quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island.

mr. whitehouse: mr. president i presume we are in a quorum call. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. whitehouse: i ask consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: the clerk will call -- the clerk will lift the quorum call. without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you. mr. president, in poll after poll after poll, the american people have told this congress that it is time to wake up to the ever-growing threat from carbon pollution. two-thirds of americans support the environmental protection agency's clean power plan to cut emissions from power plants and invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy. even a majority of republicans support action to reduce carbon

pollution. but we do nothing. so here i am again for the 108th time in speeches to which the presiding officer has become something of a frequent flier to urge that we listen to our constituents and do the job we were sent here to do. sadly, congress is stuck in the grip of the big polluters and their unlimited unreported campaign spending. after the dreadful citizens united supreme court decision of 2010 two things happened. one, corporate political spending poured into secretive

unaccountable groups who now wield untold influence in our elections. and two republicans particularly republican voices in congress, fell silent on carbon pollution and on climate change. it was a stopper. so despite the wishes of the american people and despite an overwhelming scientific consensus the majority in the senate has no plan whatsoever to address the catastrophic changes we see in our oceans and our atmosphere in our farms and our forests. many of the republican candidates for president for fear of offending their fossil

fuel billionaire donors ignore not only the clear tide of public opinion and not only the warnings of our scientific and national security officials they ignore the climate disruptions in their home states they ignore the home-grown climate research of their own states' scientists and universities. earlier this year i came to the floor with my colleague and friend senator baldwin of wisconsin, to consider the effects of carbon pollution in her badger state. senator baldwin is a fierce defender of wisconsin families and businesses, and is fighting to protect wisconsin's climate from the great lakes to the

legendary dairy farms. wisconsin governor scott walker walker on the other hand, has gone another way. he has gone right down the fossil fuel industry rabbit hole. he pulled the plug on scientific and environmental functions in state government, and he attacks environmental programs in the the federal government. so let's look at the facts in wisconsin. according to the scientists, at the university of wisconsin madison, weather stations around wisconsin measure that average temperatures in wisconsin increased by about 1.1 degrees fahrenheit between 1950 and 2006. during the same period,

wisconsin got wetter as well as warmer. annual average precipitation in wisconsin increased by almost three inches. again, measured. as more and more carbon pollution piles up in the atmosphere researchers at the university of wisconsin madison estimate and project that by mid century wisconsin could warm by four to nine degrees fahrenheit. by the end of the century the climate in wisconsin may look more like that of present-day missouri or oklahoma. raising the prospect of dramatic shifts in the wisconsin economy and way of life. these changes, mr. president would not be kind to wisconsin's

iconic badger. the upper midwest and great lakes landscape conservation cooperative lists the wisconsin badger as one of the region's species at risk from climate change. has no apparent affect on governor walker, however. there is a wisconsin initiative on climate change impacts. the wisconsin initiative on climate change impacts was formed in 2007 by the wisconsin department of natural resources and the university of wisconsin nelson institute for environmental studies. the scientists and public officials in this program are studying how climate change will affect wisconsin's wildlife, water resources and public

health. and important wisconsin industries like forestry agriculture, and shipping and tourism on the great lakes. climate change threatens pillars of the wisconsin economy. the initiatives' working group reports that higher summertime temperatures and increasing drought will create significant stress on livestock even touching wisconsin's famed cheese industry. victor cabrera is an assistant professor at the university of wisconsin madison dairy science department. he says that this heat stress interferes with both fertility and milk production. dairy cows could give as much as 10% less milk. professor cabrera in wisconsin

is not alone. he's not alone. the u.s. department of agriculture predicts that by 2030, climate change will cost the u.s. dairy sector between $79 million and $199 million per year in lost production. does governor walker care? not apparently. but the university of wisconsin does so it's leading a usda funded effort to investigate practices that lead to greenhouse gases from milk production and make dairies more resilient to wisconsin's changing climate. some wisconsin dairy farmers for instance are burning excess methane in enormous manure digesters to create their own electricity. and it's not just the farmers. wisconsin has sportsmen.

