undermining the iranian government by creating a network of christian house churches and attempting to sway iranian youth away from islam. in august of 2013, his appeal was denied.

he was then put in the worst prison in the country. he has been beaten up in prison. i think he has been beaten in hospitals when he had to be taken there as his life was almost ended with prison beatings. why do they still have him? why do they have amir hakmadi a former u.s. marine who was arrested while visiting his family in iran in august of 2011? the iranian government sentenced him to death for espionage. fortunately, his death sentence was overturned by an appeals court in march of 2012. however, he was still convicted for acting -- for aiding a hostile nation. that would be us, by the way. aiding a hostile nation and being guilty of espionage. bob levinson, who is retired d.e.a. and f.b.i. -- a retired d.e.a. and f.b.i. agent disappeared in march of 2007 while visiting iran's kisch

island. very likely, many people believe that mr. levinson is currently a prisoner in iran. just three weeks after he disappeared, iranian state television reported that he was in the hands of iranian security forces. what are we doing here assuming that the iranians will agree to something much more complicated when they won't let these four people go? why wouldn't we insist on that? and finally iran is responsible for killing and maiming thousands of american service men and women in iraq and iran from deadly armor-piercing improvised explosive devices that originated in iran. they don't deny it. i think they take pride in it. the destabilized impact, mr. president, of a nuclear

weapons-capable iran is hard to overstate. if you want to do one thing that casts a huge shadow over the next decade and perhaps decades of this century unless that shadow somehow is removed before the end of a decade, it's hard to imagine. sanctions with the credible threat of military force were doing good until we decided that we would lift -- that we would ease those sanctions as if iran would come to the negotiating table. two years ago that began. two years ago we said things that we would insist on. two years later none of those things appear to be things that are still being discussed in these iranian so-called negotiations. sanctions should stay in place until iran fundamentally changes its course and its behavior. i'm greatly concerned that the dwreement -- agreement on iran's

nuclear program will not be presented to the congress in a way that allows the congress to really weigh in, and i am concerned that this program as it will be presented to congress will establish iran as a nuclear-capable nuclear threshold state. when that happens egypt, saudi arabia the u.a.e., jordan have all stated that they will claim the exact same rights to do whatever it is we allow iran to do. if we come up with an agreement that says iran will be within six months of having a nuclear weapon and they have to tell us when they start that six-month clock, other countries will also want to be within six months of a nuclear weapon. and if we believe we can monitor iran within six months or 12 months or whatever the number is i just think mr. president we are kidding ourselves and most of the world doesn't believe that we could do this

either. turkey and other countries outside of the immediate neighborhood will also want to view nuclear weapons capability as a new status quo in a dangerous world. an agreement that doesn't change the terror threat from iran, an agreement that doesn't allow inspection for military facilities an agreement that doesn't disclose past secret research for nuclear weapons an agreement that doesn't ensure long-term inspections an agreement that doesn't maintain sanctions in place until important -- until important compliance benchmarks are made is not agreement that would be good enough. we are facing a dangerous time. iran is one of the chief perpetrators of terrorism in the world today. how we have let that country that has one example of bad behavior after another one example of hatred for israel

after another one example of contempt for the united states after another how we have let that country become nuclear capable is amazing to me as it is to the world. this is why our friends question whether they can depend on the united states of america any longer and why our enemies aren't afraid of us as you want your enemies to be. i hope that we don't settle for a bad deal, and i'll say again a bad deal is worse mr. president, than no deal at all. and i would yield the floor. mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you mr. president. last night a number of us from this chamber many of us from across the country gathered for a remarkable evening to support

and honor an organization called sandy hook promise. an organization created in the wake of the horrific unspeakable tragedy in newtown that involved a mass murder. 20 beautiful innocent children and six great educators. sandy hook promise was created to make some good come of this horrific evil, to protect children against violence and prevent more gun violence around the country to advance the cause of mental health and wellness and to make sure that no one is alone no one eats alone, no one suffers alone no one endures mental illness

alone. sandy hook promise is a wonderful, inspiring organization and i was proud to serve as the cochairman of this event, along with my great colleague, chris murphy, who has been a partner in efforts to stop gun violence in this chamber and in connecticut and around the country and i was proud also that the dinner and evening honored two of our colleagues senator debbie stabenow a wonderful friend and distinguished member of this body from michigan and pat toomey, our friend from pennsylvania who added his name and the weight of his support to a measure just last session seeking to protect children

against gun violence by imposing universal background checks. this evening was designed to honor our two colleagues, but it really was so inspiring to me to hear from nicole hockley and mark barden and bill sherlock whose lives were transformed and changed forever on that horrific day. and i will never forget that day, going to the firehouse in sandy hook, seeing the grief and pain experienced by those families who learned for the first time that their beautiful children would not be coming home that night the searing memory of their faces and voices will be with me forever and their courage and strength in the wake of that tragedy will inspire me forever. and inspire many of our

colleagues to vote for the commonsense measures that senator toomey and senator manchin helped to advance a bipartisan measure that was advanced so ably by them and many of us tirelessly in those days before the vote. and it was a majority of senators who voted in favor of that package of measures. unfortunately, that majority did not reach 60 votes but last night was a time to renew and redouble our efforts to prevent gun violence and to take positive constructive, commonsense, sensible steps to

help prevent it around the country. at the very outset of the evening, i asked for a moment of silence, both senator murphy and i joined in requesting a moment of silence to honor the loved ones and families in charleston, south carolina. our hearts and prayers go out now to them as they have since that unimaginable tragedy the violation not only of human life but the sanctity of a place of worship, just as newtown involved the violation of a place we regard as among the safest our schoolhouse killing our schoolchildren. when we finished that moment of silence, i'm sure all of us

retained the grief and pain. we in connecticut know and understand that grief and pain and outrage because we remember that day when we felt it in the same way that the people in charleston felt it when nine people were killed and their families left with holes in their hearts just as we were left on that day in newtown. but the message of last night was not one of despair or desperation. it was one of hope and energy, and that message came from nicole hockley and mark barden and bill sherlock, and through

them from the families of sandy hook who came here to washington and have continued their work through sandy hook promise and other organizations to make some good come of that evil. and we can do it. we can make sure that this country does more than grieve and remember, but redouble its commitment as a nation to make our nation safer and better. and not just for those nine innocent people in a church in charleston or 26 nonpartisan people in a school in sandy but for the 11,000 people every year on the streets of hartford and stanford in connecticut in our rural and suburban communities on our military bases throughout our country 11,000 people who

die every year from gun violence . we can be sure that we will never eliminate all gun violence. we will never stop all the deaths and killing but we can save lives. and that is what the families of newtown said to me in the wake of their tragedy. and that is what i hope our nation will say itself in the wake of the charleston tragedy. we will never stop all evil, but we can take a stand and stop some of it. i recalled last night the conversation that i had with one of the moms at the funeral of her child when i approached her. and i said somewhat apprehensively, you know, when you're ready i'd like to talk

to you about what we can do together to stop gun violence in this country. when you're ready. and she said tears in her eyes, "i'm ready now. " that was the spirit that the families of new town brought to our capital. that is the spirit that i hope we can honor with action. not justice words on the floor of the senate or in the eulogies that will be given tomorrow, but to make for those victims of charleston and newtown and the 11,000 people who die needlessly and senselessly every year from gun violence an answer to the

question that all of us have: what can we do? what can we do to stop gun violence? and there are some answers. background checks, ban on illegal trafficking an end to straw purchases mental health initiatives, school safety. those are some. and we should think of others. and work together just as sandy hook promise has done, regardless of party, part of the country, race or religion, regardless of where we live or what our interest is, because we have a common, shared interest in making our nation safer and better. and that's why honoring both pat toomey and debbie stabenow was so meaningful, because they have given so much in their courage

and leadership to making our nation safer and better. the killer in charleston was not just a murderer, he was a domestic terrorist. he meant to terrify not just kill. he meant to start a race war. he was a racist and a white supremacist and rightly has been regarded as someone who came to that church not just to target innocent worshipers, but an entire community. he targeted the town of charleston, the state of south carolina our nation, and his message was not p about hate for specific individuals. it was hate for an entire race.

we should recognize domestic terrorism and racism for what it is. we're not the only country with racists, but we are a country with a uniquely high number of gun violence incidents. the shooting of -- in charleston was a physical manifestation of ideas that go beyond this murder er and to prevent future shootings, we must understand and undercut the ideas that he killed so that he could advance. we need to call this problem for what it is and understand it and fight it. hate-inspired domestic terrorism is an evil all its own. but we can make progress against

gun violence. we know we can just as surely as ten days ago no one thought that the confederate flag on state grounds in south carolina would ever be removed. no one ever thought plausibly that the governor of south carolina would ever advocate. and now that has happened, just as commonsense sensible measures against gun violence can happen, we can prevail. nobody thought before ronald reagan was almost assassinated and jim brady was paralyzed that the brady bill would ever be passed. in fact, it took ten years. so we are here in a marathon, not a sprint. we are here for the long haul. we're not going away, not giving up not abandoning this fight not surrendering to the forces

of domestic terrorism or racial hatred or gun violence. we are better than that as a nation. and so as we leave and go back home for this recess, i hope that we will not only share the grief and pain of those brave and courageous families in south carolina who were so heroic in the face of evil, but resolve that we will redouble our efforts to raise awareness to organize people who are of goodwill and want to stop gun violence and who need to be heard because the vast majority of the american people want us to take commonsense sensible

measures to make america safer and better. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president today i'm back on the floor of the senate for the 15th time where we've talked about the waste of the week. now, we all know that the debt clock is ticking and that the federal government is racking up trillions of dollars of debt which is going to have to be paid off at some point in the future by our generation, more likely our children and our grandchildren. and it's unsustainable. it's going to cause immense harm. it is something that's been ignored as of late.

but we're unable to move forward with any kind of constructive solution to this problem or putting us on a path to deal with this problem because the president of the united states simply refuses to come to an agreement in terms of how to deal with this, and in fact doesn't even bother to mention it. we also have an issue here that is part of the problem and that is inefficient ineffective use of taxpayer money here in washington. the money has hard-earned by people back at home and then deducted from their payroll tax -- payroll income and then as a tax and sent here to the federal government is not always used to be an effective efficient way of per forge -- performing the necessary and essential issues the government deals with. instead it goes to programs that can only be deemed as waste fraud and abuse and that's what i've been trying to highlight in these last 15 weeks as we deal

with the waste of the week. today what i'd like to talk about is a sweet deal. everyone likes a sweet deal, right? well no, not quite everyone. and not always. and, unfortunately in this case what is a sweet deal for some is actually a raw deal for the american taxpayer. i'm talking about the sugar subsidy. currently the u.s. department of agriculture, the usda issues loans to sugar producers and allows them to repay those loans with raw sugar if sugar prices fall below a certain price. after obtaining the sugar through this so-called loan, the usda then ends up with a bunch of sugar that it needs to resell and it resells that sugar at a discounted price. as a result, these loans

function as a price support for sugar, ensuring that sugar producers never sell their product below the price determined by the government -- not the fair market, but by the government. this costs taxpayers nearly $300 million in 2013 alone i don't have the figures yet for 2014. i assume they're the same, it may fluctuate a little bit up, a little bit down, depending on the world sugar price. in this sweet loan deal for sugar producers isn't enough, $300 million a year there's more. in addition to providing a subsidy to sugar producers through the program i just described, the federal government also enforces a system of quotas and tariffs on imported sugar. thereby blocking americans' fair market access to cheaper sugar

and resulting in a large difference between the international or global price of sugar and domestic sugar prices. in fact, the usda's sugar program has caused the price of american sugar to be about 40% higher than the global price resulting in an estimated cost to consumers of $3.5 billion annually between the years 2009 and 2012. so when you take these two programs and put them together, they effectively function as a mass federal subsidy of sugar which drives up prices for consumers and provides a double benefit to the sugar industry. as a result of these two sweet policies, thousands of jobs in sugar-raising industries, particularly candy manufacturers, have been lost and the american taxpayer pays for it all. now, why were these policies

put in place in the first place? well, the global price of sugar was much higher in the early 1980's so the idea was higher sugar prices would result in more sugar growers and the more sugar growers we had the more sugar would be produced, thus lowering the price. that's how fair and free markets work. it's a supply and demand issue. but government interference through subsidies distorts the free market price of goods and in the case of sugar it results in a direct hit to the taxpayer and much hire costs for the consumer of sugar-based products. to this day the sugar subsidy remains a giveaway to sugar producers and a raw deal for sugar consumers. iced cream doughnuts, cakes, pies, you know, we're not the healthiest things we eat but they're some of the more desirable things we like to eat