wisconsin's sportsmen treasure wisconsin's 10,000 miles of trout streams some of the best trout fishing in the country. trout unlimited found that the driftless area of wisconsin and parts of illinois, minnesota and iowa adds over a billion dollars per year to the surrounding economies. a billion dollars per year. but cold water fish like the brook trout are highly sensitive to temperature increases in streams. under the worst cases researchers at the university of wisconsin madison and the wisconsin department of natural resources -- quote -- "brook trout are projected to be completely lost from wisconsin streams" -- end quote. even the best-case scenarios see

losses of as much as 44% of the wisconsin brookies' current range by mid century. that's wisconsin's own department of natural resources. and other cold water species like the brown trout are not much better off than the brookies. and the wisconsin department of natural resources is not alone. it's not alone. the american fly fishing trade association said this in a recent public statement i'll quote them -- "climate change is no longer a potential threat. it demands our attention now. we call on our elected officials to put partisan politics aside and work quickly to enact federal policy to address the threats presented by global

climate change." that's the american fly fishing trade association. on to wisconsin's loggers. wisconsin has a significant logging industry, and the loggers are having trouble getting to the timber when hard frozen winter ground becomes too thawed and too soggy to hold up logging equipment. according to a study out of the university of wisconsin that period for loggers to work has decreased by two to three weeks sips 1948, shortening the working window before their gear bogs down. in every corner of the state wisconsin's own scientists wisconsin's own scientists, are seeing dramatic climate changes. and wisconsin businesses and

communities are already taking a hard hit. how does their governor respond? you can probably see this coming. i'm not a scientist. the classic denier dodge. governor walker, you know you're not a scientist but it's okay because you have some of the top scientists right there at your own university of wisconsin. you have teams of scientists working for you at your state agencies right in wisconsin. but do we expect that scott walker will listen to his scientists? no. no he has a different plan --

to eliminate more than 60 positions at the wisconsin department of natural resources including dozens of scientific staff. that's one way to not have to listen to them. who does scott walker listen to? well the koch brothers political network has said it plans on spending $900 million in the 2016 election cycle $900 million. and the president of one of the biggest koch brothers-backed organizations, tim phillips, of a group called americans for prosperity has threatened publicly that any republican candidate in the 2016

presidential campaign who supported climate action -- quote -- "would be at a severe disadvantage in the republican nomination process." end quote. so they're going to throw $900 million at the election, and they have got that severe disadvantage threat floating around. nice little campaign you've got here. it would be a shame if it was severely disadvantaged. well it didn't take governor walker long to sign that same americans for prosperity organization's no climate tax pledge. what do you know? vowing to oppose any legislation on climate change without an equivalent amount of tax cuts. amazing what waving around

$900 million will do. who else does scott walker listen to? well the majority leader recently called on all governors to rebel against the e.p.a.'s clean power plan. so far only six took up the majority leader's call. one of them is guess who? scott walker. in december, he wrote to the e.p.a. that their plan would be -- quote -- a blow to wisconsin residents and business owners. in january he announced that he was planning to sue the agency instead. maybe governor walker would think differently if he had listened to wisconsin business owners. lori compas, executive director of the wisconsin business alliance endorsed the e.p.a.'s clean power plan proposal as a

boon a benefit to the wisconsin economy. here's what she said. i'll quote her -- encouraging renewable energy development will result in business growth, job creation, cleaner air and a quicker path to energy independence. that's what she wrote. i'll continue. she said our society doesn't have to decide whether our policy should favor jobs or the environment. we should look for opportunities to promote jobs and the environment, and the clean power plan is a great way to do that. that's the wisconsin business alliance speaking. and those wisconsin businesses are also not alone.

they are not alone. 13 of the largest corporations in america yesterday joined president obama's american business act on climate pledge. committing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions invest in renewable energy sources and promote sustainable practices across their respective markets and up their supply chains. mr. president, these are some pretty big-time nameplate american companies. alcoa, apple bank of america berkshire hathaway energy cargill, coca-cola, general motors goldman sachs google, microsoft, pepsico u.p.s., and

walmart. that's a pretty broad spectrum of america's corporate hierarchy. is it the republican majority's position that they are all also in on the hoax? the republican majority has accused nasa scientists who just flew a craft by pluto and who are driving a rover around on the surface of mars of being in on a hoax, that climate change is a hoax, and the nasa scientists are in on it. is walmart in on the hoax, too? do the senators from arkansas want to go home and tell their walmart executives that they're in on a hoax? do the senators from georgia want to go in and tell the c.e.o. of coca-cola that they're in on a hoax? i don't think so. it is an untenable argument. we have got to move on.