particularly after we've been forced to eat broccoli and greens and our mothers raised us on you can't have cake or a pie after dinner unless you eat what's on your plate. and so we would suffer through eating some of that green stuff -- i don't mean to belittle that, it is healthy and we should do that, but i'm not going to mandate that the public -- government have the -- tell the public what to eat. nevertheless is these products and many many others that incorporate the cost of sugar in making the product that drives up the price of the product simply because of the subsidies that are provided by this government through its policies to sugar producers. it ends up in companies not being able to provide the jobs that they would like to provide, be the dynamic industry they would like to and puts them in a less than

competitive position against our overseas producers. many companies in my home state of indiana have been affected by this subsidy. let me just give you a couple of examples. a albane seven e confectioner group is a renowned group of confectioners including the world's best gummy bears in germany they call them gummis, here they call them gummies. very successful manufacturer. but they estimate it could save $3 million annually by having access to sugar from the world market price. but no, they're not allowed to do that. they're forced to buy it at the u.s. subsidized producer price which is as i indicated earlier, roughly 40% more than what they could otherwise pay. lewis bakeries, headquartered in evansville, indiana, one of the few remaining independent bakeries in the midwest and the

largest wholesale bakery in indiana has the same issue. higher prices contribute directly to costs that hamstring businesses throughout indiana. artificially high sugar prices affect the large companies also like kraft food, which has a marshmallow plant in concernedle, indiana. they said dismantling the program would enhance the competitiveness of u.s. manufacturers. if congress were to terminate the subsidy program which we've tried to do year after year after year and it's not succeed ed in passage here, we could save billions of dollars for u.s. taxpayers not just from the u.s. treasury but also in the grocery bills of america's families. these savings could have extremely positive consequences for our economy if it was allowed to be used to support the economy. according to an iowa state

university study if the sugar program were abolished domestic sugar prices would fall by roughly a third and earlier we were talking about 40%. saving consumers said this study, at least $2.9 billion to $3.5 billion a year. and according to a recent report by the nonpartisan congressional budget office, eliminating this subsidy today would save the federal government at least $116 million over ten years. so here we have a subsidized programs by the federal government costing consumers nearly $300 billion a year. and here we have a second subsidized program by the federal government through its policies of pricing and unfair practices, in my opinion costing nearly $116 million a year to the american taxpayer. this is a per expect example of

an outdated government program that's hurting consumers and wasting taxpayers' dollars and the net effect of the program is americans are paying higher prices for sugar and more taxes to pay for the sugar subsidy. so what's a sweet deal for the sugar producers is a raw deal for the american consumer, and it's a subsidy -- a package of subsidies that only go to the producers and deny the consumers the right to have a reasonable price for sugar in accordance with international pricing. i have joined with a bipartisan group of my colleagues in supporting legislation the sugar reform act introduced by senator shaheen from new hampshire that would end the sugar subsidy if we could pass this legislation it would result in the savings of at least $116 million according to the congressional budget office. so today i add to our chart

$116 million of savings that the government can incur moving our chart ever closer to our goal of $100 billion of savings. we talk about how do we pay for essential programs here, where are we going to get the money why don't we start here? why don't we start by eliminating some of these programs -- better yet why don't we let the taxpayer keep their around-earned money than sending it to washington to pay for waste and abuse that occurs almost on a daily basis here. we're gradually creeping up to our $100 billion, i think we're going to have to go way beyond that because these examples just keep rolling in of how documented through nonpartisan agencies, related to congress and related to the federal government keeping inspector generals in various programs here keep saying why are we spending this money in the first place? the program is wasted, it's

abused it's misused it doesn't need to be in place. so we're going to keep coming down here week after week talking about the waste of the week. number 16 is on the way. stay tuned. 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:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: thank you mr. president. i rise to speak to the fast-track legislation -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. merkley: mr. president i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: mr. president in just a short period of time here in the senate chamber, we will be voting on fast-track legislation designed to create a very quick path through the u.s. senate for the trans-pacific partnership and for trade agreements to come thereafter,

so i rise now to share with my colleagues and to share with the american people my concerns about this course of action. it is president kennedy who once said -- quote -- "the trait of a nation expresses in a very concrete way its aims and aspirations." what are our aims and aspirations in the context of this trade agreement and fast-track? from my perspective the thing that really matters is whether or not this trade agreement will create good-paying jobs or will destroy good-paying jobs. will this trade agreement make the american economy work better for working americans? and i feel it fails the test, and i'm going to explain why. now, it is true that the trade agreement is complex it's multidimensional, it has a

dimension that deals with intellectual property, with the extension of property rights, patents and protection for trade secrets. and that's certainly a win for protecting an innovation economy, innovation by american and american companies. and it has an agricultural section. and we've sought out an analysis of this agricultural section and don't have one yet but those in the know say it's a good chance that the tariffs that are struck down and the nontariff barriers struck down as barriers to u.s. products may on balance demonstrate the analysis of the u.s. economy. i look forward to the analysis of that in detail. but the heart of the trade agreement is about manufacturing. we have multinational companies that are seeking to be able to make things at the lowest possible cost. that's the heart of this trade agreement, as with other trade

agreements. and that means being able to incorporate into an economic circle countries where the costs are very low to make things. and that is certainly the case with this trade agreement. this trade agreement includes a couple countries that have no minimum wage and others that have a very low minimum wage. we're really talking about vietnam, malaysia, and mexico. in vietnam, they have a regional minimum wage so it varies from place to place and you hear different amounts but are roughly it's 60 cents to 75 cents an hour. malaysia $1.64. in mexico, it's 66 cents. those are all incredibly low compared to the american minimum wage of $7.25.

many of our states have state minimum wages that are higher. but the minimum wage is only a part of the puzzle. when you include the costs of labor in the united states, you have to include such things as workers' compensation and set aside expenses for social security and disability insurance and the cost of maintaining safe working standards that are rigorously enforced. and so when you compare all of that you probably have a labor ratio that is on the order of about 20 to 1. that is a playing field tilted against the american worker at a 20 to 1 ratio for manufacturing. that is certainly not a level playing field. our companies will say time and time again here in america, we will thrive with anyone in the world on a level playing field.

but when the costs are 20 to 1 that is the cost overseas in countries like vietnam malaysia and mexico are lower than the united states on a 20 to 1 ratio, that is a playing field steeply tilted against the united states. so it's no wonder that in previous agreements we have seen an increase in trade deficits and a big loss of jobs here in the united states of america. let's take a look at three of those cases. in 1993, we signed the north america free trade agreement and that incorporated mexico into our economic circle. so let's compare the trade deficit in 1992, a year before, with 2014. in the course of those years the trade deficit increased from $5.3 billion to $53.8 billion.

that is a massive massive change. now, by various estimates that translates into a job loss of between 480,000 jobs to 680,000 jobs. so half a million americans lost good-paying jobs as a result of nafta. or let's take a look at china. china came in to the world trade organization or w.t.o., in the year 2000, so let's compare 1999 with 2014. the trade deficit went from $68.7 billion to $343 billion. that is a quarter of a trillion-dollar increase. that is a deficit. that is not a collective amount. that is an annual amount. and by various estimates, that is a result of job losses

between 2.7 million and 3.2 million american jobs lost. or let's look at south korea. remember how folks said that this will facilitate so much access to consumers in south korea. it won't have a big impact on our trade deficit. yet, south korea the agreement was signed in 2011 or ratified, so comparing 2010 to 2014, just four years the trade deficit ballooned. it ballooned from $10 billion to $25 billion and the resulting job losses are estimated to have been between 75,000 and 150,000 jobs. now when i say jobs, maybe that's abstract, so let's translate this to families. between the low estimates and the high estimates, we are

talking about 3.3 million to 4 million american families losing their job a good-paying manufacturing job. you know, there is no better foundation for a family than a good-paying job. so when we pull away that foundation by striking agreements that send our jobs overseas, that is utterly devastating to families across our nation, certainly families in my home state of oregon and certainly families in every single state. so you can't be profamily and also be for shipping our good-paying jobs overseas. there is no government program that substitutes for a good-paying job. and that's why i'm so deeply disturbed about the outlines of the agreement that we're

undertaking. because each and every time that improvements to wages here in the u.s. will come up, the makers will say if you raise your wages, if you add family vacation or family leave or sick leave or medical leave or help with day care for your children, you know what? we may just have to move our manufacturing overseas or we may have to move our supply chain overseas. or we may have to produce less at the factory here and more at the factory overseas. and it doesn't stop there. the construction that is envisioned by our multinational manufacturers in pursuit of their lost cost production is not just to play off the united states against malaysia or the united states against mexico or the united states against vietnam, although all of that will happen. it's also to play off each of

those low-cost countries against each of them. so they can say to china that has a certain cost structure and is not yet envisioned to be part of the trans-pacific partnership but does benefit from the w.t.o. access, they can say china your costs are going up. oh, you're enforcing those environmental laws and your costs are going up. oh you're adding health standards, labor standards; your costs are going up. you're paying overtime, your costs are going up. we're going to ship more of our manufacturing to malaysia. and if you keep at it, we'll ship all of it. or malaysia, you're just close by to vietnam. your costs go up, we're going to shift more to vietnam. or to vietnam you raise your standards, you raise your costs you raise your pay you raise your standard of living, we're going to move those jobs to mexico. so this is a tremendous leverage

if you are an owner of a multinational, if you own stock in a multinational if you are an investor in a multinational because you can sell, you can produce your product at a lower cost by playing off economy against economy. and you sell at the world market price, you make more money. but if you are a worker in the united states who is being played against a worker in vietnam, it's a bad deal. and if you're a worker in vietnam being played off against a worker in malaysia, it's a bad deal. that's not all that's wrong with this arrangement. let's look at the various things that could have made fast-track stronger that are not in fast-track. we've heard a lot of conversation, a lot of presentation that this is a gold standard framework that this is a new style of trade agreement. but the fact is key provisions

that could have made it a gold standard or a new strategy are not there. let's start with the fact that there is no minimum wage required in this agreement not even a minimum wage of $1 an hour, which would have certainly affected mexico and vietnam. and no mechanism were there a minimum wage, to increase it gradually over time to help lift up workers in our poorest nations and to reduce the gap level off the playing field between low-wage countries and high-wage countries like the united states. second the agreement does not address currency manipulation. everyone in international trade understands that tariffs can be replaced by a pseudo tariff through currency manipulation, through intervention in the currency markets. in 2009, when i came to the u.s. senate, we estimated our economists estimated that the

currency manipulation by china amounted to a 25% tariff on american products and a 25% subsidy to chinese products. why would we agree to an arrangement where currency manipulation can produce a tariff against our products and a subsidy to our competitors within that framework? third, we have had a problem with the loss of our sovereignty on health issues and environmental issues, consumer issues by giving that sovereignty away, that decision-making away to an international panel just weeks ago under the world trade organization structure w.t.o. structure, we lost a case, and the outcome of that case was that here in america we are not allowed to label our meat "produced in america." that's a loss of our sovereignty. i want to live in an america where if our consumers if our

policy-makers, if our legislators believe it's in the best interest of this nation for our consumers to know where their meat is raised, if our consumers want to exercise some patriotic decision-making in support of american ranchers, they ought to be able to do so. we ought to be able to have that law, not give away our law-making authority to an international panel. so this investor-state dispute settlement panel of three corporate lawyers who can be advocates in one case and the judges in the next does not provide anything close to an appropriate mechanism to decide issues of health and safety to the environment. we could have taken those off the table so that if we want to control a dangerous environmental toxin like cancer-causing flame retardants in our carpets, we can do so

without going afoul of trade agreements. but there was no effort, no effort to protect our health and safety here in america in this trade agreement. if we really believed that we were going to have a new order agreement, we would have an enforcement mechanism for labor standards and for environmental standards. and we've heard folks talk on the floor about there are such new enforcement standards. and so i'm aggrieved to report to you that that is simply not the case. now, let's start with the fact that we could have required the passage of laws before countries are admitted into the trade agreement, required that they bring their environmental standards and their legal standards, their labor standards up to snuff before admission and then show that they were actually implementing them. have a two-year demonstration period to show that they were actually enforcing them. because that's the easiest point