these leaders of american commerce declare in a voice the republicans should listen to -- quote -- "we recognize that delaying action on climate change will be costly in economic and human terms." while accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy will produce multiple benefits with regard to sustainable economic growth, public health, resilience to natural disasters and the health of the global environment. that's quite a crowd to sign off on that statement and more will come because other companies like v.f. industries and mars and unilever agree with them. mr. president, our good earth is sending us a clear message. the message that our good earth is sending us is that carbon

pollution is driving unprecedent ed change. it's showing the change happening in the earth around us. voters too are sending us a clear message. they're speaking up to say that climate change is the problem and they want their leaders to take action and that it's time we got our heads out of the sand. unfortunately, there's a problem. the big polluters have a powerful political megaphone and they don't hesitate to use it. and they back it up with big dark money campaign spending that is distorting our democracy in disgraceful ways. and the result is that like so many republican candidates for

the presidency, scott walker of wisconsin has no plan won't listen to his home state scientists at his home state state university and ignores what his loggers and trout fishermen and businesses are all seeing and saying. but oh, my, does he listen to the big polluters. mr. president, i yield the floor, and i'll note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22, that at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow wednesday july 29 all postcloture time on the mcconnell amendment number 2266 be considered expired. further, that if cloture is invoked on h.r. 22, then the postcloture time count as if cloture had been invoked at 6:00 a.m. on wednesday july 29. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22, following the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on

h.r. 22, the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc -- executive calendar 6 137 and 193. that the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to the nominations that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of executive calendar 232, that the nomination be confirmed the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate then resume legislative session.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 156 and s. 614. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 614, a bill to provide access to and use of information by federal agencies in order to reduce improper payments and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i further ask the carper substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 160 s. 242.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 160, s. 242, a bill to amend title 5 united states code and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i further ask the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 161 s. 764. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 161, s. 764, a bill to reauthorize and amend the national sea grant college program act and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that the committee-reported substitute be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of h. con. res. 64, which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 64, authorizing the use of the eemancipation hall in the capitol visits center to present the gold medal to the among iewments men. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate mao proceed to s. res. 225. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 225, honoring the national association of women business owners on its 40th anniversary. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection the committee is discharged and the senate 4r

proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the snatd proceed -- the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. con. res. 20. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate concurrent resolution 20, recognizing and honoring the 25th anniversary of the date of enactment of the americans with disabilities act of 1990. the presiding officer: is is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i understand there is a bill and a joint resolution at the desk. i ask for their first reading en bloc. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the measures for the first time en bloc. the clerk: s. 181, a bill to

prohibit federal funding of planned parenthood federation of america. house joint resolution 61, amending the internal revenue code of 1986 to exempt employees of health coverage under tricare tricare, et cetera. mr. mcconnell: i now ask to my request. the presiding officer: under the previouswithoutobjection, they will receive their second readings on the next legislative day. mr. mcconnell: when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. wednesday, july 29 ivelgt following the prayer and pledge. the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders had been heleadersbe reserved for their use later in the day. following leader remarks the senate resume consideration of h.r. 22 under the previous order with the time until 10:00 a.m. equally divided in the usual form. the presiding officer: without objectionment. mr. mcconnell: if there is no

further business to come before the senate, i ask that is it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until >> >> the house would not take up the funding bill this week but the house republican leaders now consider a new short-term bills. how and what has changed?

>> there is a couple of reasons there has been several weeks of messaging from the house since the senate release the multi-year authorization. transportation and ways and means leaders in the house don't believe there is enough time to draft legislation for the house to speak on this before the august recess. so for a couple of weeks they have pointed to the december 18th extension to continue the multi-year bill then last night am brought to drag out a debate clock the house introduced a 38

month extension. it just seems it the ups the ante to force the senate before breaking for recess. >> and though are the main authors of the bill for the veterans affairs department? >> from bill schuster it has housed in ways committee chairman but we just got this late last night. including committee staff with ways and means authorizing committee as everybody takes a look at this. so to address the

consolidation of veterans affairs health care program to deal with but that is still figured out. there is still the offset for that. as advocates and other staff. but for the transportation part is it would extend authorization through the end of october 20 night but also including $8 billion from the general fund. the same amount of money to put into the transportation program that it would go into the highway trust fund which is a the bank account the federal government reimburses for transportation projects. there be a billion dollar federal transfers so while authorization of this bill

will only reach through the end of october but fighting in chile the trust fund could float through the end of december. if the house and the senate don't act with the impending hold the federal government could not reimburse for projects and states cannot engage in any new road repairs. >> speaker boehner met today to say he would do everything i can to do the long term highway bill. that is from your colleague. what is the likelihood they will pass long term before the three month extension and expires? >> he also told reporters the short-term extension was necessary to get to the highway bill sometime before the next and session expires.

so his commitment to long-term highway bill is contingent on the senate to pass another short-term extension. speaker boehner paul bryant and they have all said this is way too soon to pass the multi-year bill and they have not budged if they will take it up. it depends on senate action but it seems unlikely that is a long-term bill before recess. >> what is the status that now has that reauthorization of the export-import bank? what do leaders say about the new proposal? >> they are very disappointed in the messaging from bauhaus contending not only will they pass the bill but try to pass it in time for the house to take it up before they leave on thursday.

it depends on this afternoon as senator durbin said they are working on the unanimous consent agreement basically to cut short some of the procedural time that has been put in place because of the actions yesterday. the senate has a complicated procedural situation with many potential hang ups and stalls that could occur on certain moves related to the bill. but the leaders are saying they will try to push to get the members to agree to get a vote later this evening. to speed up the clock to revisit again tomorrow and it could be too late. >>host: what is the impact of no deal is done?

water communities and cities and towns doing? >> you could see those construction intones all over the community that is the messaging from a lot of advocacy groups. the reality is if if they don't do something to stop the shortfall to reauthorize the transportation program, states cannot engage in the summer construction work they have been doing without the faith the federal government will have their backs so it is disruptive and financially costly consequence but i don't think any leaders in the house or senate truly believe they will not come to some agreement before the authorization expires but what depends now is the message of short-term will outweigh the senate pushed

for the long term before the august deadline. that is what we will see in the coming days of who will reign supreme. >>host: kellie mejdrich the transportation reporter at cq roll call. find her on twitter. thank you so much. them, who are imprisoned for labor purposes or for sex trafficking. >> washington journal continues. host: we are back with meghan mccarthy, editchie >> we are back with the editor in chief of morning consul to talk about the health care law and what is next the senate voted to do try to once again repealed the affordable care act. what happened?

>> this is the first vote since the republicans wanted to vote in january. the couple months longer than people anticipated. it fell 49 or 43 as republican is were out on a sunday vote sova would have gotten 51 votes but it created a lot of fireworks over the next few days spent looking at the majority leader from kentucky. >> tried to convince senators. >> it is filled with higher costs and fewer choices and broken promises. and that has failed repeatedly to have day hard-working middle-class family has a choice for every senator.

to protect the president who likes a lot with his name on it or stand with the middle-class to open to a truly affordable care. >> majority leader mitch mcconnell trying to dismantle the affordable care act. is there going to be any efforts to try again? >> there was a lot of fireworks as hard-line conservatives including senator lee they said they accused him dues this as a tactic to vote for the highway bill. sova mike lee did have a plan to get the senate to vote and have that germane to the highway bill. now that it is wait and see

situation and there is a lot of pressure to use reconciliation to repeal the affordable care act that they could theoretically do and of course, obama will lead like to veto. of the minority leader came to the floor on the debate on sunday over what republicans were trying to do. >> today's vote is not reducing deficit but caving to the special interest for the republican leader desperately trying to appease their base. i am appalled and disappointed by these continued partisan attempts to strip away insurance coverage for almost 20 million americans. congress passes the affordable care act and the supreme court puts on a stamp of approval not once

but twice. to take a politically motivated coach going nowhere. >> as a democratic leader to say it is going nowhere but how do house republicans feel? >> there was a july 24 deadline for those who had jurisdiction to report how they would go about to repeal the affordable care act it is symbolic but they all missed it so talking to the experts that it is a sign that there is disagreement and not relate a plan yet. nobody has come around how exactly to you misheard reconciliation to appeal or they should even focus on that. the president said he would veto the effort.

>>host: what has happened? it has been one month since the supreme court ruled. what does that mean for it these efforts to repeal the affordable care act? >> it did put a freeze on what the house and senate republicans did with the affordable cap -- jack there was a lot of waiting to see the ruling if the supreme court went against the administration that would have meant a lot of activity on the hill addressing the subsidies that might have got away of the supreme court ruled against the administration so it is picking up the pieces now to figure out the best timing politically. >>host: doing your own polling on the affordable care act what are people saying? >> those that are running for president? the opinions over the past

five years but they found there is a slight uptick that they want congress to expand the law first his appeal in it but the largest group once congress to make changes to improve it then followed by a the repeal group. so that it is up to their interpretation by the state's it is the lowest amount since gallup has been checking the numbers. >>host: talking to make and mccarthy about the affordable care act.

how is it working for you? give us sure comments and questions. editor in chief of morning counsel to so many futures legal challenges? >> there are some legal challenges the republicans but none have raised to the of level of burwell so that was a dark horse case for a while. is survived two major challenges. i would guess there would not be a third of that level but i don't now. >>host: then hhs secretary will be on capitol hill today testifying on the house side. what do you expect lawmakers

will be asking her? >> some of the politics around the affordable care act has died down the past few months. so this hearing will be about the programs that hhs has with more education but there will be questions about insurance premiums and whether or not people can afford the coverage they are getting now is the changes as those prices continue to rise. >>host: our coverage is on live before the house education workforce committee. what is the next phase? >> of pieces that are in place are people on the exchanges to get insurance

insurance, you may see more states to expand to become federal exchanges because it is difficult technologically and financially to run the state based exchange so that could be a trend that develops. the largest criticism republicans had is price is are fine now especially because they are receiving subsidies over the next to read three years they will grow at a rate that people cannot afford any more. >>host: the independent is up first. go ahead. >> caller: dash and the affordable care act is good for people in this city if there are poor people that cannot afford expensive health care. is this your opinion?