at which to bring nations accountable before they are members of the trade agreement before they get the lower tariffs. that's the point you have incentive. that's the point you have leverage. but there was no effort to force countries, to require countries to meet those minimum standards before being admitted into this trade agreement. we could have had some form of snapback provision that said if you fail in bringing your laws into accordance on the environmental side or the labor side, if you fail to enforce your laws, then tariffs snap back. but there is no snap-back provision in this agreement. we could have expanded the dutching provisions in international law to give a way to take on situations where countries are producing below cost because they're not abiding by the goals and the

environmental or labor area. but there is no such provision envisioned or required in fast-track or anticipated in trans-pacific partnership. there has been in the course of our trade agreements only one situation that we challenged labor laws, and it was with guatemala. we challenged them seven years ago, and to date that case has never been adjudicated. it is virtually impossible after a country has failed to come up to standards to go back and retroactivelien force these -- retroactively enforced these without some new strategy, but there is no no new strategy that would solve the guatemala case and actually end up with it being adjudicated. to continue with the challenges to this fast-track, the failures of this fast-track, there is nothing in this that provides for congress to be consulted when other nations dock -- that

is tie onto the framework that will exist in the trans-pacific partnership. so when we had an amendment here on the floor that if china was to try to dock with the t.p.p. and become a t.p.p. fully privileged member that it would have to come back to the united states for consideration to give us a chance to look at china's currency manipulation or cheating on international intellectual property. it would i have gus a give us us a chance to look at a whole lace list of things. now because of the way that the -- that this process has proceeded, there is no guarantee that there will be trade adjustment snadges assistance. i find it absurd that the same folks who say there will be virtually no jobs lost say the

cost of compensating families by giving some minimal training to them when they lose they are jobs will be vastly expensive and america can't afford it. on one side they say too many jobs lost. so they're okay leaving american families not only stranded woo a -- stranded without a job. if we gimmick go back to president kennedy and his vision that the trade of a nation expresses its aims and aspirations, our aim should be to create good-paying jobs here in america. our aspiration should be to create a trade agreement that works for working families.

unfortunately, this trade agreement is constructed around a different aspyings, one of maximizing the value of stock in multinational manufacturing corporations and that is done by shipping our jobs overseas. that is the wrong aim for this nation. it is the wrong aim for our working families. we have seen the impact of korea. we have seen the impact of china joining the w.t.o. we have seen the impact of mexico and and a half it, and as a result we have lost millions of good-paying jobs in our nation and undermind the success of millions of american families families. there is a lot of conversation here on the floor of the senate about inequality in our nation. you know what drives inuquality? it is this. when you create trade agreements that are great for investors but are terrible for workers that drives inequality.

and that's why i encourage my closing to vote "no" when it comes to the fast-track legislation being voted on later today. it's wrong for america because it's wrong to solving inequality. it is wrong for america because it's wrong for working families to have their jobs shipped overseas. it's wrong because it does not fulfill the vision of working for working america. thank you mr. president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: will the senator withhold that request? mr. merkley: yes.

the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: may i ask unanimous consent for 15 minutes in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. i am here today for the 104th time. one of these days i'm going to get it right -- to urge that we wake up to the dangers of climate change. the scientific community has been sounding the alarm for decades. our most respected scientific institutions are virtually unanimous in their verdict. carbon pollution from humans burning fossil fuels is warming our atmosphere and oceans, raising and acidifying our seas, loading the dice for more extreme weather and disrupting the natural systems upon which we all depend. they're not alone.

our defense and intelligence communities warn us of the threats these climate disruptions pose to our national security and to international stability. public health officials warn that greenhouse gas pollution and its effects trigger human health risks. economists even very conservative ones, have long recognized the distortion of energy markets ignoring the true cost of carbon pollution. our government's accountants now list climate change as one of the most significant threats to america's fiscal stability. the new republican c.b.o. chief even put sea level rise and increased storm activity from climate change into his budget

outlook just last week. and, of course, voices of faith call to us. they plead that we heed the moral imperative of protecting god's creation, of seeking justice for all people, and of meeting our own responsibilities to future jn reagan administrations -- future generations. his holiness, the dalai lama, has called for us to develop a sense of the oneness of humanity and address climate change. the archbishop of canterbury recently i should a declaration along with other british religious leaders warning of the, "huge challenge of climate change." and supporting an international climate treaty to be negotiated in paris this december.

ecumenical patriot bartholomew the spiritual leader of orthodox christians worldwide has called climate change a matter of social and economic justice. more than 350 rabbis have signed a rabinic letter on the crisis calling for vigorous action on climate disruption, reminding us that -- and i quote -- "social justice sustainable abundance a healthy earth and spiritual fulfillment are inseparable. and last week, mr. president pope francis the worldwide leader of the catholic church, which is the largest christian denomination in the world the largest christian denomination in the united states, and the

largest christian denomination in my home state of rhode island added his car ismatic voice to the call. in the roman catholic church, anencically cal is a papal letter sent to all bishops. it is considered among the most authoritative documents of catholic teaching. rather than just an internal communication to the clergy, however, thissencically encyclical is specifically addressed to every single living person on this planet. it is entitled " "praise be to you" a reference to the cantical of the sun by saint francis of asierra leone the patron saint of the environment friend of

the poor, and namesake of this pope. this encyclical accepts and affirms what we know about climate change; that most is due to the greenhouse gases emitted by human activity, that seas are rising oceans acidifying, polar ice melting that weather is worsening at the extremes and that basic systems of life on our planet home are being disrupted. we need only take a frank look at the facts, pope francis writes youwrites to see that our common home is falling into serious disrepair. the things are now reaching a breaking point. humanity has disappointed god's

expectations. end quote. the earth herself he says, groans in tra travail. humanity, pope francis tells you is called to recognize the need for change of lifetime, production and consumption in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it. end quote. and specifically, he says, technology based on the use of highly polluting fossil fuels needs to be progressively replaced without delay. end quote. the pope reminds us that, as we empower sleepwalk through this crisis, we are hurting people who have no voice today. we harm future generations

leaving them a world that, to use his own words is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth. the world is a gift a gift which we have freely received and must share with others, the pope writes. intergenerational solidarity is not optional but rather a basic question of justice. the pope also emphasizes that when we damage that gift, we inflict particular harm on the poor who live close to the earth, outside our privileged bubble of consumption. they rely on agriculture fishing, and forestry for their livelihoods and sustenance.

as climate change disrupts natural systems the poor take the hit most directly. as a result, pope francis says, we who have profited most from burning fossil fuels owe a debt to the rest of the world. he calls it our ecological debt. the united states has produced more carbon dioxide than any other nation. our historical responsibility calls us to help other nations develop cleaner energy, relieve their systematizeed poverty and soften the blow of climate change. this responsibility, this call from pope francis matters particularly for america. the indispensable and the exceptional nation. years ago daniel webster

described the work of our founding fathers as having set the world an example. set the world an example. from jonathan winthrop to ronald reagan, we have called ourselves a city on a hill set high for the world to witness to emulate should we ignore the climate disruption we have caused pope francis warns -- and i'll quote him -- "those who will have to suffer the consequences of what we are trying to hide will not forget this failure of conscience and responsibility." will not forget this failure of

conscience and responsibility. in saying that, pope francis aligns squarely with daniel webster's warning from that same speech. his warning about our american experiment in popular liberty -- quote -- "the last hopes of mankind therefore rest with us" daniel webster said. and if it should be proclaimed that our example had become an argument against the experiment the knell of popular liberty would be sounded throughout the earth. end quote. pope francis' even has something to say directly to us in congress. to take up these responsibilities, he writes, and the costs they entail, politicians will inevitably clash with the mind-set of short-term gain and results which dominates present-day economics and politics.

but if they are courageous, they will attest to their god-given dignity and leave behind a testimony of selfless responsibility. end quote. remember the pharisees mr. president. remember the traders and the money changers in the temple. if we choose to ignore the call of the pope and of leaders of faith around the world and choose to protect the side that is polluting and destroying even when we see right before our faces its ravage of our natural world its harm to the poor its robbery of future generations, what are we then? what are we then? jesus himself the lamb of god

lost his temper twice the bible tells us. once at the pharisees and once at the traders and money changers in the temple went after them with a lash actually. are we to take their side now? must we in the senate serve caesar in every single thing? is there no light left here at all? here in the senate the hand of greed lies so heavily upon us. please may the pope's exhortation give us the courage to stand up against the power of these selfish forces and do what is right for our people and for our planet. the fossil fuel industry has been a particular disgrace, polluting our politics as well as our planet.

ever since the citizens united ruling gave polluters the ability to inject unlimited and untold amounts of money into our elections, the tsunami of their slime has drowned honest debate on climate change. senators who once supported commonsense legislation have gone silent as stones under the threat of the polluters spending. getting past the dark influence of the fossil fuel industry will indeed take some light and some courage, especially on the part of the republican majority whom they so relentlessly bully and cajole. but we must do it. again, mankind will not forget this failure of conscience and responsibility. senator schatz and i have even offered legislation rooted in conservative free market

principles. we would put a fee on carbon pollution and return all the revenue to the american people. it would reduce:pollution 40 -- reduce carbon pollution 40% by 2025 and be a significant debt to the rest of the world and be significant tax cut for american families and businesses. i urge those across the aisle please take a serious look at our bill. in seeking a solution to the climate crisis, pope francis asks each of us to -- quote -- "draw constantly from our deepest convictions about love justice, and peace." he dares us even -- and i quote him again -- "to turn what is happening to the world into our own personal suffering."

into our own personal suffering. "and thus discover what each of us can do about it." end quote. he urges us to recognize that the systems around us, the financial systems the industrial systems the economic systems, the political systems are drawing us down a destructive and unjust path. but his encyclical to the world eliminates another path, a compassionate path, a path blazed with abiding faith in the human family, a path towards the preservation of our common home and our common decency. mr. president, the choice which path we that i can will be a fateful one s. i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon.

mr. wyden: mr. president before he leaves the floor let me just commend the senator from rhode island. he has made a number of important points this afternoon but i'm particularly pleased that my colleague has laid out such a thoughtful way the implications of the pope's encyclical. this is very, very important as a major new focus of the debate, and i really commend my colleague. i suspect we're now on 101 or 102 in terms of -- 104. i was there for 100. i must have missed one along the way. but i commend my colleague and thank him for his commitment. he knows i share many of your views with respect to creating a fresh set of approaches as we deal with this climate change question. i look forward to working with my colleague. mr. president, today the senate is taking major steps towards a new more progressive trade

policy that will shut the door on the 1990's north american free trade agreement once and for all. one of the major ways this overall package accomplishes this goal is by kicking in place a tough new regime of enforcing our trade laws. and here i'm talking about our customs package with the fact that later today the senate's going to vote to go to conference with the house on strong bipartisan legislation that was passed by the chamber only a few weeks ago by a vote of 78-20. and it has long been my view, mr. president, that vigorous enforcement of our trade laws must be at the forefront of any modern approach to trade at this unique time in history.

one of the first questions many citizens ask is, i hear there's talk in washington d.c. about passing a new trade law. how about first enforcing the laws that are on the books? and this has been an area that i long have sought to change, and we're beginning to do this with this legislation, and i want to describe it. and for me, mr. president this goes back to the days when i chaired the senate finance subcommittee on international trade and competitiveness and we saw such wide spread cheating such widespread flouting of our trade laws, my staff and i set up a sting operation. we set up a sting operation to catch the cheats. in effect, almost inviting these people to try to use a web site

to evade the laws. and they came out of nowhere because they said cheating has gotten pretty easy, let's sign up. and we caught a lot of people. so we said from that point on that we were going to make sure that any new trade legislation took right at the center an approach that would protect hardworking americans from the misdeeds of trade cheats. and in fact, the core of the bipartisan legislation that heads into conference is a jobs bill a jobs bill that will protect american workers and our exporters from those kind of rip-offs by those who would flout the trade laws. and the fact is, mr. president

when you finally get tough enforcement of our trade laws, it is a jobs bill. a true jobs bill, because you are doing a better job of enforcing the laws that protect the jobs, the good-paying jobs of american workers. and i guess some people think that you're going to get that tougher enforcement by osmosis. we're going to get it because we're going to pass a law starting today with the conference agreement that's going to have real teeth in it. real teeth in it to enforce our trade laws. foreign companies and nations employ a whole host of complicated schemes and shadowy tactics to break the trade rules. and they bully american businesses and undercut our workers. so what we said in the finance committee on a bipartisan basis that the name of the game would

be to stay out in front of these unfair trade practices that cost our workers good-paying jobs. my colleagues and i believe that the senate has offered now the right plan to fight back against the trade cheats and protect american jobs and protect our companies from abuse. it really starts with what's called the enforce act, which is a proposal i first offered years ago that will give our customs agency more tools to crack down on the cheaters. then we have a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on the need for an unfair trade alert. that's another major upgrade that responds to what we heard companies and labor folks say again and again mr. president. what they would say is the trade enforcement laws get there too late.