>>guest: right now there are definitely millions of americans that have received health care that they could not afford on the individual market before the affordable care act existed. there are some arguments to be made of that cost will remain affordable and that depends on how much the government can help subsidize the cost. >>host: democratic caller. south carolina. >> caller: our governor would not take the expanded medicaid and so what people are quoting individual rates? mine was $451 a month that i cannot afford because my husband has parkinsons even 20% to pay out a pocket with medicare proposal there is a lot of cost with a husband i

am of full-time caretaker. and i am a breast cancer survivor but have not had a mammogram for two years. so those that are accepting medicaid expansion are they paying the higher rate? that is pretty high. >>guest: with your health issues, yes it your state did not expand medicaid that is the reason possibly you have a higher rate per month. of medicaid expansion that they have not agreed to or take the federal money is within a certain income range that you are going to miss out qualifying for subsidies but cannot qualify for medicaid under the original rules.

>>host: at the republican space from florida. >> caller: i have to do things to say i think the affordable care act we will elect a republican and, hopefully not donald trump, and they will repeal this and replace it with something that is effective. my story. i've looked for health insurance probably one year before the affordable care act was enacted because of my concerns of getting older extremely good health rarely drink no medications. about $150 per month. then after the affordable care act it went up at $250 per month with a 66% increase which i rejected

because i will not spend $250 a month to subsidize the health care of those with diabetes. but it just give now given the paper about one week ago that florida is getting a 20% increase in premiums. some 20% of $250 is well over $300 now. or close. this is for $9,000 deductible said is not an all affordable so i personally will not take part in this health care system if i break my leg i will pay cash and work them down to a number that can work and they will take that

because it is cash. >>host: i will share this from the "l.a. times" obamacare 2016 rates rise 4% increase for the second year in a row despite dire predictions of sticker shock across the country. >> that was a big surprise considering how much coverage there was that california really tried to push down the rates that insurance companies had presented to the exchange for their. one thing to consider with insurance rates they could be very regionally based may be only a 4% increase but others don't have the same numbers but also of to keep binge -- keeping plot in mind they have gone up every year before it was passed. >> but california's rates are a key barometer of how

the affordable care act is working nationwide and industry giants like kaiser permanente day are eager to compete with the biggest obamacare market. the caller also mentioned if a republican wins they will get rid of the affordable health care a lot. is that what the candidates are saying? >>guest: there is no republican candidate out there that said they want to keep the affordable care act but that being said there is a lot of different ways they could think about that. there are millions of americans who have health insurance now and those who will be upset so you may see the rhetoric shift to be a little more nuanced for this presidential cycle. >>host: how much better with the hca have been instead of trying to improve

it? are there any republicans working across the aisle on improvement? >>guest: there is a number of bipartisan efforts to change the law lot. a lot of them are and to bring certain parts like the of medical device tax that congress has voted on several times. now to get rid of some rules for smaller employers and where they get their insurance and the requirements. it just doesn't rise to the level of attention of the individual mandate. >>host: caller go-ahead. >> caller: i am all for the affordable care but it seems that i don't like to agree with anybody who is republican or democrat.

but this seems insurance rates have significantly risen because of it. . .you quoted california, but that is difficult to believe, seeing what i have heard around here. from people's insurance rates. host: what have you heard? caller: that insurance rates are going through the roof like mine. host: meghan mccarthy? guest: i think republicans would make the argument that rates are definitely going up because of all of the rules that the affordable care act puts in place on what kind of insurance can be offered to people on exchanges. there is a lot more requirements plans have to hit. the central health benefits. a certain percentage of costs. democrats are supporters of the law would say that benefits consumers. and plans offered cheaply, like

the guy from california mentioned. $150 a month. was not really covering anyone. you get to the hospital and realize you have a bill with thousands of dollars. there are arguments to be made on both sides. that is part of the cost increase though. host: eric, independent caller from florida. caller: you made some point earlier about people who want to expand the act. you did not mention who those people were. i will make a guess but i imagine it is that people either getting their coverage paid for by somebody else or they are the people supplying it. i have a couple of issues i would like to bring up. a lady called from florida and mention the governor was not going to accept the medicare expansion. looking at the details, the