they get there too late. the plant's closed, the jobs are gone the hopes and dreams of working families are shattered. so what we said is we're going to start using some of the data and the information that we have to have a real trade alert so that we can spot what's coming up get that information in our communities, in our working families and our companies to protect our workers. this unfair trade alert is another major upgrade in how we tackle mr. president enforcing our trade laws. my view is that any bill that comes out of that enforcement conference the customs conference needs to reflect important american priorities. and that should certainly include smart protection of our environmental treasures. when our trade agreements

establish rules on environmental protection they've got to be enforced with the same vigor as the rules that knock down barriers for businesses overseas. our colleague from colorado, senator bennet, offered in my view a very constructive proposal that's going to accomplish this important goal. it was overwhelmingly agreed to by the finance committee and passed by the senate. and i'd like to note that much of the good work done by senator bennet mirrors what my colleague in the other body, senator blumenaur, is doing on this issue as well. it is my view, and that is why it is important to hear from senator whitehouse, that climate change is one of the premier challenges of our time. and it's critical to make sure that this enforcement package sends the right message on environmental issues and whether the issue at hand is climate

change fisheries or conservation this package the package that we're going to be dealing with in the customs conference strikes the right balance for the environment. now, i also want to take a moment to build on what i discussed yesterday with respect to the democratic priorities that my colleagues and i are going to fight for in conference. and this stems from an important point that was made by our colleague from north dakota, senator heitkamp, who said we really need to go into this customs conference with some markers, some strong markers that lay out a path for some of our priorities with respect to enforcing the customs law. so after the pro-trade democrats met on monday night i talked

with chairman ryan with respect to these issues, and we intend to champion provisions by senator shaheen, which is going to help our small businesses take full advantage of trade. a lot of people say oh, trade bills are for the big guys. the big guys are the ones who are going to benefit. i've always thought big guys can take care of themselves. they've got lots of people to stand up for them. well what senator shaheen is saying -- and it's particularly important in my home state mr. president, where we have mostly small businesses -- senator shaheen is saying that she is going to make sure as part of the enforcement effort we beef up the effort to help small businesses, particularly at the state level not mr. president, at the federal level, at the state level promote these efforts to have

more markets for our small businesses in the export field. so in addition to senator shaheen's amendment, as far as those markers those customs markers are concerned we're also going to make the environmental protections provisions that i just described offered by senator bennet a priority and senator cantwell's trade enforcement trust fund, appeared i am a he very hopeful about the trade enforcement trust fund as well. there's an awareness that again you can have some trade laws. you're going to need some resources in order to make sure they're implemented. so i think that trade enforcement trust fund is another very important priority, and it is one that the pro-trade democrats have said would be part of our short list in terms of our customs markers. so as i noted, you know,

mr. president, when i have town meetings at home, had more than 730 of them, going to have more of them this up-coming week, i do find that people say everybody in washington talks about new laws, new proposals trade ideas. enforce the laws on the books first. and it's been too hard, too hard in the past for our businesses, particularly our small businesses to get the enforcement that matters the enenforcement with teeth the enforcement that serves as a real deterrent to cheating. so this legislation is our chance to demonstrate that strengthening trade enforcement enforcement of the trade laws, will now be an integral part of

a new modern approach to trade an approach that says, we're not part of the 1990's on trade where nobody had web sites and iphones and the like; we've got a modern trade policy with the centerpiece enforcing our trade laws. our policies are going to give america's trade enforcers the tools they need to fight on behalf of american jobs and american workers and stop the trade cheats who seek to undercut them. i strongly urge my colleagues to vote "yes" later today on the motion to send the enforcement bill to conference and work on a bipartisan basis as we did in the finance committee to put strong trade enforcement legislation on the president's desk. now, mr. president i also would like here briefly to make some remarks on the trade adjustment

assistance package. as we've said, later today the senate is tabooing take a going to take a series of votes that, again speak to how we kick off a new progressive era in trade policy that closes the books on the trade ideas of the 1990's once and for all. once again a key part of that effort is protecting our workers and ensuring that more trade means everybody has an opportunity to get ahead. and that's why the package of legislation under debate expands and extends the support system for america's workers called trade adjustment assistance. now, this program dates back to the days of president kennedy.

president kennedy during his push for the trade expansion act of 1962, called it -- and i quote -- "a program to afford time for american initiative, american adaptability, and american resiliency to assert themselves." since then, this program has been extended by republican and democratic presidents. the program is now a lifeline for more than 100,000 americans including 3,000 oregonians who receive job training and financial support. the heart of it is is provide a springboard to new opportunities, and it garnets -- and it guarantees that workers and their families do not get knocked off stride when times are tough. in my view, it is a core element of what i call trade done right.

and as i noted yesterday mr. president, tim nezbit, the former past president of the oregon afl-cio essentially said that our legislation was a blueprint for trade done right. now, for a year and a half, the trade adjustment assistance program has been running at reduced strength, but that's going to change once this legislation becomes law. the funding for trade adjustment assistance goes back up to a level that will cover everybody who qualifies. once again service workers will be eligible for the program because in today's economy they're facing competition from overseas as well. trade adjustment assistance

would take into account competition from anywhere in the world, not just from our trade agreement partners. there are significant improvements here that i will tell you mr. chairman and colleagues i fought very, very hard for in what were negotiations that really lasted well over six months with chairman hatch and chairman ryan. i believe these changes are going to make a big difference for workers across our nation who fall on tough times. if china manages to lure a manufacturer away from the united states -- for, for example now those workers will be covered. they'll have a chance to learn new skills and find a job that pays good wages and they won't have to worry about whether the bills will get paid or if

they're going to have food on their table. along with trade adjustment assistance this legislation will rein-state re-instate the health coverage. tens of millions of middle-class people and their families get health insurance through their employer. the health coverage tax credit guarantees that workers and families affected by trade are going to still be able to see their doctor. if they get sick or suffer an injury they aren't going to face colossal medical bills or the threat of bankruptcy. they get protection, and they get it until they're back on their feet. i'm in the process of bringing this legislation together. my friend and colleague on the finance committee senator brown, offered a proposal that goes a long way in my view, to

strengthening our enforcement of key trade laws. it's called leveling the playing field. i urge the senate majority leader to include this important legislation in the t.a.a. bill, both because it's a good policy and it's a sign that both parties are working on issues that are logical bipartisan priorities. level the playing field -- and i can say this, mr. president, at this point in the debate. if you look at the committee's debate level the playing field was a top priority for those in the unions, the steel unions and others and it was a also a top priority for their companies. and so having this policy in the trade adjustment assistance is exactly the kind of bipartisan

work that the american people want done. business labor democrats republicans -- a strong record of evidence as to why it's needed. this legislation is going to be the difference between steelworkers and paper workers being on the job or being laid off, because it ensures that the remedies of trade law -- what's called counter-veiling duty law anti-dumping law -- is going to be available to workers and their companies earlier and in a more comprehensive way. it's going to protect jobs, and it is a priority of both political parties. i made mention how important this was to me. my first hearing my first hearing when i became chairman of the finance trade subcommittee was on trade enforcement. so i could have taken a lot of topics mr. president.

we could have talked about exports, hugely sport important to my state. we could have talked about the fact that the trade laws haven't kept up with the digital age. hugely important to my state. i said my first hearing was going to be on trade enforcement, and my good friends from the steel industry spoke about how american workers wants to see the senate and the finance committee stand up for them and finally fix the shortcomings in our trade remedy laws. that's what we have done now. getting behind sherrod brown's proposal to strengthen our trade laws to stop unfair trade so that foreign companies do not undercut american workers and manufacturers ought to be an american priority, a red white and blue priority, a priority for every member of this body. and i'm proud to have worked

with senator brown on this important issue. i want to thank him for the fact that he has brought this up again and again and again. i said quite some time ago that we weren't going to let this package become law without level the playing field authored by senator brown at the outset, and that is going to be the case, and i thank him for his work. the three programs -- the trade adjustment assistance program the health coverage tax credit, senator brown's leveling the playing field act -- are now moving through the senate alongside legislation that creates new economic opportunities for impoverished countries in africa and other places around the world. this trade package will extend the biggest of these programs, the african growth and

opportunity act what's called aagoa for ten years. it works for africa, it once for our country and it builds a stronger economic future for so many around the world. we worked hard again in a bipartisan basis in the finance committee to find ways to strengthen african-american goa. that was -- to strening agoa. that was the point of our hearing, to extend it for another decade. the committee came together on a bipartisan basis to make smart improvements. once again mr. president you see the value of a progressive trade policy. two of our very outstanding colleagues -- my colleague senator coons on this side of the aisle our friend senator isakson on the other side of the aisle -- always working in a bipartisan way pointing out that this is what our country is all about and certainly creating opportunities in

impoverished parts of the world. it is a core american priority. hearts and minds around the world hoping that we'll have this kind of leadership. and i'll just close mr. president -- and i think this will be my last comment before the vote it's my view for all who want to see trade done right, for all who want american workers to thrive in the 21st century getting behind these key programs is an ideal way to do it. by supporting this legislation the congress reaffirms as president kennedy really rhapsodizeed over half a century

ago, you get behind these programs it reaffirms america's commitment to american initiative to adaptability, and resiliencey and i urge all of my colleagues to vote yes to support these important programs when we vote later today. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: thank you mr. president. i rise today to talk briefly about trade adjustment assistance or t.a.a., and about trade enforcement. i will be supporting the t.a.a. bill but before i talk about that i'd like to recognize my

chief of staff casey ann winesbury, who has never been on the floor before. she asked to be on the floor today since she's leaving and of course i said yes but i said that so that i could talk about you casey. you didn't know that. so you have to sit through this. okay? casey has served in my office since i joined the senate in 2009 in july of 2009. she's leaving washington next week is heading to san francisco where her husband will be starting an amazing new job. jamo has a great job and he has been so supportive of you casey, and also casey's parents you'll now be much closer to them.

so i'm very excited for casey but i wish she weren't leaving. everyone in my office is going to miss you. no one more than me. when my grandson was 30 minutes old, i held him in my arms and i said to him "it's all staff." and it's true. it is all staff and casey has been an amazing chief of staff. she is the most focused determined person that i know. i am a member of the writers guild panned screen actors guild so i get screeners and we got zero dark 30, you know, sent to

me for those award season and my wife and i were in our living room we put "zero dark 30" on and at a certain point in the movie i said the lead character reminds me of someone. and finally i just said -- it's casey. and if casey had been in the c.i.a. i think we would have gotten bin laden a little earlier. casey deserves an enormous amount of credit for all the work that i and our office have been able to get done in my first term. the day-to-day work that we do to improve the lives of people in minnesota and across the country. whether it was mental health in schools or improving work force

training or protecting net neutrality or defeating the come cast--- comcast-time warner deal, it was casey has led that staff brilliantly every step of the way. so i will miss casey more than anyone, including myself, really knows. whoever gets casey next will be very very lucky indeed. casey, i cannot express how deeply thankful i am for all that you've done for me and for our office and for the state of minnesota. so thank you. now i would like to turn briefly to the trade adjust assistance package. -- adjustment assistance package. when trade is done right it can benefit our communities and workers and our businesses but i

was concerned that the fast-track procedure set up by the trade promotion authority bill will not do enough to make sure that we do trade right, so i voted against that bill and i'll vote against it again later. once we are done with that bill we will consider the trade adjustment assistance bill that was originally packaged together with the fast-track bill. i will support t.a.a., it is far from perfect for one thing it simply doesn't provide enough assistance but it will go a long way toward providing help for workers who are displaced by trade. as we know some will be. i also strongly support the leveling the playing field act which is included in this package along with t.a.a. senator brown's bill, of which i am proud to be a cosponsor

would help strengthen our trade remedy laws. the laws that enforce our trade policies and protect our domestic industries from dumped and be subsidized imports from other countries. in minnesota i have seen firsthand the damage that happens when we don't have and can't enforce strong trade protections. in the last few months alone we have seen what happens when countries unfairly dump their goods here. nearly a thousand minnesotans in the iron range are losing their jobs after a flood of dumped steel imports. leveling the playing field would help improve our antidumping laws including restoring congress' original intent in setting the standard for when a domestic industry is materially

injured by unfairly traded foreign imports. we need to be able to respond effectively when dumped imports are harming our domestic iron and steel industry, and when the workers in that industry are hurt or when those imports are harming other industries, as is happening now. this bill will be an important step in enabling that more effective response so with these provisions we are standing up for american manufacturers by putting in place and enforcing fair trade practices. for these reasons i will be voting for the trade adjustment assistance bill and i look forward to it being enacted into law. i thank you mr. president for allowing me to say a few words

about casey and about t.a.a. thank you. and i would 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 ohio. mr. brown: thank you mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you mr. president. i have come to this floor a number of times arguing against trade promotion authority. we've done that for months. this body should not give up its authority to amend trade agreements, should not pave the way for a trade deal that looks like it's going to be more of the same. corporate handouts, worker sellouts. we've seen it with nafta. we saw a similar kind of move on pntr with china where the trade deficit, our bilateral trade deficit has almost literally exploded since 2000, when this body and the other body moved forward on pntr. we saw it with the central

american free trade agreement where president bush had to get waked up in the middle of the night and get on the phone with republican member after republican member to get them to change their votes on fast-track so that he could get the central american free trade agreement which he sold in the name of counterterrorism. we saw it with the south korean trade agreement when president -- when this president made promises on higher -- promises of more job creation and higher wages neither of which was borne out. we've seen big promises and bad results on trade issue after trade issue after trade issue after trade issue. we've seen it through the presidencies of george bush the first, of bill clinton of george bush the second and now barack obama. this body, as i said, should not give up its authority to make better trade agreements. in essence what we are saying in this body with this vote within the hour or so is we're willing to give up these powers to the executive branch to give

us more of the same, trade agreements that don't work for our communities don't work for our workers don't work for our families don't work for our small businesses. while we -- while this chamber will vote on trade promotion authority today so-called fast-track it doesn't mean we throw in the towel on congressional oversight of our nation's trade policy. moving forward with fast-track means it's more critical than ever that we protect congress' prerogative to have a say on a deal that could offset 40% of the world's economy. members on both sides of the aisle, members on both sides of this debate, supporters and opponents, republicans and democrats, a good mix of each, have had conversations with me and with many others about how this deal is too secretive the trans-pacific partnership. they have had conversations about how this -- how the u.s. trade representative is not answering the concerns of members, even supporters of t.p.a. even supporters of

t.p.p. on issues like currency, on issues like worker protections, worker rights, on issues like tobacco on issues like public health. we need to make sure, starting today -- starting today we need to make sure that any trans-pacific partnership deal -- that's the deal we will vote on later. i assume t.p.a. passes today. i assume it will go to the president. i assume he will sign it. the next step is what happens with the trans-pacific partnership. that's 12 countries coming together a handful of countries in the western hemisphere including the three nafta countries, canada, the united states and mexico, a couple of south american countries and asian -- asian and australian continent, sub continent countries will be part of this trade agreement. we hope that if china is added to it, that there is a vote of congress although no promises there yet either from the administration. but we need to make sure that any deal on the trans-pacific partnership includes strong labor protections always big

promises about labor protections, never any president yet delivering on these labor protections. i am particularly concerned about vietnam a large country of tens of millions approaching 100 million people. vietnam a country that has one labor union controlled by the communist party a country that doesn't have collective bargaining rights, yet we're assuming somehow that wages are going to come up high enough in vietnam that they don't under cut u.s. wages even though they don't have free trade unions, even though they don't have collective bargaining, even though there is no mechanism so far in any of these trade agreements whether it's t.p.a. or whether it's trans-pacific partnership, that vietnam reached these levels, reached these wage levels, begin to move towards collective bargaining and free trade unionism prior to its admission in t.p.a., we need to figure all of those questions out. we need to make sure any t.p.p. deal has strong environmental

protections. again, big promises in other agreements. never much on the delivery side on these promises. we want to see strong currency provisions. again, big promises on t.p.p., little results in the past, and so far an administration not willing to carry it out. we need to make sure we protect medicare and medicaid from investor state dispute resolution. we need to preserve access to medicines. we know that medicines in the developing world, -- that citizens in the developing world simply can't afford the high cost of western medicines. americans much of the time can't afford the high cost of medicines, and we're an affluent country. when you look at some of these t.p.p. countries in south america and in asia, they can afford them even less. we've got to make sure there is strong preserve access to medicine provisions, and we need to include protections that be prevent this deal from being a tool for big tobacco. perhaps the simplest to

understand one of the most troubling because of its moral bankruptcy. that this body, this body is about to vote for fast-track legislation which if we don't stop this train from going down the track in which it seems to be heading that big tobacco -- we are handing big tobacco even more power to addict children to tobacco in the developing world. countries that don't have nearly the public health system we do, countries that don't have the affluence to be able to fight back against big tobacco that we have been pretty successful in doing in protecting our children. i remember, mr. president about 15 years ago, i was a member of the house energy and environment subcommittee on health, and i remember seven tobacco executives came to our committee. there was a picture on just about every front page of the country where these seven c.e.o.'s of the biggest tobacco companies in the country some of the biggest in the world raised their right hand, pledged

to tell the truth the whole truth, nothing but the truth and then out and out lied to that committee about -- about nicotine and cigarettes and about the addictive qualities of nicotine. these same tobacco companies over time pledged that they would no longer put billboards into their school yards pledged that they would no longer hand out sample packages of cigarettes near schools pledged that they would do -- that they would stop their joe camel promotions, those kinds of joe camel promotions. i remember the ranking member of the finance committee senator wyden, was a member of that committee and was outraged -- as outraged as i was on big tobacco. well then i asked them a question at this hearing. i said so you're willing to do that in this country. you're willing to say no to -- no billboards near high schools you're willing to say no handout of sample cigarette packs in your schools you're going to stop your joe camel ads. i said are you willing to do that in other countries around

the world? no no, no, no, no, no. these tobacco companies they -- you know, they -- when they go to the developing world and peddle their poisons they know that public health in the developing world is about fighting cholera and fighting aids and fighting malaria and fighting tuberculosis. they simply don't have the public health resources that we do in our country to fight big tobacco. that's my concern about what could happen. so let me talk for a moment about how big tobacco is using this trade -- uses trade agreements generally to undermine public health. tobacco use we know, mr. president, it's the world's leading cause of preventable death. it's why countries around the world are passing stricter laws to protect their citizens from the massive health risks tobacco poses. big tobacco has turned to trade deals -- has turned trade deals into a tool for defeating commonsense international public health deficits. how could that happen?

why would a trade deal be a vehicle to weaken tobacco -- antitobacco laws, the laws that protect children especially against addictive tobacco? here's how it happens. it uses a trade agreement provision known as investor stake dispute settlement to attack a nation's public health law. under this process corporations use trade agreements to dispute domestic laws that they say undermine their investments. right now let me use the best example but there are several. australia. australia passed not many years ago the tobacco plain packaging act. big tobacco challenged this law. first of all they opposed it in the australian legislature. they lobbied against it. they were unsuccessful. the australian legislature passed the plain packaging consumer protection anti-- antiaddicting children tobacco law in 2011. then they went -- then they sued and went to the australian supreme court. big tobacco lost that case, too. so you know what they did?

this is pretty clever. i give them credit. they pay their lawyers a lot of money. big tobacco challenged this new law under the australian hong kong bilateral investment treaty and a world trade organization dispute settlement proceeding. that means even australian courts made up of -- amazing -- australians, australian courts had ruled in favor of this law. their legislature passed it, their supreme court said it's constitutional. big tobacco from the outposts -- from the platform of hong kong sued the australian government saying that fundamentally that was takings that that would undermine their profits. so the tribunal -- i believe three-person trade lawyer tribunal that will hear this case these aren't australian lawyers. australia has nothing to do with this case except they are going to be victimized. so potentially -- and i know that the presiding officer cares about sovereignty for our country. i know that this cuts across party lines conservatives as much as progressives care about

sovereignty and public health, that what we are doing is turning over the sovereignty of our nation to these tribunals that can undercut their sovereignty. tobacco companies have launched similar cases against uruguay and togo over proposed laws. cases like these can bankrupt small countries. togo one of the ten poorest countries on earth. it was forced to give up its tobacco labeling laws, falling under pressure from philip morris a company whose sales, i believe, are larger than the g.d.p. of togo, bowed under pressure from philip morris which threatened -- quote -- an incalculable amount of trade litigation." so here are u.s. trade lawyers that threatened to sue a poor african or in some cases latin american government which wants to exercise its sovereignty and protect its children against potential addictive tobacco marketing -- marketing that will lead to children being addicted to tobacco. but they

back off because they can't afford to go to court against the deep pockets of philip morris. this is their strategy, litigate bankrupt countries into submission. using trade laws to blackmail countries. use another word if you want, blackmail is as close as it gets overturning laws passed by their legislature, usually ratified by their court system and people from another country a very rich country, one of the richest industries in that country represented by some of the most privileged, harvard-yale trained lawyers saying we're going to overturn your democratically elected law because our profits are more important than protecting your children in togo or your children in uruguay than protecting your children's health. that's fundamentally what we're saying. so a vote today since we haven't fixed this tobacco a vote today on fast-track is essentially saying unless the people voting for it are going to go to bat for a change

against big tobacco fundamentally we're saying it's okay for big tobacco in the privilege of the big tobacco lawyers to go to court and choose big tobacco profits over 15 and 16 or may i say 12 and 13-year-old children's health in the developing world. that's a rather uneven match but we ratify that with a yes vote today. we also have a responsibility to look out for the american worker who we know will be hurt by this deal. we know that while i may disagree with the presiding officer from pennsylvania over whether or not these trade agreements produce net jobs or what he i think believes, i believe these trade agreements produce a net loss of jobs. that aside people on all sides of this debate understand and have acknowledged that because of our actions because of what we do here in this body and in the house and in the white house, what we do here, with this trade agreement we'll throw some people out of jobs.

we know that there will be dislocations. people will lose their jobs because of our decisions. so how in the world could we possibly pass this without first taking care of those workers who lose their jobs? we make a decision, you get thrown out of work, my colleague makes a decision, you get thrown out of work, we're going to turn our backs because we don't care about helping you even though you lost your job because of our decision. so t.a.a. is particularly important. it's not just -- not just that we should pass the trade adjustment assistance. it's what we should do with it. i'm disappointed the t.a.a. bill being considered today is minimalist is significantly less generous to those workers than it should be. there will be many workers who lose their jobs even if we pass t.a.a. there will be many workers that lose their jobs that are not taken care of under t.a.a. that does -- it does not make the program available to all workers. i'm disappointed the bipartisan funding levels that almost every

democrat in this body has cosponsored, my legislation at a more generous level for t.a.a. that we agreed to it in 2011 in this body, but we are for no reason at owl those numbers were cut. i want to expand eligibility increase its funding we're making it easier to pass t.p.p. but we're tax cutting the t.a.a. program by 20%. how does that figure? we're saying we're going to pass this trade agreement 40% of the world's economy yet we are unwilling -- we are cutting the protection for workers the aid to those workers that lose their jobs because of our decisions in this body, we're cutting those workers 20%. last mr. president we have an opportunity in this bill today to once again support the level the playing field act to make sure it gets to the president's desk. this will be the vote after this -- after the t.p.a. vote. this vote is essential to protecting our manufacturers from illegal foreign competition. we can't have trade promotion

without trade enforcement. it shouldn't be partisan, regardless of how you vote on t.a.a. we need to make sure our deals are enforced. level the playing field to against unfair trade practices it's critical for our businesses our workers who drown and flood of illegally subsidized import. it has the are support of business and workers republicans and democrats. i want to thank senators portman and graham and casey for their work in support of this issue no matter where you stand on t.p.a. we should be able to come together to have enforce -- enforceable laws. we have trade. we will these agreements cause wages to stagnate, we know these agreements cause factories to close calls imports to increase debate families and communities. this is a terrible mistake we will make which we've made over and over and over and over if we

pass this today. if we pass t.p.a. it's the same mistake we made with nafta. big promises, job increases wages going up, bad results. we did it when we passed pntr, when we passed cafta the central american free trade agreement, with the korean free trade agreement, we're about to do it again, shame on us. ate least take care of workers if we're going to pass this legislation. i yield the floor. mr. sullivan: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. tillis: thank you mr. president. there's a lot of talk about the imminent decision on the supreme court ruling of king versus burwell and i'm going to get to that a little bit later in my speech but i'd like to start by talking about how we got here. i'd like to review what the americans were told as the reasons for obamacare. it was supposed to help the 50 million people who were currently uninsured to get covered with quality affordable insurance. everyone else, we were