federal government has no money. we are trillions of dollars in the hole on the stuff we can find the books. something like 100 trillion dollars in unfunded liability and social security. you can see the numbers at the u.s. debt clock.org. are you aware how much we are in debt? guest: the increasing cost of health care is the next major focus after the affordable care act. the affordable care act gets people access to insurance but the cost of health care is a problem for the federal budget. it is one the biggest chunks of the pauline -- of the pie. there have been signs of the cost of medicare increasing at a decreasing rate. that is the next big fight for democrats or republicans regardless of who was in the white house. host: and the caller was

wondering about who wanted to expand it. when you look at the polls that morning consult did in june of 2014, that is the light green in the column. dark green is july this past month. these are the people who want to expand the law, delay the law. can you explain? guest: opinions on the affordable care act are stagnant. while these are small changes, it is interesting that it was happening on what was considered the most positive thing congress could do to the law, which is expanded. the caller asked pacific life who are those people. we did not break it down based on whether or not they were receiving insurance on the exchanges. but it did see an increase from democrats and republicans. republicans want from 2% warning congress to expand the law to 7% over the course of the year. host: this is the first time for

our viewers to talk to someone from morning consult. what is the website? guest: it is a media and polling organization. we bring together the best of policy and politics reporting with unprecedented access to public opinion polling. our team is out in the field with a 2000 person national voter poll every week. our audience right now are the people in washington that want to know what is happening on capitol hill whether it is an health or energy. finance or tech policy. what is happening on the campaign trail when it comes to members of the house and senate. we are also writing for people outside of washington who need to know what is happening on the hill for the industries they are working in. whether it is an insurance company or oil company. we are aiming for both they d.c.

crowd of people across america. host: when do you publish? guest: we have five e-mails in the morning and the topic areas i mentioned and a general one on congress where we round up the top news of the day in business and in washington, d.c. for those five areas. we collect news not just from what we produce every day but from any outlet out there. we remain more agnostic about who we include in our morning e-mails and some of their competitors. in addition to e-mails, we have individual enterprise reporting. we have reporters on the hill we ask members questions about the different topics of the day. host: is it free? guest: everything is free. go to morningcounnsult.com to see

our newspapers -- news updates and our polls. all of our stores are free. host: who is funding it? guest: we make our own money. we generate revenue from selling advertisements, mostly on the e-mails that go out and the morning. and sponsored polling. host: who owns it? what was the idea here? guest: our owner started this several years ago. he is a health policy expert. it was basically to round up the news. there was so much happening and health policy, it was hard to keep track of. so he started this morning e-mail that really grew in popularity answer against. i started reading it when i was at health reporter and i relied on it every morning. that is one of the reasons i

joined the company now. host: meghan mccarthy, editor in chief of morning consult to talk about health care issues. eduardo in boston. it morning. -- good morning. you are on the air. caller: good morning. thank you for having me. i want to talk about the -- i had done. i spoke to people who are on medicaid. medicaid, it has not been the patients. in 2003, they called 52 pharmacies were stealing for

medicaid. i called medicaid to report two people. first was in a program in manhattan. they still from medicaid in my name. and bnsf charted who stole six months of medicaid in my name. i called medicaid to report them and they did not do nothing about it. but they had take away most of everything from us. host: any comments there about medicaid and what is being offered? guest: fraud in in the medicaid and medicare system. that is a big focus in the obama administration. a task force was set up that reported record numbers in cases they have won. as far as medicaid, thanks in

part to the affordable care act, it is one of the largest insurers in america. as it gets bigger, challenges will go with it. host: michigan, independent. you are next. caller: good morning. i am retired. over the last six years, i have seen my deductibles darn near doubled. i have a couple friends who have been able to get insurance recently, but like the gentleman called, he said i have insurance and he said it would be good if something catastrophic happens to us, but he says my deductible is $6,000. he says to use it on a normal basis, we need prescriptions or whatever, he says it is not helping me. i have talked to a lot of people in this area. one lady, her and her husband

are retired. he lost his benefits from wherever she -- he retired from. at 68 years old, she had to go back to work just so they could pay premiums for their health care. the bottom line is there are subsidies out there now, but when you look at it, subsidies are taxpayer dollars. in the end, there is no free lunch. something has to be done here. i would love to be able to see everybody have good health care. host: sorry, that you are finished. meghan mccarthy. guest: your experience is not uncommon. a high deductible health plans are being offered more frequently than five years ago. the theory is that because costs and health insurance premiums work going up by several percentage points every year,

this is the response, largely from employers do not necessarily want to pay for high premiums. that is often where most people are getting their health insurance. so this helped those costs go along. you might have to stand thousands of dollars before coverage kicks in. host: victoria in oregon, democrat. caller: longtime registered nurse here. people are talking about the quality initiatives that the affordable care act has embraced and will improve care and reduce costs. to the man who does not want to pay for maternity care, i am not in an all-female risk pool should i have two pay for prostate cancer detection? we have to balance this. my daughter is a diabetic. she lost her health care.

she could not afford cobra. she got on the exchange. she pays co-pays, but she can get care. she is temping in a job she loves now. she does not have to take a crappy job just for the health care benefits. host: meghan mccarthy? guest: you are right. there are quality initiatives included as part of the affordable care act. the overall thing the law did was expand access to health insurance but it also pushes hospitals, in particular, to improve the quality of care they provide. that is the aim. for the first time, medicare is not reimbursing hospitals for certain infections that their patients might get while they are in the hospital as a result of care. host: philadelphia, independent richie. caller: being a health care

provider for 30 years, a health care card is not health care. democrats are supposed to be pro-choice, but why are they not? this is the opposite of pro-choice. making someone have mandatory health care. it is because a democratic favorite president who said ask yourself what you can do for your country. democrats are still lying about the affordable: care act. -- the affordable care act. it is not cover your case if you have ea medical care. host: meghan mccarthy? guest: that is an interesting point about the v.a. or medicare not covering kids up until 26. that is for private insurance plans through employers. access has expanded. that means people might have more choices than they ever would have indian the visual

market before the affordable care act -- than they ever would have had in the health care market before the affordable care act. host: what states are moving to expand it? guest: more right-leaning states are trying to expand medicaid. alaska's governor intends to accept the federal funds to expand medicaid to a larger adult population. but southern states are the least likely to move in that direction. host: why not? guest: it is such a political issue in the south that it is an interesting regional divide. but it is difficult to turn down hundreds of millions of dollars federal dollars. but in those states, it is so toxic they cannot even approach the subject. host: what is the administration

trying to do to convince states they should expand? guest: they have worked with a lot of republican governors to use section 11.15 laborers and medicaid. it means they can rework a lot of the adderall rules around medicaid, which can be stringent. and plans more amenable to a republican state legislature with certain requirements that are listed. and others they like, such as requiring people to work a certain amount. that is a major trend in expanding medicaid in republican states. host: pat in georgia republican. caller: good morning. i have two points. prior to the implementation of the affordable care act, i checked out insurance costs for my family of 4 p.m., in case i

decided to be an independent contractor. policies were affordable. $300 a month. it nicely coverage i had with my employer. since then, i had a layoff and am currently unemployed. for me to get medical insurance, i have to pay which is not as. more than $600 a month. i got that through a broker. if i had gone through the exchange it would have been $1400 a month. that is based on the income i had last year, but i am currently not working. i do not know what is affordable about the affordable care act. i do not know why you base it on income i had last year when i am not working. host: do you know about this, how they base it on income? guest: the law requires people to base it on their taxable year

income. that can create challenges if you end up earning more than anticipated or losing your income. it can affect the subsidy level you get. you might and up having to pay some of that back in your taxes. host: charles in dallas texas, democrat. caller: i listen to people talking about the insurance. insurance has been going up every year since i was a member. i used to be in a program the company i worked for. i had to pay up to $1500 a year. so they got a deductible. it had nothing to do with the affordable care act. i heard criticism about the affordable care act, but what is their solution to the problem i have? do they just sit back and say no to everything the president want to do? guest: that is one of the bigger

challenges for republicans in using reconciliation. they want to repeal the law, but there has not been a coalescing around a replacement. that work started with the response to the king v. burwell supreme court case. but it has since stopped. similar to deciding whether to repeal the law, it is kind of wait and see and figure out what is the best path forward. host: roger in tennessee, independent. good morning. we lost roger there. meghan mccarthy, before we wrap this up, remind our viewers what is coming up next on the affordable care act. guest: we have not seen the last of the reconciliation deviates -- debates. the house leaders said that he anticipated their reconciliation plan or some sort of comments on

that would be after the august recess. they have a tight schedule in september. they have to fund the government. i would not be surprised if he gets pushed to the end of the year. host: for more information follow meghan mccarthy and author 1986

and so forth. mr. durbin: >> madame president. >> the democratic leader. >> madame president the business before the senate is the construction of highways and bridges and the operation of mass transit. how important is that our economy? i no in my home state is critically important, but it is important across the nation. our infrastructure, roads and bridges are critical for business to operate profitably and for people to have good paying jobs. we all no the tragedies that occur when bridges collapse or close command we know the thousands across this country need repair. when it comes to mass transit come on down to chicago in the morning and stand with me and watch the folks streaming out of the train stations and off the

buses headed to work everyday. it is essential to the economy of chicago in illinois. the fact is on friday the authorization to build these highways and bridges and maintain mass transit and buses expires. it is the 33rd short-term extension of the highway trust fund the 33rd. there was a time when we would pass with regularity unpredictability the fiveto five or six years highway 5th on a bipartisan basis and we are anxious to do it. there was a time when members of the house and senate new needs back home and knew that the federal government played a critical role in filling those needs. and so they voted for the highway trust fund reauthorization.

in my state of illinois 80% of the highway construction is paid for by the federal government. when the federal government stops paying. working. you have seenyou have seen it, haven't you? the potholes, the highways that are not finished. you wonder why and then they put all those blockades up and slow down the traffic were no one is working. the problem hasthe problem has to do with the way we are currently funding highway programs. we are doing it in bits and pieces. my colleague and friend senator boxer pretty interesting analogy. if you are setting out to buy a home and went to the back in the bank said of course we will offer your mortgage. as a 60 day mortgage to buy a home you would say wait a minute. i'm not going to make an investment like buying a home if i can only alone for 60 days. that is what has happened to the highway trust fund.

the expiration of this temporary authorization on friday is the end of the 60 day mortgage which we have offered to america to build highways. well several members of the senate decided to do something unique, not totally unique for you would say i try to find a bipartisan compromise that can move this country forward to try to break through some of the rhetoric and debate on the highway trust fund finds that works. i want to specially salute sen. barbara boxer of california for leading this effort and joining with sen. mitch mcconnell, the republican majority leader and senator in half of oklahoma who is the chairman

of her environment and public works committee. mme. pres., this is indeed, and odd couple, barbara boxer and mitch mcconnell, but they have come up with a plan, a compromise to solve the problem. when i go home to illinois what i here over and over to illinois what i here over and over from the people i represent the senator, what are you folks in washington going to stop squabbling next are fighting? basically sit down and reach an agreement to solve a problem that we face. that is what senator boxer and mcconnell have done and i have joined in the effort. here is what they are proposing. instead of a 60 day extension it will be a three-year extension. six years authorization for three years for the money is on the table. i wish it were longer but i we will jump at that. it has been more than ten years since we had a highway bill that long. three years a modest growth each year and spending.

i wish it were more. and it will ultimately give the resources back to states and localities so that they can start building the infrastructure american needs to be successful and compete. we have worked long and hard on it,it and it is controversial undivided caucuses. .. opinion. 22? i'm glad the senator here to keep me on my toes. 22 last night. so i wish all of them were on board, but some of them have their own legitimate concerns for not being there. the point i am gating to is when it -- i'm getting to is when it came to the necessary vote, we had 60. we had 62. i have to check with senator boxer to make sure i'm correct here. we stepped up and made the difference to help move this

process forward. so here we are. we are close to the finish line. we're not quite there. because of the procedures of the senate you just can't do it as quickly as you'd like. you have to follow the rules. and the rules tell us that we're likely to get this wrapped up, perhaps tomorrow -- i hope as soon as tomorrow. and then you say thank goodness. with the friday deadline, we're going to get something done this week before you go home on the august recess. and i would say from the senate point of view, that's exactly right. and it means that i can say not only to the mayors back home, the governor, the contractors the workers okay, here are the resources to move forward for three years. but i can also say that we've done what we were sent here to do to solve a problem and to do it on a bipartisan basis. there's a problem. the problem we have is, the senate action alone is not enough. we need the house of

representatives to do the same thing. and so there was an announcement yesterday from a congressman from california that the house is not going to take up this >> that the house is not going to take this up. they want to go home and start their august recess earlier than any august recess in ten years and they want to leave. the republican majority decided they don't want to take up this bill. this is our chance to solve a problem for american on a bipartisan bases. this is our chance to invest in our country and put people to work building roads and bridges. this is our chance. but we hear sorry we are going home.

we will see you in september. i will be happy to yield to the gentlemen from rhode island. >> the senator from illinois said the house is considering to bug out before the friday deadline when the highway fund collapses for the august recess. may i ask is it even august? isn't it july 28th? >> i would like to take notice according to the calendar it is still july. tuesday july 28th. >> in the past have we not worked into the early weeks of august before taking the so-called recess? >> the house of representative

wishes to start it in july this year. >> and played is when the fund runs out of money and the funding for our highways comes to an end and it appears to be the house's intention to get out of dodge to dodge any consequences for not having met us on bipartisan terms with the bipartisan secure bill? >> apparently they need a rest. i wish they would stay and finish this business before. >> senior senator from oklahoma. >> we are talking about the actions that haven't been taken formally but several members of the house talked about bailing out of here. my theory is th