promised, would be left alone. remember that promise, if you like your doctor, you can keep him, if you liked your health care you can keep it? that's the first of several broken promises that obamacare has ultimately produced and i'm going to go through a few this afternoon. let's take a look at what's happened since obamacare was implemented and where we stand. most of the uninsured nationwide are -- and they were prior to obamacare -- working families. 71% in 2013. they either couldn't afford the cost sharing of their employer plan or their employer didn't offer a plan. those who got insurance under obamacare, too many of those were working families who actually didn't get private insurance under obamacare, they were ultimately forced into medicaid. which is supposed to be a safety net, not a permanent solution for working families. is medicaid the quality

affordable insurance we all want for americans and that people thought they were getting with obamacare? i don't think so. the provider payment rates in medicaid are so low that many doctors refuse to see patients and participate in the plans. and i don't really begrudge the doctors and the health care providers for this because the cost of care oftentimes exceeds the medicaid reimbursement rates and the red tape that comes with it absolutely is destroying the administrative side of health care. that's why doctors don't participate in the plan, that's why the doctors are not available for the people that actually need good quality health care. it's not for a lack of investment though. states are drowning in unaffordable medicaid programs that eat more and more of their budgets at the expense of other essential services. states are throwing everything they can and then some at medicaid. but it is still unacceptable in

terms of cost, quality and access. that's exactly why north carolina refused to participate in obamacare's medicaid expansion. i was the speaker of the house in north carolina at the time. it has to be a real solution. we have to bring back a vibrant, robust, patient-centered private insurance system. mccollumized for our state rather than dictated by bureaucrats in washington. my constituents deserve a plan that pays doctors fairly so that provider networks are big enough to ensure that people don't get turned away at the door. hurting more of our hardworking proud neighbors into substandards plans designed to be a temporary safety net is no solution at all. but that's exactly what obamacare has done. the president even brags about it. in north carolina, prior to the implementation of obamacare there was some 1.9 million of

our citizens who were uninsured. who are these people? 10% are already medicaid eligible before obamacare. most of them were children. we could have enrolled them without ever passing obamacare. and disrupting and destroying health care for everyone else. about a third were people who were eligible for subsidies on the exchange. almost a half million. so did all those folks get help? it might look like it. after all 459,000 have signed up through the federal exchange in north carolina. but wait -- are those the same people the same ones who were insured before obamacare? it turns out that even more than that 473,000 people, had their plans canceled by obamacare. 473,000 north carolinians received a letter saying that

the affordable care act has determined that you can't keep your plan. they didn't like it even though those who were insured were satisfied with their plans. and this is a nationwide trend. the associated press reported 4.7 million people had their plans canceled because of obamacare. there was such an outcry that the president by executive fiat instructed the insurers to continue to allow the plans for a period of time. so how many people lost their at this time it's still not clear. what is clear is that the individual mandate is going to cause problems down the road. those who lost their plans who will lose their plan are going to be required by law to buy washington-approved insurance plans. no matter how unaffordable obamacare has made insurance. again, in north carolina more people received cancellation notices for the plans they liked

than have actually signed up for obamacare. between the half million whose plans were initially canceled by obamacare and the 1.9 million people who were already uninsured prior to obamacare we should end up with a wash. with no change in the uninsured figures for my state of north carolina. but actually we don't. the uninsured rate has gone down 2.7%. from 19.9% in 2013 to 17.2% in 2014. after the first full year of the obamacare implementation, so roughly about 200,000 people in north carolina. but were all of these people getting quality affordable plans on the exchange as promised by obamacare? hardly. the reason is medicaid enrollment. the majority of the people who the administration claims

obamacare covered have been those who went to the exchange to get insurance but were then forced to enroll in medicaid. and when i say forced, i mean forced. the law requires them to have insurance. but the exchange doesn't allow them to buy a private plan if they qualify if they're eligible for medicaid. it shows them one option, medicaid. but wait, you say north carolina didn't spanned medicaid so how did this happen? it is true, medicaid enrollment for my state has increased 300,000 people, the biggest enrollment increase of any of the states that didn't expand medicaid. what that means is much of the drop in the uninsured rate is due to north carolinians enrolling in medicaid through the exchange. these were the same people who were eligible before obamacare was ever passed.

nationally last year nearly 909% of obamacare's net coverage gain was through medicaid. a study from m.i.t. released in april found that medicaid enrollees received much less value from the program and the cost of paying for services. so far i've been talking about people who were targeted by obamacare. including the population of previously uninsured, as well as those who became insured because of obamacare forced them into the exchange. again, obamacare didn't really make a dent in our uninsured numbers, not to this point in north carolina. and it actually harmed many who were forced on to the exchange. it turns out that obamacare is an equal opportunity wrecking ball. it hurt the people it was supposed to help. it forced working families who needed quality affordable, permanent care into a temporary program that provides the lowest quality access there is,

medicaid. obamacare took over and removed the insurance options the individual market for people who didn't have employer coverage, i should say leaving those washington-approved obamacare plans with increased premiums, increased deductibles and increased co-pays. you see, increased coverage doesn't necessarily mean better health care. if you can't afford your plan or you can't find a doctor, then your health care suffers. but that's not all. obamacare broke health care for everyone else. those of us who were supposedly happy with our doctor and happy with our health plans have been affected and will continue to be negatively affected. the majority of americans who actually have insurance what about them and their employer insurance? they haven't necessarily lost coverage yet but they have been harmed. despite the president's promise the lower insurance -- to lower

insurance premiums, the average family premium employer-sponsored coverage has risen $3,500 a year between 2009-2014. in north carolina, during the first full year of the exchange rollout, premium price increases outpaced increases in wages and inflation, losing ground to the american or to the working family. even worse premium prices in the individual insurance market, a market that my daughter is a part of, the premium went up 147%. 147%. as a result of a plan that promised to reduce our health care costs our insurance costs. now, i know i'm not the only one who remembers what the president said about obamacare. he said that the average premiums would go down $2,500. the reality is they have gone up an average of $3,500 a year. all this leads to the problem of people having insurance they

can't afford and they're not able to use it because their deductibles and co-pays are simply too high. between this group and the group of people now on medicaid who can't get appointments from a smaller group of doctors who accept medicaid, what you get is a dramatic increase in the use of emergency rooms. this is exactly the opposite of what the supporters of obamacare predicted. they predicted that emergency room business would go down. we were told that once everyone was insured on obamacare people would go to their doctors in the outpatient setting and not show up in the e.r. instead, people can't afford the cost-sharing the co-pays the deductibles to get an outpatient appointment, so they wait until their problem gets critical and then they go to an e.r. in fact, the kaiser family foundation reports that emergency room utilization is up significantly from obamacare participants. in a survey of more than 2,000

emergency room doctors three quarters of them said the emergency room visits have risen since january of 2014. medicaid recipients covered under obamacare are struggling to find doctors who will accept coverage so they have no choice but to end up in an emergency room where the costs skyrocket. a spokesman for the emergency room doctors association dr. howard mell noted there was a grand theory the law would reduce emergency room visits. well guess what? it hasn't happened. visits are going up despite the affordable care act and in a lot of cases because of it. one of the most troubling elements of obamacare to me is the intergenerational well transfer from the young and the poor to the older and the wealthier. and when i say older i don't mean elderly and frail the population who may be on medicare. i'm talking about a wealth where

welfare transfer from young people in their 20's to people like me in their 50's. i would never ask my daughter, who is about to start a career in nursing to pay for her mother's insurance or for my insurance. neither would any of you nor any other american. that's not how parents are wired. but an impersonal law that empowers an impersonal bureaucracy does not have the same moral compass as a parent. for example obamacare's mandates subject the premiums for young people to keep premiums down for older people like me. i'm not sure children or grandchildren is a winning talking point. so supporters of the bill try to hide the truth in washington speak. they call this age rating bands. another talking point that tends to fly -- or not fly too well with folks is let's kick seniors off of medicare advantage plans.

that's exactly what happened in north carolina. many of you that know about medicare advantage plans know it's very important and very cop larry among seniors. in -- very popular among seniors. in my state last year, 57,000 seniors, more than any other state in the nation, were sent cancellation letters from the medicare advantage plans they like. many of these seniors were offered a minimum benefit plan with higher co-payments and higher premiums instead. all because of obamacare reimbursement for medicare advantage plans out of some bizarre but long-standing aversion to the program on the part of some of our friends on the sore side of the -- other side of the aisle. i've never understood it. does medicare advantage somehow give seniors too much control? stability? convenience? in their medicare benefits? i suspect my mom is watching me right now in nashville tennessee. i bet if you ask her that question she would say.

and just when you think it's really bad realize that some of the toughest obamacare hits haven't even been taken yet. first the individual mandate penalty. the penalty for not having insurance increases next year to almost $700 per adult or 2.5% of your annual income, whichever is greater. this is a penalty that many people were surprised or will be surprised to see when they get their tax return and they're expecting this amount and it would be $700 or $1,000 less to pay for the immigranted care. if your individual income is $50,000, you will pay a penalty of a thousand. a family with two adults with an income of $50,000 will pay $1,400. and you add a college kid to the mix and the penalty is $2,100. a lot of people are in for a shock when they open up that tax refund and they see the additional hidden costs of

obamacare on working families. that penalty however is still dramatically lower than the out-of-pocket costs of the obamacare plan. so we're forcing americans to pick between bad and worse. second the important mandate and -- employer mandate and penalty. the obama administration knows what the employer mandate would cost not only for businesses but employers and workers. employers would be forced to cut workers. they will be forced to reduce wages and drop employer health plans altogether and pay the penalty because the penalties will cost less than the mandates will to provide the care, and many employers simply can't afford it. so far people with employer-sponsored coverage have been harmed only by rising costs and shrinking provider networks, but they haven't for the most part lost their plans yet. the day is coming when the president can no longer delay

the employer mandate and that is when the plans they were promised they can keep will be canceled. we will see a massive disruption in the group market where most north carolinians get their health insurance. premiums are going up every year because fewer younger healthier people are enrolling than projected. this was completely predictable. young people are no dummies. they know this is a terrible deal for them. as a result, insurance companies recalculate premiums based on the cost where people have actually enrolled. the largest insurer in my state announced premium hikes for next year. now, you know it's a bad thing when i felt better about the fact that our premium increases in north carolina were only 26% because in some states they were upwards of 50%. and there's more to come. obamacare relies on people paying into a pool to subsidize the sicker and poorer members of the pool.

that's how insurance works. but virtually nobody is signing up who isn't eligible for the subsidies. c.m.s. released data yesterday showing in 2015, exchange enrollment is 30% below projections made just three years ago. and those who do enroll, they're doing it because of the lure of the subsidy. 93% of the north carolinians who are on the exchange receive those subsidies. that means that the plans are unaffordable without massive subsidies. those ineligible for the subsidy don't bother to sign up. that's why we've seen almost no movement in our state for uninsureds. obamacare is forcing employers to cut jobs and move full-time workers into part-time positions. new data show a decline in the average hours worked per week by lower wage employees and many more workers are just below that 30-hour threshold. 30 hours a week.

i was at a restaurant in north carolina a couple of months back and i was talking with the manager. he said it's heart breaking for her to go and talk to a single mom who is able to make ends meet between the tips and her salary at 40 hours a week and tell her that she can now only work 30 hours a week because the restaurant simply cannot afford to be exposed to the mandates. now you have people who may have been able to make it on 40 hours a week, 45 hours a week having to get two jobs to make ends meet. i hear employers talking about how they are having to call each other to try to work out the schedules for these hardworking folks. now, the c.b.o. projects obamacare will reduce employment as a result of all this by two million, two million full-time equivalent jobs in 2017. president obama campaigned saying he wouldn't raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year. let's talk a little bit more about that. obamacare broke that promise as

well by creating or raising 20 different taxes amounting to more than a trillion dollars in the first decade. several taxes directly punish families making less than $250,000 a year. the university of chicago economist casey mulligan modeled the macroeconomic effects of obamacare, and he estimated that the damage would be twice as large. he expects obamacare to cause a 3% drop in unemployment -- or in employment i should say and work hours and a 2% drop in our gross domestic product and worker income. if he's right the total loss in worker compensation caused by the president's health care law will exceed $2 trillion between 2017 and 2024. so now let's talk about the keene vs. burwell says that has everyone's attention with the

supreme court evidently -- they will be in a position to issue a ruling sometime next week. the question before the supreme court is this -- did the president break the law by going around the will of the people and the states who wanted to opt out of establishing a state exchange like we did in north carolina? mr. mr. mcconnell:: would the senator yield for a very brief consent agreement? mr. tillis: i will. mr. mcconnell: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22, at 4:00 p.m. today june 24 all postcloture time on the motion to concur with respect to h.r. 2146 be considered expired the pending motion to concur with amendment be withdrawn and the senate vote on the motion to concur and that if cloture on h.r. 1295 is invoked all postcloture time be considered expired, all motions and amendments be withdrawn except the motion to concur with the amendment and the senate immediately vote on the motion

to concur with the amendment. further, that following the disposition of h.r. 1295, all time on the compound motion to go to conference under rule 28 on h.r. 644 be yielded back and the senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture with a mandatory quorum waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. tillis: well, the majority leader's timing was perfect because what i just finished was a very long list of broken promises and the fiscal disaster that we call obamacare but again now i want to talk about the keene versus burwell decision. again, the question is this -- did the president break the law by going around the will of the people and the states who wanted to opt out of establishing a state exchange like north carolina? i'm not interested in litigating this. i'm not an attorney. i'm a businessman. i'll leave it to the lawyering -- i'll leave the lawyering to others. when i look at keene versus

burwell, i don't see a legal battle. i see an opportunity. it may sound trite but i see hope. the court may give us a chance of a generation, the chance to fix health care once and for all. we can't fix obamacare but we can fix health care. but here's the thing. we don't come up with some solution ourselves the press is calling on us to come up with a solution others are pressuring us on the other side of the aisle, but here's what i think we need to do. i think that we need to look beyond the traditional way of trying to solve health care to a new way and it starts with something fairly simple, humility. now, i won't read the definition for you but i think it is something that is sometimes missed here in washington. here's the solution. we take the power out of washington and we let the states do it. we give states who are closer to the people the chance, the privilege, really, to offer

health care solutions that are local, accountable and affordable. every state's different. let's respect those differences. i believe the solution is one that will give states the flexibility, the funding and the control to decide how best to serve the people of their particular state. now i just went through the long list of problems with obamacare. it's been problematic from the start with higher costs lower quality, less freedom people losing their coverage. it's a badly written law and it hurts almost everyone. washington had its chance. now it's time to let the states decide what's best for their people, and let the people decide what's best for their health care. to do that, we're going to have to do something we don't always do up here. we're going to have to jump on this opportunity and work together republicans and democrats. the federal government and the states and find commonsense

solutions that are truly patient-centered. that's the type of patient-first approach that will give patients more freedom more choice and control over their health care. that's what will expand coverage not bureaucratic power. that will promote genuine quality and innovation, and it's also what's going to bring costs down. i don't think our -- my responsibility is to my party. i don't think our responsibility is to the institution of the senate or the prerogatives of the federal government legislative branch. i think our responsibility is to the patients who deserve the highest-quality care. to the patients who want the best treatments for their children, to the nurses and doctors who deserve freedom to heal according to their wisdom, their experience and their conscience. to the businesses who deserve the freedom to design affordable

coverage that fits their workforce. finally, i think we have a responsibility to the seniors who have paved america's road to prosperity before us and who deserve a strong, secure medicare program. the court may just give us the opportunity to firmly and finally reject obamacare so that we can deliver what everyone in america deserves: a health care solution. the law has not worked. it cannot work. and it's time we return the power of medicine to the people. it's time to stop fighting and start cooperating and find a permanent solution. patients deserve portability and affordability. they deserve the peace of mind when their parent or their child or they themselves are in their hour of crisis, that they can count on getting the best health care america has to offer because sometimes politicians in washington forget, health care isn't about systems or rules

structure or even markets. it's about real people and real families and real lives. so my commitment is simple. our commitment should be simple. no one who has obamacare-subsidized care today will lose their coverage tomorrow. and we're equally committed to providing long-term state-designed patient-empowering solutions to deliver better long-term results. safe secure affordable health care in an improved economy. we commit every patient with a preexisting condition will be able to find affordable coverage. no caps on benefits. anyone can renew their health plan. that's our commitment. health care is about patients not politics. it is about doctors and nurses, not politicians. from the millions who have been affected, from the canceled plans to the higher costs we're committed to make health care genuinely personal and

affordable. hardworking taxpayers deserve stability and peace of mind when it comes to health care. a temporary extension of subsidies alone will not be enough. it would just be another washington gimmick. it would not address the very real problems with the president's health care law. let's commit to each other republicans and democrats that we will show a little modesty. we won't assume we know what's best for every american. and let the states come up with solutions. we'll work together to return power to the states, to the people and really to the kitchen table where most health care decisions are made. i know what you're thinking. i'm new been here for six months. maybe i'm a little bit naive. but i've herded a lot of cats in the north carolina legislature and stepped up to serious challenges and produced a lot of results for my friends and colleagues in north carolina. i know it can be done at the state level.

when policies are on the line that have a real impact on our neighbors, neighbors we have to face in the check-out line and the church pews. i'm looking forward to providing a solution to the health care problems in the united states. i'm looking forward to seeing bipartisan cooperation to deliver on the promises that we make here and fulfill the promise of fixing health care for our great country. thank you, mr. president. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president we're now one vote away from final passage of our bill to renew trade promotion authority. one more vote and we can finally at long last send this important bill to the president's desk. that vote is expected to take place within the next 25 minutes. this is a critical day for our country. in fact i'd call it an historic day. it's taken us awhile to get there, long than many of us would have liked but we all know anything worth having takes

effort and this bill is worth the effort. this is perhaps the most important bill we'll pass in the senate this year. it will help reassert congress's role over u.s. trade negotiations and reestablish the united states as a strong player in international trade. renewing t.p.a. has been a top priority for me for many years and as chairman of the senate finance committee, i am pleased that with the help of ranking member wyden we've been able to deliver a robust and bipartisan bill. it's also been a high priority for the senate majority leader. and thanks to his strong support and leadership, we're one step away from completing this important task. this bill will help farmers ranchers manufacturers and entrepreneurs throughout our country get better access to foreign markets and allow them to compete on a level playing field. this bill will help give these job creators and the workers they employ greater opportunities to grow their

businesses which will help create a healthier american economy. the business and agricultural communities understand the importance of strong trade agreements. that is why they came together in strong support of this important legislation. we've heard from all of them throughout this debate, and i appreciate their enthusiasm and support. this has from the outset been a bipartisan effort, and i'm glad it remained that way. throughout this entire debate here in the senate, over in the house and here in the senate again we've been able to maintain a bipartisan coalition in support of t.p.a., fair trade, and expanded market access for u.s. exporters. this is no small feat, mr. president, and i'm appreciative of everyone who has worked so hard to make this possible. with this final vote, we can complete the work that we began so many years ago. but let's be clear passing t.p.a. is not the end of the story. it's just the beginning.

as chairman of the finance committee, i intend to remain vigilant in our oversight as the administration pursues the negotiating objectives that congress has set with this legislation. and if they fall short, i will be among the first to hold them accountable. but that is for another day. today i urge my colleagues to help us finalize this historic achievement and join me in voting in favor of this bipartisan t.p.a. bill. if the vote goes the way i think it will today today will be remembered as a good day for the senate the president and the american people. mr. president, once we vote to pass t.p.a., we will then be voting to invoke cloture on the trade preferences extension act of 2015. this bill will reauthorize and improve three of our trade preference programs: the generalized system of preferences, or g.s.p., the african growth and opportunity

act, or agoa, and tariff preferences for haiti. i want to take some time to reiterate why each of these programs is important. first, the g.s.p. promotes trade with developing nations by providing duty-free tariff treatment of certain products originated in those countries. the program helps beneficiary countries advance their economic development and move toward more open economies. it also helps manufacturers and importers in the u.s. to receive inputs in raw materials at lower cost. approximately three-quarters of u.s. imports under the g.s.p. are raw materials parts and components or machinery and equipment used by u.s. companies to manufacture goods here at home. the program expired in 2013. as a result, businesses that would typically benefit from this program have had to deal with high tariffs on these

imports for the last two years. last year alone american companies paid over $600 million in tariffs that would otherwise have been eliminated with the g.s.p. in place. once we finally pass this bill, we will take a long overdue step towards solving these problems. the preferences bill also includes the long-term renewal of the agoa program which lowers u.s. tariffs on the exports of qualified sub-african -- sub-saharan african companies. encouraging them to further develop their economies. since agoa was enacted in 2000, trade with beneficiary countries has more than tripled with u.s. direct investment in beneficiary countries growing more than sixfold during that time. the program has also helped to create more than a million jobs in those countries. the agoa authorization in this preferences bill will improve on

this past success. some of our colleagues here in congress have voiced concerns about the agoa program and the fall lure of some -- failure of some beneficiary countries to live up to their commitments. i share many of these concerns and we try to address them with this bill. most notably the bill creates a mechanism under the agoa program to allow for benefits to be scaled back if a country is found to not be making good-faith progress on eligibility criteria. we expect the administration to use this new tool aggressively. finally, the preferences bill will also extend preferential access to the u.s. market for haiti. as wee all know, haiti is one of the poorest countries in the western hemisphere. the haiti preference program supports the creation of jobs and stability in a country dealing with debilitating poverty and unemployment.

i hope this extension will encourage continued economic development and democracy in haiti. mr. president, it's easy to see why these programs have all received bipartisan support. i expect that support to continue. in addition to these preferences programs the bill we'll be voting on includes legislation introduced by senators portman and brown to strengthen the enforcement and administration of our anti-dumping and countervailing duty laws. as i have noted in the past, anti-dumping and countervailing duty laws are among the most important trade tools we have to protect u.s. companies from unfair foreign trade practices. a number of utah companies do benefit from these laws which allow them to compete against imports that unfairly benefit from support from foreign governments. i'm pleased we were able to include this legislation in the preferences bill. finally also included in this bill is an extension of the trade adjustment assistance, or

t.a.a. program. i think i've said enough about my opposition to this program here on the floor over the past several weeks. i won't delve too deeply into that issue here. however, i do understand that for many of my colleagues who want to support t.p.a. and free trade, passage of t.a.a. is a prerequisite. from the outset of this debate over trade promotion authority i've committed to my colleagues to working to ensure that both t.a.a. and t.p.a. move on parallel tracks. i plan to make good on this commitment and today will show that. that is why despite my misgivings about t.a.a. and with the entire picture in view, i plan to vote for this latest version of the trade preferences bill. mr. president, back in april the senate finance committee reported four separate trade bills. all of these bills have enjoyed bipartisan support and are priorities for many members of

congress. i am committed to doing all that i can to get all of these bills through congress and on to the president's desk. and while the path has taken some unexpected turns, i think the light at the end of the tunnel at this point is very visible. once again we will shortly be voting to pass a t.p.a. bill and send it to the president. shortly there after i expect we'll pass our trade preferences bill which includes t.a.a., and send it to the house where i think it will pass hopefully without much difficulty. then we expect to appoint conferees on the customs bill which will get us closer to the finish line on that important legislation. needless to say, i am pleased with these developments, mr. president. i think they speak well of what congress is able to do when members work together to address important issues and solve real problems. once again i want to thank my colleagues for working with us on the bipartisan effort to

update and improve u.s. trade policy. most notably i want to once again thank senator wyden for his assistance and support throughout this effort and on all of these trade bills. he's been a great partner and deserves much of the credit for getting us this far. i also want to thank our distinguished majority leader for his unwavering support even in the most difficult times. i also i also moo he had to thank chairman rayian of the house ways ans means committee who's been a key partner in this endeavor and of course i want to thank speaker boehner and the house republican leadership for their efforts in getting us through all the twists and turns we've had to take to get to this point. we also need to give credit to president obama and ambassador froman for their work in building and maintaining a coalition of support for this entire undertaking. ultimately mr. president i need to thaipg everyone who has supported our work on these

bills here in the senate, over in the house and in the administration and elsewhere. that list is too lopping for too long for me to go through on the floor. i'm grateful for the work that they put in. i hope we can build on this success, mr. president a understand that we can find more ways to work together to solve our nation's problems. i want to also praise my chief staffer on this matter everett eisenstadt who with his vast foreign policy experience and trade experience has been nothing but a tremendous help to me. chris campbell, who is our chief of staff on the finance committee, has played a helpful role here and so has jay cosava, my chief policy advisor. all the rest of the stat staff

that has worked on this -- i want to compliment senator wyden's staff as well. they've worked long and hard. we've had a lot of tough days together. hopefully it will come out all right. i can say without reservation that i look forward to tackling the bipartisan challenges that lay ahead. with that, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president it's been said that there's nothing certain in life but death and taxes. well mr. president i'd like to suggest there's a third element that can be included in that saying and that's bad news about obamacare. because if there's one thing that can be counted on, i.t. i.t. the regular ref -- i.t. it's the regular leaflation of new obamacare concerns. the obama administration cannot verify if $3 billion of subsidies was properly paid. thanks to the government's failure to ensure that a reporting system was in place by the time the exchange plans went into in effect in 2014, the government paid payments to insurance companies without any way of verifying if the payments

were correct or if the people they made payments for were still enrolled in their plans. unfortunately, mr. president missing systems are just par for the course when it comes to the president's health care law. i don't need to remind anyone of the massive break-downs that occurred when the partially finished healthcare.gov kicked off two years ago. the president himself re-e. -- referred to healthcare.gov last week as "a well-documented disaster." un. but as bad as these problems have been for a program that the president once claimed would make purchasing for health care as easy as shopping on ma does on they're just the tip of the iceberg. two weeks ago i came down to talk about the massive rate hikes that customers are facing for 2016. let me read a couple of the headlines from the first week in june. this is from cnn. "obamacare sticker shock: big

rate hikes proposed for 2016." from "the new york times," "many health insurers go big with initial 2016 rate requests." from "the wall street journal," "more health care insurers seek big premium increases." from the associated press "eight minnesota health plans propose big premium hikes for 2016." from the newark star ledger, "premiums to jump more than 10% on many obamacare policies." mr. president, i could go on. nationwide insurers have requested double-dynel i think premium increase -- double-digit premium increases on hundreds of individual and small group plans. facing archl rate increases of 10% or more. around the country rate increases of 20% 30%, on the one hand even 40% are common. yet the president promised that his health care plan -- and i quote -- "would bring down the

cost of health care for millions." end quote. well, in fact, the president's health care law has been driving up -- up -- the cost of health care for millions since its inception. the average family health care premium has increased by almost $3,500 sings 2009 despite the president's promise that health insurance costs for families would decrease by $2,500 if his law was passioned. mr. president, i could go on about obamacare's many fail iewmplets i could talk about the state exchanges that are failing or those that have already failed. i could talk about the individuals that lost their health insurance plans plans that they liked, as a result of this law. i could talk about the people who can no longer see doctors they saw for years because their new obamacare plans have severely limited the network of doctors that they can see. i could talk about the small businesses that are struggling with the costs imposed by obamacare or the fact that congressional budget office has stated that the law will reduce

work hours equivalent to 2 million full-time workers by the year 2017. mr. president, i think every american gets the point. obamacare is broken. it's been broken from the beginning. it's failed to deliver on the president's promise of more affordable accessible health care and it's made things worse for american families. mr. president, the next few days the supreme court will release its decision in the king v. burwell case. if the supreme court abolishes out or faces out the obamacare subsidies, the republicans will take action to provide assistance to affected americans while we work to repeal the mandates that forced these americans to buy government-approved insurance in the first place. our plan will protect families while we move away from costly top-down government-mandated health care and toward a system that will actually drive down cost and increase choices for american families.

mr. president, president obama promised that his health care law would be a solution to the problems plaguing our health care system. the last five years have approved that obamacare is -- have proved that obamacare is anything but. not only did obamacare fail to solve the existing problems in our health care system, it's created entirely new ones. and the american families are those who are suffering as a result. it's time for democrats to stop defending this broken law and start working with republicans to replace it with real health care reform that will lower costs, put patients back in charge and provide greater access to quality care. that's what we should be working on. that's what the american people expect and it's long overdue. mr. president, i yield the floor.

nor senator mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. a senator: i ask to speak for up to six minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. perdue: i rise to speak about a fundamentally flawed law that is holding back our economy and limiting people's premium freedom -- freedoms when it comes to choices in health care. i'm talking about obamacare. obamacare was the creation of a democratic supermajority that crammed obamacare through congress without open debate by the american people. in the last five years since obamacare became law the american people have not yielded in their strong opposition. in fact, today more than a majority of americans continue to disaprove of this law and

there's no wonder why. when i'm back home in georgia mr. president, one of the most frequent and sobering concerns i hear about is the insidious negative economic impact of this law. the consequences of obamacare are hurting georgians in many ways and millions of americans. first, the individual mandate is forcing people onto obamacare whether they can afford it or not. like my wife bonnie and i many people have had their insurance plans actually canceled, lost access to their preferred doctors, or were forced on to insurance plans that cost more, not less. in georgia aloafn, alone dozens of obamacare plans are spebted to have double-dynel iterate hiewks in next year with some people's plans skyrocketing over 60%. that's just unacceptable. second obamacare's employer mandate is causing small businesses to cut back workers' hours and in some cases businesses have actually stopped

hiring completely. due to the 30-hour workweek rule inside obamacare many people are being forced to move to full-time or part-time -- from full-time to part-time work. this is devastating to families already struggling to get from payday to payday. without a full workweek, many moms and dads dads are juggling multiple part-time jobs to froir their families and try to save for the future. next year, for example 2.6 million people are in danger of having their hours cut because of obamacare. 60% of those individuals are female and over 60% are the young first-time workers between 18 and 35 years of age. third, mr. president given the growing analling population -- aging population, obamacare is contributing to a dangerous doctor shortage. the association of american medical colleges is predicting a shortage of as many as 90,000 doctors by 2025. another survey by the physicians

foundation found that 81% of doctors described themselves as either overextended or at full capacity and 44% said they plan to cut back on a number of patients they see retire, work part-time, or actually close their practice to new patients. ultimately obamacare is raising costs, not lowering them. cutting cutting workers' wages not growing them. decreasing access, not expanding it and making it harder on the middle class not easier. while the sentiment of the supreme court on obamacare is still to be determined one thing is crystal clear -- obamacare is hurting people and our economy. it must be fully repealed and replaced. we have to -- we've got to stop allowing washington to dictate what's best for individuals and their families. putting bureaucrats between patients and their doctors between patients and their insurance provider and between

doctors and the insurance providers is what created this catastrophe in the first place. obamacare was wrong from the start. we've seen the growing unintended consequences of this flawed law in its glementation over the last five years -- implementation over the last five years. we now have to choose a better course. and i remain committed to using every tool at our disposal to repeal obamacare. achieving consensus on replacing obamacare with a patient-based alternative will require diligence and robust debate. i'm hopeful that we can achieve that goal. i urge my colleagues to continue to work to not just fight against obamacare but to fight to protect the millions of people that are hurt by it every day. we can create a health care system that offers the american people affordability transportability and yes insurability. we can create commonsense health care policy that lowers costs

and doesn't harm the economy like obamacare. and, yes we can create a bipartisan solution that helps people by putting patients first and getting washington out of the way. it won't be easy but it is achievable. it must be achievable for the sake of our kids and grandkids we must do this, we must get rid of obamacare once and for all. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order all postcloture time is expired. under the previous order, the motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate ality to h.r. 2146 with an amendment is withdrawn and the question occurs on the motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 2146. mr. hatch: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote: you vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is any member wishing to change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 60, the nays are 38. the motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 2146 is agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. scott: thank you mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that senator graham and i be allowed to speak for about five minutes, equally divided. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. scott: mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. the senator from south carolina. mr. scott: thank you mr. president. a senator: the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. the senate will be in order.

senators will take their conversations out of the well. a senator: i would reiterate mr. president, that the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate is not in order. senators will take their conversations off and out of the well. the senator from south carolina. mr. scott: thank you mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 212 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 212 contending the attack on emanuel african methodist episcopal church in south carolina and prayers for all those injured in the assault. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. scott: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there

objection? without objection. mr. scott: thank you mr. president. i stand before you today before the nation not as a senator, not as an elected official but as a humble south carolinian. the past week has been one of terrible tragedy and amazing unity. last wednesday night we experienced an unimaginable tragedy. nine men and women nine mothers, fathers sisters brothers, sons daughters lost forever. the hateful and racist actions of one deranged man has changed nine families forever. it has changed south carolina forever. charleston forever. but what we saw from the nine families at last friday's bond hearing was simple, was

powerful and absolutely the best of who we are as americans. just a few minutes ago i was back in the cloakroom and i had the opportunity to talk to one of the victim's sons, daniel simmons jr. i was talking to them back there and i said is there anything you want me to share when i go on the floor of the senate? he said please share that god cares for his people god still lives. i was amazed. then he said with great enthusiasm and energy, a sense of excitement that this evil attack would lead to reconciliation restoration and unity in our nation.

those are powerful words. it is with great sadness and amazing hope that our future as a nation hasn't changed. it has been changed because one person decided to murder nine. it has been changed because the response of those nine families has been so courageous. so inspiring. and if you permit me, i will

read the names of it those nine individuals. we honor the reverend sharonda coleman-singleton, a beloved teacher, coach at goose creek high school. her son chris has shown us all what an amazing mother she was through his strength over the past six days. we honor cynthia hurd, whose love for education has been shared for over 31 years as a libyan in the public library system. we honor suzy jackson which at 87 years young still offered her beautiful voice to the choir and had recently returned from visiting her family in ohio. we honor ethel lee lance who served her church with pride

whose daughter calls her the strong woman who just tried to keep her family together. we honor depayne middleton-doctor who dedicated her life to serving the poor and worked as an enrollment counselor at southern wesleyan university. we honor my good friend, reverend clementa pinckney, an amazing man of faith a great dad and a wonderful father. we honor tywanza sanders beloved son of tyrone and felicia, whose warmth and heartfelt spirit has kept us moving. we honor the reverend daniel simmons sr. whose granddaughter said my granddaddy was an amazing, amazing man. it seemed like every time he

spoke, it was pure wisdom. and we honor pastor myra thompson, who served the lord with grace and dignity. she loved her children, her grandchildren and her grade -- great grandchildren. if you would just pause for nine seconds, a second for each one i would appreciate it. [moment of silence] mr. scott: thank you. in closing i want to thank all my colleagues in the senate and the house for their kind words over the past week and for the prayers that continue to come into our city from across the nation. we are charleston, we are south carolina and we are absolutely

united and we are committed to replacing hate with love, pain with kindness and ill will and hostility with goodwill and comfort. i yield to senator graham. mr. graham: thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: and i just want to recognize senator scott. we all know tim as a man of quiet faith. he does it when no one's looking, by the way. i remember being in the cloakroom watching a basketball game, which is consistent with me and tim's over in the corner with headphones. i said what are you listening to or what are you doing? he said i'm doing my bible study, very sheepishly. tim, you have been a great comfort to our state because you are truly a man of god. to the rest of you i -- i want to tell people in south carolina the senate -- we've got a lot of differences and we display them a lot. i wish you could have heard what was said to me and tim. everybody in this body has come up to us and one way or another

said the most kind things. so the united states senate, we have had our problems but we're still a family. so thank you all from all over this country for the kindness you've shown during these difficult times. very quickly, i don't know how you can sit with somebody for an hour in a church and pray with them and get up and shoot them. that's something i department think we had here, but apparently we do. i just can't imagine what it takes of an individual to be welcomed in a church -- and here's what happened. he went to charleston with a plan. the people in the church had no idea who he was or what he had in mind, and he came into the church and he was sitting in the pews by himself and they invited him up for the bible study. and spent an hour with him. and he said they were so nice, i could almost -- i almost backed out. that says a lot about them. it says a lot about him. but tim mentioned something that i cannot get over.

within 48 hours of having your family member murdered, they appear in a public setting looking the guy in the eye and saying you have ruined my life, but i love you and i forgive you. that is a level of love and understanding that can only come from some higher authority. i don't have that within me. so when it comes to representing south carolina, tim and i will do our best, but on our best day we're nowhere close to these people. there's no politician in america that can represent their state better than the people of mother emmanuel a.m.e. church, when they went to a public place looked the killer in the eye and said i forgive you, i am praying for you. i wish we could muster that kind of love for each other just a little bit what would america be like? thank you all for your kindness. i ask unanimous consent that the votes following the first vote in the series be ten minutes in length. the presiding officer: is there

objection? without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 1295 with an amendment, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 1295 with an amendment shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: