up at planned parenthood. the pesticides in the green water -- clean water act by $500 million, half a billion dollars. .. it rescinds $543 million of obamacare money. it strikes prohibition on the confederate flag, so in effect the republicans in the house decided they would send back this billowedded with poison pills. pills. we just passed a bill that i told you that went over there,ec straight from info research and taking care of the problems with zika. that was it. very simple.li and even though the republicaney voter with a three weeks before, they suddenly decided we will go

along with flying the confederate flag, cutting obamacare, destroying planned parenthood. so how can he with the straightfaced talk about our having heard the zika? seek is a very dangerous virus. we're learning more about it everyday. one of america's pronounced scientists today said that now the zika affects everybody. zika is now infecting lives. the virus goes in people's eyes and leads to vision impairment and blindness. so it's not just women of childbearing age. it's going to affect a lot of people. so please, please, mr. leader, to talk about this anymore. it takes away from your dignityd yesterday, i objected to committees, the facts and

republicans refused to hold a hearing on chief judge merrick g garland. this man who should go to the supreme court and was said by senior member of the republican caucus, orrin hatch, utah, thats he was -- but they refuse to allow this man to go on the supreme court. they want to say that supreme court nomination for donald trump. donald trump picking who goes on the supreme court. a man who believes in waterboarding. he said waterboarding isn't enough torture. we need to do more than just waterboarding. that's just one little snippet from this man.the supr so this warning and number of senators are going to go to the supreme court steps with former clerks of judge garland, and we're going to hear positive movement.

positive statements about merrick garland, as if we need more. we've got plenty. this is a good man. i'm glad to see the republican leader is talking about some more on zika. maybe we have a path forward onn that.t we will continue to take steps to keep attention on this important nomination, and don't of course the zika, and other things that republicans simply are not doing their job. using these charts we have, andd we will continue showing them. very simple, do your job. and republicans simply are refusing to do their job. anytime we want to find other ways to focus attention on what they are not doing to help chief judge garland. and my friend, democratic leader, is going to attend ath meeting, which he does whenever they have one with rare

exception, judiciary committee. he loves this committee. he's the ranking member, was chair of the constitution my subcommittee, and tomorrow, it's my understanding, tried to do a markup of some district court judges. so i look forward to what's going to happen at that meeting of the judiciary tomorrow. mr. president, in this "wall street journal," the paper not ever confuse with being liberal or pro-obama, there's a stunning news, very positive news about the number of americans who nowe have health insurance. according to centers for disease control, our nation's uninsured now rate stands at 8.5%. 8.5% from where it was before. that's stunning. because of obamacare, almost 92% of americans now have health insurance.

92%. 92% of americans, people no longer have to worry if have a child with diabetes or someone has been in an accident, a woman. you cannot get insurance. insurance company still control what goes on. d so i remind my republican colleagues who love to come down here and berate obamacare, could obamacare be better or it could be a lot better? if we had 5% help from the republicans in 2% of 1%, not be done nothing, nothing to help the health care delivery system in this country. in fact, they've done things to her it. -- hurt it. it. some sunday times devoted to defund obamacare. do away with it. it wasn't long ago that we talked about how many millions

of people have no health insurance. that's no longer an argument. it's been six years. the affordable care act has cut the number of uninsured americans significantly. the nation saw the heart sharpest decline in the number of uninsured people in 2014 when obamacare coverage provisions kick in. this is no coincidence. while republicans are making much about premium increase. the fact is the best the americans are protected byst obamacare provisions as a safeguard against these huge tax rates and tax increases. these are the facts. all across america our constituents are getting the health coverage they were c promised when congress passed and i repeat, it could be made better if we had a few republicans who would break away from the trump mentality and try to help us. it's time republicans stop denying the evidence. obamacare's work and it is. pred working.

mr. president, after seven weeks we are finally back working. we finally returned from a historically long unprecedented longwall long summer vacation. about too much wasted by republicans who could've been doing their jobs. we would've been happy to join with them in getting things done here on the senate floor in our committees. of republican sources about the constitutional duties, have spent some time giving chief judge merrick garland the hearing he deserves. he deserves this. why do like what they're afraid to give them a hearing because if they did this good man'sis credibility, competence, his experience, just the simple fact is such a nice man with the overwhelming.e would they don't want to do that. the americans would know that they're trying to hold upe somebody that should be on the supreme court. the american bar associationg.

says he was inept and well-qualified. they can get a high rating. if they could they would. senator hatch said there was no question garland could be confirmed at the to be a consensus nominee. if the republicans will not even give this good man a hearing. it's nothing short of being shameful. "usa today" editorial, quote, flat out ignoring a on the nation's highest court which said republicans about it a lotr president obama remains in office is an abrogation of its constitutional duty, closedat quote. the people we represent across this great country cannot believe that the representatives have not put pars it's just into their constitutional duty. because believe that the chairman of judiciary committee has gone along with this scam, that's what it is. over this recess the "des moines register," iowa's largest is bigger, wrote another, publishef

another letter, there've been a number, lots of veterans but here's what this one i wentan said, the code, i'm a 60 year old registered republican. dish on voting for chuck grassley. senator, you have tossed 225 years of legal tradition in the trashy and made this country weaker.he i think other people i'll are not served by waiting over your for judiciary hearing. what is the senate i first voted for 40 years ago? mr. president, i have been in congress are before years. and this is something that is a familiar refrain we hear from people all over iowa. and that's how i feel. where is the senator i first started serving with in the congress those many decades ago? fo i am again forced to ask, where is the chuck grassley i have come to know over these last three and a half decades?

i can't imagine this man who we always thought was an independent person would refuse to do his job on the judiciary committee, as chairman. if he hasn't -- try to the first speech on this for many, many years ago thought about the taxpayers bill of rights. preside was senator from. arkansas, david pryor. senator grassley heard my speech. he agreed to help me combatle between grassley and senator pryor, we cut that passed my first year in the senate. it was really quite a big victory.taxpayer we put it more on equal footing with the tax collected from a grassley with prior worked withy me. that's the way grassley used to be come independent. i can't imagine but how have to

accept it that he's refusing to do his job of blocking a vote on garland's nomination. but this is precisely what the children's jewish community haso done. he has number 175 days ago. for 175 days, the senior senator from iowa has refused to lift a finger in consideration of this nominee. the senator i knew would not c seek independence of his very good committee, been around forever in the senate. i can't imagine what he's done. afor narrow partisan welfare. we all know what a he stands on president obama supreme court nominee. senator mcconnell decide to abandon any degree of bipartisanship with a quorum, when we heard that within hours

of scalia having passed away. republican leader had admitted as much last month when he gathered, one of my proudest moments was when i look at president obama and i said, mr. president, you will not feel the supreme court vacancy, closed quote. isn't that something to be prouf of? the republican leaders proudest moments was the time he abandoned his constitutional duty and failed to do the job he was elected to do. th republicans proudest moments are not accomplishments. they are obstruction.. what a shame he's putting senator mcconnell's vendetta against those obama over the people of iowa and the other 49 states. it's disappointing send it for s this obstruction. where is the senator i have known for such a long time? i'm not mad at senator grassleyu

i remember who he used to beat him what he used to be. and that's going to overcome any animosity that i have with senator grassley. my only concern as i think this great record of this man from iowa is being tarnished. some say beyond repair, his legacy is going to be damaged. and we've seen that in letters that are out of iowa, lots of them. donald trump is an american nightmare. is almost unqualified, party president candidate from a major party that anyone can remember. he said they get, a scam artist. he won't show us his tax returns. senator grassley is holding a supreme court vacancy for this man. just last week the chairman of the committee even compared donald trump, listened is one,

to ronald reagan. with wow. i served it with ronald reagan. i didn't agree with everything. he did but i admired him as a person. i think he had a good administration.s you swallowing of the proud, as they did important things. he met with the congress was on more than one occasion, and hee more than anyone else brought the cold war to a close. it wasn't an unblemished record, the contras fiasco and lots of problems but he was a good lots person. with all due respect, -- >> remarks from senate lawmakers earlier today at the start of the session. in just a moment we will return alive to this as lawmakers return from their weekly party lunches.

on the agenda, and water resources bill and possible work on a measure to confront the zika virus. live coverage the u.s. senate here on c-span2. te will come to.

the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that my remarks be placed in an appropriate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. hatch mr. president, i -- mr. hatch: mr. president, i rise again today to talk about the failures of the so-called affordable care act and what they mean for hardworking families and taxpayers. this is far from the first time i have come to the ploor to talk about obamacare. over the past several years, i don't think i've spoken as often about any other topic. and i'm not alone. since the time democrats forced the affordable care act through congress on a series of pure party-line votes, my republican colleagues and i have been speaking out about the poor judgment and shortsightedness that has unfortunately defined the trajectory of this law from its drafting to its passage ans now well -- and now well into its implementation and quite frankly we've had plenty of

ammunition. seems like we're treated to at least one obamacare horror story every week. my friends on the other side of the aisle have done their best to downplay our criticisms. just this morning the senate minority leader came to the floor to pronounce the affordable care act a success, that the american people have long recognized the truth. obamacare isn't working and it never will. this isn't a matter of opinion, mr. president. this isn't just political rhetoric in an election year by its own standards and the standards of those who drafted, passed, and implemented the affordable care act, obamacare has been an historic failure. case in point: the american people were promised that obamacare would bring down health costs. but in reality costs are continuing to go up. over this summer as we've moved

ever-closer to the next open enrollment period for the obamacare exchanges, we've learned thatinsurers throughout the country have submitted requests to raise premiums by an average of 18% to 23% over last year's premiums. for some plans the requested rate hikes are significantly higher than that average, coming in at more than 60%, according to some recent reports. consider the following expected rate increases: in california, policyholders can expect a 13% average increase in premiums, which more than tripless the increases seen in the past two years. in florida, they can expect a rate increase of a 19% on average over this year. in nebraska, they can expect an average increase of 35%, with some rates increasing by nearly 50%. and in wisconsin, rates are expected to increase, on

averages by as much as 30%. these numbers are more staggering when you consider that when the law was passed, the congressional budget office projected rate increases of about only 8% at this point. by some estimates, premiums for silver plans be, the standard metric, are expected to be increase 11% more than they have at any point since obamacare was implemented. while some of my colleagues have claimed that the evidence of massive premium increases is mostly anecdotal and that tax credits help blunt the overall cost increase, they simply cannot ignore the facts. premiums in the obamacare insurance exchanges are going up in markets throughout the country, and according to c.b.o., the congressional budget office, 12 million individuals are estimated to have to pay the full price next year because they either are not eligible for

credits or they will choose to purchase coverage outside of the obamacare exchanges. what is more, the middle class is increasingly bearing the brunt of these increased costs. as "the wall street journal" recently reported, middle-class families are spending 25% more on health care costs, which reduces their spending on other necessities. david cutler, the health care economist from harvard is quoted in the article as saying, "when it comes to health care, it is -- quote -- "a story of three americans. one group, the rich, can afford health care easily. the poor can access public assistance. but for lower- to middle-income americans, the income struggles and the health care struggles together are a really potent issue." unquote. our focus should no longer be on the question of whether premiums are going up. we should instead be trying to

figure out why it is happening. and in the end there are a lot of reasons why americans are paying more for health insurance under a new system that would supposed to help them pay less. but the overall explanation is actually pretty simple: the president's health care plan was poorly designed, and they know it. if you recall, when my friends were drafting and passing the affordable care act, they claimed that the system they were putting in place complete with draconian regulations would entice more people that the health care market. with a larger pool of insured individuals, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argued that insurers would be able to keep pace with all the new requirements required under the law without passing costs on to patients. we now know that these projections were foolhardy.

from the outset, enrollment in the exchanges has lagged behind the rosy projections we saw when the law bassed. -- was passed. as time has worn on, more and more people have opted to pay fines instead of enrolling in the exchanges. in february of 2013, c.b.o. projected that more than 24 million people would be enrolled in the exchanges. as of this past march, the actual number was less than half of that number. my colleagues in their desperate attempts to defend the health larks tend to focus solely on the number of uninsured people in the united states, a number that has admittedly gone down in recent years. however, what they tend to leave out is the fact that the vast majority of newly insured people under the law haven't purchased insurance through the exchanges. they've enrolled in medicaid, a fiscally unsound program that provides less than optimal

coverage options for patients. in fact, there were 30 million people without insurance, which is the reason tbheectd the law -- at least that was the argument. today there's probably as least 30 million people without insurance. "the washington post" recently ran an article on the enrollment shortfalls in the exchanges plainly spelling out the issues saying -- quote -- "debate over how perilous the predicament is for the affordable care act, commonly called obamacare, is nearly as partisan as the divide over the law itself. but at the root of the problem is this: the success of the law depends fundamentally on the exchanges being profitable for insurers. and that requires more people to sign up." unquote. long story short, mr. president, people are not signing up on the exchanges in the numbers that were promised. as a result, health insurance plans have been forced to adhere

to the law's burdensome mandates and regulations without the benefit of an expanded and healthier risk poor. as we've seen in recent months, plans have reported massive losses, meaning a number of major insurers in important markets throughout the country have terminated their plans altogether. the result: patients and consumers are being left with fewer and fewer options. according to a recent study by the kaiser family foundation, nearly one out of every three counties in the united states is likely to have only one insurance health option available on the exchanges in 2017. another third of u.s. counties will only have two options available. thus what would have been approximately 35% or more of the counties with two or less

companies on the exchanges is likely to double to around 6%. -- 67%. furthermore, more than 2 million individuals are expected to have to change plans for 2017 as a result of insurers leaving states, which is nearly double to those compared who had to switch carriers at the end of last year. you don't need a ph.d. in economics to know that generally speaking fewer options means higher costs for consumers and lower-quality products being offered. that's exactly what the american people are dealing with when it comes to health insurance. this includes people from my home state of utah. for example, one of my constituents, mr. chris seacrest, wrote to mow sighing, "since the new health care law was forced on us, my premiums along with my deductibles have sky locket rocketed. -- skyrocketed. with the expense, my total

out-of-pocket expense for insurance now tops $20,000 per year. can anyone explain how this can be considered -- quote -- "affordable health care?" unquote. over the august recess, i met with the utah board of directors of the leukemia and lymphoma society and there i heard from many utahans about the skyrocketing cost of care over the past three years. these constituents repeatedly emphasized that they had initially hoped that obamacare would help them. but in their experience, it had only made things worse and much more expense syver. -- --expensive. the downward spiral of obamacare is a circle that cannot be broken without some kind of intervention. while there are a number of ideas out there to address these problems, there are really only two major paths we can take: we can enact reforms that are patient-centered and

market-driven, or we can expand the role of government in regulating, mandating, and in the end paying for more and more of our health care system. republicans in congress, myself included, have proposed plans that would take us down the first path toward more patient-centered reforms. our friends on the other side, when they're not doubling down on the dismal status quo under obamacare, are advocating for even more government involvement. case in point: the democrats' nominee for president has outline add number of -- quote -- "reforms" -- unquote -- she'd like to add to the "progress" we've made under obamacare. each of her proposals amount to an expanded role for the federal government, including the renewed idea of the so-called -- quote -- "public option" -- unquote -- or a government-run plan. in other words, in this election

season, the democrats' answer to the failures of obamacare is more government control of their health care system. it's funny, mr. president ... beginning in 2009 while it was being finalized, i argued that democrats intended to keep expanding the role of the federal government in health care to the point where they could argue that the only workable option, after a series of failures, would be to create a single-payer health care system. in other words, socialized medicine. some pundits and even some of my colleagues declared that i was paranoid, that i was trying to scare people into opposing obamacare. yet seven years later, those claims look relatively prescient, if i do say so myself. faced with the failure of obamacare to live up to its many promises, my colleagues are not arguing for a change in direction. instead, they're clamoring for more authority to dictate the terms of what had been a private

health care marketplace before, and in a world where the government dictates both the products in the market and the prices at which they're sold, the eventual result is a marketplace in which the government is the only available provider. in other words, mr. president, while many of my friends on the other side will deny that they want to create a single-payer or socialized med sing health care system in -- medicine health care system in the u.s., that is the direction they have us headed. fortunately, mr. president, the march toward a single-payer system is not a fate acomely. they can take action to rioter this -- to right this ship now. we can control costs, take government out of the equation and give patients more choices. of course, to get there, more of my colleagues on the other slide have to acknowledge the failures of the current approach and agree hon a need -- on the need to plot a new course. perhaps once the upcoming election is over, we can begin

to make progress on these issues. it is my hope that with the current administration in the rearview mirror, people will be more willing to acknowledge the failures of the obamacare status quo. of course, i recognize that the coming election might embolden those who support greater government involvement in the health care sector to try and take us further down the path towards a single-payer system.

ms. heitkamp: mr. president, i come to the floor today after spending seven -- the presiding officer: the senate in a quorum call. ms. heitkamp: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. heitkamp: i come to the floor today after spending the last seven weeks traveling the beautiful state of north dakota working with communities on issues that matter most to them. whether it is agriculture, opioid abuse, any number of issues involving urban and rural housing. but one common message occurs at every stop: why can't congress get its job done? why aren't you doing what you're supposed to be doing? and so the people of north dakota -- and i think the people of this country -- have a simple message: they want us to do our jobs job.

they're sick and tired of politics getting in the way, of work getting done, and they don't understand why even the most basic issues, the most simple issues, issues where there is vast majorities that support them, get hung up in partisan politics. that got my thinking about three numbers that really do sum up the inability of my friends in the majority to do their job, and those numbers are 90, 175, and 20. so let's start out with 90. 90 is the current number of judicial vacancies cross our -- across our various federal courts in the united states. 32 of these vacancies have been deemed judicial emergencies. that means that justice is being severely delayed in these jurisdictions. every day americans, american business have to sit and wait for resolution and certainty. when we are capable of getting

the job done when we actually believe that we have qualified nominees ready to take the bench and hear these cases. the majority has brought to the floor and confirmed only 20 circuit and district court judges during this congress. 20. how does that compare? well, if you look at the last two years of the george w. bush presidency, the senate judiciary committee -- then chaired by senator leahy -- actually approved nearly three times as many; in fact, 68 judges were approved during that time period. 68 judges compared to 20. and last year the majority matched the record for confirming the fewest number of judicial nominees in more than a half-century. that's just 11 nominees for the entire year.

these aren't records that any of us should be proud of, not when we hear from judges, lawyers, and our constituents about the backlog of cases in the federal courts and around this country. right now 31 nominees still have yet to either have a hearing or a vote in the senate judiciary committee. some of these nominees have put their life on hold, ready to serve their country in one of the highest positions a lawyer can hope to achieve. putting their life on hold, delaying their economic viability, waiting to find out. that leads moo he t test -- leads me to the second number. that's the number of days since the president nominated america garland to the united states supreme court. my opinion friends in the majority will claim they could not give him a hearing because of something called the biden rule, something i never voted on. i didn't know existed.

i go looking in the rule book to try and find out where this biden rule exists, and i've yet to track it down. but i do know that when we talk about statements on the floor attributed to then-senator joe biden and now vice president joe biden, we ought to look not at what he said, but what he did when he chaired the all-important senate judiciary committee. and so when you look at this s from lens of actions speaking louder than words and if we look at what joe biden was able to accomplish when he chaired the committee, he gave a hearing to every single nominee that came before him, whether that nominee was nominated by a democratic president or a republican president. that brings me to my last number which should be the easiest of all to address, and that number is 20. 20 is the number of circuit and district court judges who had a

hearing have been reported out of the national judiciary committee on a bipartisan basis, 18 were unanimous, but are still waiting for a up-or-down vote to the senate. i think it's unusual that i should have to explain how ridiculous this is. these nominees are noncontroversial. they are noncontroversial enough to have received a hearing and been voted out of the committee with republican and democrat support. po r that means that the majority of the committee found them qualified to serve on the bench. 12 were nominated over 300 days ago and six others were nominated over 200 days ago and still they wait. civil of these judges were nominated and have the support of their home state, democrat

and republican senators. several of these judges were nominated by and have the support of all of their senators. it's just unheard of that they should have to wait. given that we've gone through the process. one of these nominees i want to particularly point out is a woman by the name of jennifer pool. jennifer pool is from dulles lake. her family is a huge and important part of the community there. her dad runs a small business, a plumbing business, and she worked her way up through the ranks and currently servants as an assistant u.s. attorney in north dakota. she's been appointed by a democratic president, but she served initially and received her initial appointment as an assistant u.s. attorney from a republican appointee. she is highly qualified and completely noncontroversial. but yet she waits and yet 8th circuit waits for another person to sit on the bench and carry

the load of that important circuit court. so i think it's time to do our job. i think it's time to move these 20 nominees and to get the court fully functioning. i want to make this point because when we look at the role that congress plays in the judiciary we have a very significant role giving lifetime appointments that we would in fact provide advice and consent. beyond that, the judiciary is an incredibly important part of our checks and balances, and when we don't have a functioning judiciary, we do not have a functioning democracy. and so i think it is really important that we look at this in the light of our responsibility to make sure that those three branches of government are fully functioning

and doing their job and able to do their job because we have people in place. so, mr. president, i'd like to make a request for unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominees: calendar number 359, 362, 363, 364, 459, 460, 461, 508, 569, 570, 571, 572, 573, 597, 598, 599, 600, 687, 688, and 689. that the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominees in the order listed.

that the motion to be reconsidered -- 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 and that any related statements be printed in the record and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: reserving the right to object, the senate has treated president obama very fairly with respect to his judicial nominations. by comparison, at this point in president bush's presidency, the senate had confirmed 316 of his judicial nominations. 316. as of now, the senate has already confirmed 329 of president obama's judicial nominees. in fact, the senate has already

confirmed more of president obama's judicial nominees than it did during the entirety, the entirety of president bush's eight years in office. so at this point i'm going to object to the request, but i'm prepared to enter into an agreement to process a bipartisan package of four more judicial nominations that would include a california judicial nomination, two pennsylvania judicial nominations, and a utah judicial nomination. this would presumably be agreeable to the senior senator from california, the junior senator from california, and to the senior senator from pennsylvania, along with the junior senator from pennsylvania, and both utah senators. so i'm going to ask the senator from north dakota to modify her request as follows: i ask unanimous consent that the

senate proceed to executive session to consider individually the following nominations, a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the democratic leader: calendar number 364, 460, 461, and 569, that there be 30 minutes for debate only on each nomination equally divided in the usual form, and that upon the use or yielding back of time on the respective nomination, the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. booker: reserving the right to object, this is difficult for me as the junior senator from new jersey because one of the judges the republican leader is suggesting is skipped is a judge that has been waiting for the longest period of time: judge julia kneels, who has been

waiting since february of 2015, someone who came out of committee with bipartisan support, someone who has deep qualifications. in addition to this, he is suggesting that we skip another judge named ed stanton who is a u.s. attorney for the western district of tennessee. now, i bring up those two judges who are the next on the list, the two longest-waiting judges for the district court, one for may and one for february -- i single those two out not just because one of them is from new jersey but, if you look at the list of the next 15 judges, these are the only two african-americans on the list. the two longest-waiting district court judges, the two only african-americans, or the two that are being singled out

amongst others to be skipped over in what the republican leader is suggesting. now, i know my colleagues in the republican party, i know to this is not a conscience thing. i know this is a coincidence that is not intentional that the two-longest judges, the two only african-american judges of this 15 are being skipped oarvetion but i -- skipped over, but i do feel it mess to point out that -- it necessary to point out that fact. at a time that this nation is is looking at our judicial system as needing to confront issues of racial bias, at a time that judicial organizations of all backgrounds are pointing out the need for diversity on the federal court, what is being suggested right now is that we come up with a bargain to skip

over the two longest-waiting district court judges who happen to be the only two african-americans on the list of the next 15. that to me, is unacceptable. especially when you look at the qualifications of these two judges, especially if you look at their wide, bipartisan support within the judiciary committee. the perception alone should be problematic to all of us in this body. and so i would like to object to this offer, especially given the tensions that exist right now in our country, the urgency for diversity on the bench, and the clear qualifications for these

men, and finally the fact that they have been waiting since may and february of 2015. thank you. the presiding officer: is there objection to the majority leader's request? mr. booker: yes, there is an objection. i okay to the modification. the presiding officer: objection is heard. is there objection to the senator from north dakota's request? mr. mcconnell: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. ms. baldwin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. ms. baldwin: before i returned home for the august recess, i came to the floor to call on the senate to take up pending judicial nominations, and once

again today i join my colleagues in calling for action on the crisis that is facing our federal courts. now, we had an unusually long -- what's called an august recess but actually started midjuly, and we have a brief period of time when we're back in session before we're about to have yet another recess prior to the elections. i i understand the senate has been in session fewer days than the senate has been in session in some decades, 60 years. i feel it necessary that we step up and deal with this crisis in the federal courts and do our

jobs, and i call on my colleagues in the majority to do our jobs. so the obstruction that we have seen with regard to filling judicial vacancies is harming our federal courts and our nation, our economy and individuals who come before those courts to seek justice. in this current congress, only 22 judges have been confirmed by the united states senate. as we've discussed today, we currently have 90 vacancies on the federal courts. 32 -- a third -- have been declared judicial emergencies. yet before the just senate right

-- yet, before the united states senate right now, we have nominees for these vacancies, 27 in number, that are available for our consideration. each of those names has garnered a bipartisan majority from the judiciary committee, a bipartisan majority has supported those presidential nominees. and each and every one of them deserve a vote in the full senate. the american people fully deserve a functioning and -- a functioning federal judiciary. whether that's the supreme court, our circuit courts, our the district courts. now, for my home state of

wisconsin, we have a long-standing vacancy on the seventh circuit court. and this long-standing vacancy is absolutely unacceptable. this traditional wisconsin seat on the seventh circuit has been vacant for more than six years. this is the longest federal circuit court vacancy in the country. today marks the 2,435th day -- that's six years and eight months -- of this vacancy. the people of wisconsin and our neighbors in illinois and indiana deserve a fully functioning court of appeals. during this long vacancy, the

seventh circuit has been considering issues that face the people of our state as well as our country. these issues include women's health and labor rights, campaign finance, marriage equality the, and most recently voting rights. these are important issues, and the people of wisconsin deserve better than an empty seat when judgments are being made on such congresses shall issues. -- and such consequential issues. we have a highly quiewlified nominee -- qualified nominee nor this seat. don schat was nominated on january 12. he has strong bipartisan support. both senator johnson and i have returned our blue slips, a part of the process to advance one of

these nominees. and a bipartisan majority of the wisconsin judicial nominating commission recommended and supported his consideration by the president. don schat also received the support of a bipartisan majority of the senate judiciary committee when they voted to advance his nomination. don schat is very well-qualified. he has the experience and the temperament to be an outstanding federal court judge on the circuit court, and his nomination deserves a vote, and the people of the state of wisconsin deserve to have this traditionally wisconsin seat filled. now, nine judicial nominees who

have been previously approved by the senate judiciary committee prior to don schott still haven't had their up-or-down vote either by the senate. and they deserve it. and as is the tradition of this body, we vote on these nominees in the order they appear in the executive calendar. and, as such, i will request that the senate republican leader schedule votes on each of these nominees as well as don schott. therefore, mr. president, i would request unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: calendar number 359, calendar number 362, calendar number 363, calendar number 364, calendar

number 459, calendar number 460, calendar number 461, calendar number 508, calendar number 569, calendar number 570, calendar number 571, calendar number 572, calendar number 573, and calendar number 597. and that the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed, that the the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order on the nominee -- to the nominations, and that any related statements be printed in the record, and that the

president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mcconnell: mr. president reserving the right to object, i've already pointed out that president obama has already had more judges conferred than president bush -- confirmed than president bush in his entire eight years. i offered a counter-u.c. that would confirm four of the judges. i'll not repeat the modification that i had offered earlier. therefore, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. ms. hirono: mr. president, there are currently 27 pending nomination on the executive calendar and 90 total judicial vacancies. more than half of these nominations have been waiting since 2015 for a confirmation vote.

hawaii's own clean air conners was nominated to the federal bench over one year ago tomorrow. she is one of the nominees who will be skipped under the republican leader's compromise offer, which is not a fair offer, however way you look at it. claire's resume is extensive and impressive. her time as an assistant u.s. attorney, hawaii's most -- she prosecuted high's most extensive fraud case. it involved nearly 15 criminals who are making it hard forehawaii's family to obtain mortgages. this is only one example of claire's nonpartisan commitment to public service. during her career, claire ras worked for attorney generals john ashcroft and eric holder. she's impartial, qualified and she deserves a vote. if clara is not confirmed, the

hawaii district court seat would be left vacant for over a year. people who appear before our courts don't want to know or care if their judge is a democrat or a republican. they just want to know that when they get their day in court, there will be a competent and qualified judge sitting there. this goes double of course for the highest court in the land, the united states supreme court which because of an unfailed vacancy has resulted in a number of 4-4 votes. that is not how the united states supreme court should operate. we need to do our jobs. mr. president, i rise today, therefore, to make a request for unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: calendar numbers 359, 362, 363,

364, 459, 460, 461, 50 #, 569, 570, 571, 572, 573, that the senate proceed to vote boat intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed, that the motions to consider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening actions or debate, that no further motions be in order to the nominations, that any related statement be printed in the record and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mcconnell, reserving the right to object. i have previously stated on two occasions that president obama has already gotten 13 more judges confirmed than president bush in all of his eight years

as president. i offered a counter consent that was objected to that would have confirmed a district judge in california, two district judges in pennsylvania, and district judge in utah and that was objected to. so i'll spare the senate the counter u.c. i offered earlier because i know it will be objected to but with regard to the consent that's just been offered, i act. the presiding officer: the objection -- i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: mr. president, the rains who control the senate are setting new records for obstruction by slowing the pace of judicial nominations to a crawl and leaving courts across this nation overburdened and understaffed. i've listened as senator mcconnell has asserted that he is acting fairly on judges because more total obama judges

have been confirmed than total george w. bush judges. here's my question. what kind of a game does he think this is? at this point in time during the bush administration, there were 42 judicial vacancies. today there are 90. at this point during the bush administration, there were 13 judicial emergencies, vacancies in courts that are severely shorthanded and overburdened with cases. today there are 32, more than twice as many vacancies, more than twice as many emergencies, and senator mcconnell says, well, he just doesn't want to do his job and neither do other republicans. we all know why. republican leaders in congress have made it abundantly clear that they want donald trump to be president so he can appoint judges who will bend the law to suit his own interests and those of his wealthy friends. and if that doesn't work, then republicans will settle for

paralyzing the judicial system so that it cannot serve anyone at all. judicial nominees stand ready to provide american individuals, families, small businesses and entrepreneurs with the justice they are guaranteed by our constitution. one of those nominees is inga bernstein, a highly regarded massachusetts attorney who has spent years serving families, teachers and workers. miss bernstein is not controversial. she is supported by both republicans and democrats. give miss bernstein her vote. in fact, give these ten noncontroversial nominees their votes. mr. president, i request unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following ten nominations: calendars number 359, 362, 363, 364, 559, 560, 561, 508, 569,

570, that the senate proceed to vote boat intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed, that 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 related statements be printed in the record, and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr a senator: i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. ms. warren: mr. president, it is disgraceful that the republicans are blocking confirmation of these judges. it is even more disgraceful that 18 additional nominees haven't even had hearings yet, including merrick garland who has now waited longer than any supreme court nominee in the history of the united states to receive a confirmation vote. while our highest court continues to deadlock on issue

after issue of importance to this nation. all we're asking for is the senate republicans to stop playing politics and do your job. i yield. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. a senator: just to keep appropriate balance, the senate has treated president obama fairly in terms of his judicial nominations as the majority leader has pointed out. by comparison at this point in president bush's presidency, the senate had confirmed 316 of his judicial nominations. alexander as of now the senate has already confirmed 329 of president obama's judicial nominations so president obama is ahead of president bush by that count. the senate has confirmed more of president obama's judicial nominees than it did during the entirety of president bush's eight years in office. mr. alexander: senator mcconnell greed to process a

bipartisan package of four more judicial nominations that would include a california nomination, two pennsylvania judicial nominations, and ought out judicial nominations but democrats objected. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: i would like to correct the record. i read 559 for bun ever the judges when it should be 459 and i read 561. it should be 460. and i read 461 -- 561 when it should be 461. the presiding officer: so noted. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. booker: i rise again to

continue the plea, really, to move forward when it comes to fulfilling the vacancies that are now in the court. i don't know about the constitution saying anything about that this is a tit-for-t tit-for-tat. what one president got should another one but the op gaitions of the senate -- obligations of the senate to me are clear that we have an obligation to do our job and fill vacancies, significantly more vacancies have come up because of retirements and other reasons under this president -- presidency. as we already heard from the senator from massachusetts, now are there not only double the vacancies but the judicial emergencies which have nothing to do with the party but the judicial emergencies that have been talked about right now are real, that are around our country right now. there are many districts that are in crisis because of our failure to do our job. relying on a tit-for-tat partisan understanding, nowhere

he frequented -- reflected in our constitution too me seems unacceptable when we're not supporting the proper functioning of a judiciary. now, we have nominations on the floor, ones that have passed out of the judiciary committee in a bipartisan fashion. one of those is a vacancy that there is a judge that is from the u.s. -- that's being nominated to fill a vacancy on the u.s. court for district of new jersey, julia neals who is a well qualified nominee, who has had to wait for over 19 months on his nomination, 19 months. on this list he is the longest waiting judge. judge neals has served as the chief judge of newark municipal court, worked in private practice and served his community as a corporation counsel and business administrator for the city of newark. the president nominated judge

neals to a nerl bench over a - e to a bench over a year ago ago. a hearing was held in september 2015. the judiciary committee favorably reported his nomination by voice vote in november of 20 is a. his -- 2015. his delay is unfair to the people of new jersey who expect their justice system to be working in its full capacity. but we know this isn't just a burden for new jerseyans. states across the country are being forced to shoulder the senate's failure to confirm judges precipitating a massive judicial crisis in our country. continued judicial vacancies mean the current federal judges will be overworked and understaffed. continued judicial vacancies mean that the american people must wait a year or two or

longer to receive justice in a case. this goes counter to the very ideals that we pledge allegiance to, this idea of liberty and justice for all. without judges on the federal bench, justice is denied. for the woman who was fired on account of her gender. without judges on the federal bench, justice is denied for the transgender individual seeking to access a restroom or other public accommodation. without judges on the federal bench, justice is denied for the criminal defendant who serves a speedy trial before jury of their peers. the fundamental constitutional ideas. the longer the republican leadership delays filling our country's judicial vacancies, the longer justice is denied for americans across our country. i ask the senate to promptly

vote on the next two nominees who would be up, nominees from tennessee and new jersey, the western district of tennessee nominee edward stanton, a former u.s. attorney has been pending also for over 16 months. and it is important for me especially after the suggestion from the republican leader who suggested we skip these first two judges, the longest waiting judges. i know there was no intention here, but i think it's important that we point out that the compromise that was suggested, that these are the only two african-american judges in the next 15. and so here we have two of the longest waiting judges, two qualified judges, two judges that passed out of the judiciary

committee committee, two judges that deserve senate action, and who also are african-american judges that could help create diversity on a federal judiciary that better reflects our society as a whole. given all of that, the totality of the crisis in our country, the urgency that is explicitly addressed in our constitution, that the senate do its job. i now ask for unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: calendar numbers 359 and 362, further that the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed and that if confirmed, the

motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: on behalf of the leader i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, the americans i talk with, they're tired of obamacare rhetoric. they are worried about the obamacare reality. and what is the reality today? the reality is that obamacare is unraveling at an alarming rate. there appears fob a very real danger that without structural dangers there may be entire

states with no insurer willing to sell plans on their obamacare exchanges in 2018. we're talking here about 10.8 million americans who buy health insurance for themselves or their families on the obamacare exchanges created in each state as a result of the law passed in 2010. and what we're saying is that there are whole states where these 10.8 million americans may have no options to purchase health care with obamacare subsidies. this unraveling is happening sooner than anyone thought and will require us to act both in the short term and in the long term. if we don't take action in the short term, many americans will have fewer options and no relief from skyrocketing premium costs. if we don't take actions to address the longer-term structural failure of obamacare we could have a complete collapse of the individual insurance market.

again, what we mean is that you may be living in a state where you cannot buy health insurance if you rely on an obamacare subsidy. the reality of obamacare today is alarming even for those of us who have been critical of the law and its thousands of pages of regulations. before obamacare even became law, republicans warned president obama and we warned democrats in congress that obamacare was bad news for americans. in february of 2010, more than six years ago, i spoke for republicans at a white house summit on health care and warned president obama that premiums for millions of americans with individual insurance would rise under his proposal. i was right about that. republicans warned that obamacare would increase the cost of health care, that people would lose their choice of doctors, that policies would

be canceled, that people would lose jobs, that taxes would go up and that medicare beneficiaries would be harmed. we were right about all of that. today an alarming number of health care insurance companies are leaving obamacare exchanges. americans are being forced to pay much more in premiums for the same health plans next year. this might be what republicans predicted, but it's happening even faster than we imagined. and no one is happy about being right. unfortunately, i don't need to look any further than my home state of tennessee to see how bad things have become. when tennesseans woke up on august 24 and read the front pain of our state's largest newspaper, they saw this headline: "very near collapse." the story wasn't about a bridge or about a foreign dictatorship very near collapse was our state

insurance commissioner and her description of the obamacare exchange in tennessee which more than 230,000 tennesseans, a quarter of a million tennesseans used to buy health plans last year. what does very near collapse mean in the real world? this november when tennesseans signing up for 2017 obamacare plans, there will be fewer planss to choose from, they'll be much more expensive. that's what it means. and this picture will be the same across the country. next year tennesseans will be paying intolerable increases. on average between 44% and 62% more for their obamacare plans than they paid last year. even for a healthy 40-year-old nonsmoking tennessean with the lowest price silver plan on tennessee's exchange, premiums increased last year to $260 a

month. next year it's $333 a month. and if you, the policyholder, don't pay all of that, then you, the taxpayer, will. because a large portion of obamacare premiums are subsidized with tax dollars, and surely it's no valid excuse to say that just because taxpayers are paying most of the bill that justifies having a failing insurance market where costs are so out of control that we may soon have a situation where no insurance company is willing to sell insurance on an obamacare exchange. tennessee had to take extreme measures to allow these increases because insurance companies told the state if you don't let us file for rate increases, we'll have to leave. and if that happens, tennesseans might have had only one insurer to choose from. that's what's happening in states all over the country, mr. president, as obamacare

plans and rates get locked in for next year, for 2017. according to the consulting firm avalair health, americans buying insurance at one-third of obamacare exchange regions next year may have only one to choose from. people buying on obamacare exchanges may have only one insurance to choose from in the entire state in five states next year: alabama, alaska, oklahoma, south carolina and wyoming according to the kaiser family foundation. the same foundation found a growing number of states that have multiple insurers have only one insurer selling policies in a majority of counties. tennessee is one of those states. last year tennesseans could choose obamacare plans between at least two insurers. in all, 95 counties of the state. for the 2017 plan year -- next year -- it's estimated that 60%

of tennessee's counties willville only one insurer offering obamacare plans. in other words, no choice. north carolina is also experiencing a dramatic reduction in options under obamacare. next year 90% of counties in north carolina are estimated to have only one insurer offering obamacare plans up from 23% of counties last year. a similar picture exists in west virginia, in utah, in south carolina, in nevada, arizona, mississippi, missouri, and florida. just last week the concord monitor, a newspaper up in new hampshire, published an article with the headline -- quote -- "maine health insurance cooperatives leaves new hampshire market reeling from losses." the story goes on to describe how the maine-based community health options insurance plan will no longer be operating in new hampshire after experiencing over $10 million of losses in

the obamacare exchange over just the first two quarters of this year alone. this move will leave 11,581 individuals in the granite state looking for new health plans. "politico" reports that one arizona county is poised, poised to become an obamacare ghost town. those are "politico's" words because no insurer can afford to sell health plans on the region's obamacare exchange. that leaves 9,700 people in pinal, arizona, with no obamacare plan options in 2017. mr. president, millions of americans need relief from obamacare. here's the action that's needed. first, americans need immediate relief from the cost of health insurance and a lack of options on the obamacare exchanges. we should do that by giving states more flexibility to give individuals and their families options to purchase lower-cost,

private health insurance plans outside of obamacare and we should do that now. i intend to offer this legislation that would provide that relief. that is only to deal with the emergency of next year, of 2017. second, we need a big structural change in order to avoid a near collapse of our nation's health insurance market. if there's a republican in the white house next year, we need to repeal obamacare and replace it with step-by-step reforms that transform the health care delivery system, by putting patients in charge, giving them more choices and reducing the cost of health care so that more people can afford it. but if there is a democrat in the white house, broad systemic structural changes will still be necessary. republicans didn't create this problem, but we're prepared to solve it. democrats want to spend more

taxpayer dollars to prop up the exchanges. they want to expand the role of government in your private health care decisions. in an article last month in the journal of american medical association, here's what president obama wrote -- quote -- "i think congress, said the president, shall revivid a public plan -- revisit a public plan to compete alongside private insurers in areas of the country where competition is limited." unquote. of course the president's proposal means more money and more government. but republicans know and americans have seen over the last six years that more money and more government are not the solution. they are the problem. we solved the problem ahead of time. we warned about it. we criticized the poor regulations that made a bad law even worse. now we're ready to take action. we're ready to do something about this emergency both for

next year -- 2017 -- and for the longer term. mr. president, i yield the floor. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: the presiding officer: the

senator louisiana. mr. cassidy: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. cassidy: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cassidy: i rise to speak about obamacare and the incredibly negative impact it's having on millions of americans. let's just speak about it's impact upon the middle class. there is a recent article in the "wall street journal," august 26, which spoke about how obamacare is pushing the burden of health care cost to the middle class, and it speaks about how deductibles have risen 256%. but, mr. president, wages have only increased 32%. it also has -- goes on to say how folks are spending like 32% more on health care, but they're having to cut back on groceries, restaurants, entertainment, clothing. everything else is being cut back as health care consumes

more and more. now, the logical question is, if under obamacare this was supposed to change -- the president promised that premiums would fall $2,500 per family -- why not? a good example: a physician friend i know, a neurologist in baton rouge, texted me. she has a couple in her office and they are paying $1,600 a month for insurance. they have a $10,000 family deductible. now, they're middle class. they don't get a subsidy. so let's think about this. they're paying $1,600 a month, and they have a $10,000 family deductible. so quick math -- that's roughly $16,000 a year plus $3,200. that's $19,200 a year, if my math is correct. then we add $10,000 for a deductible. if they both get in a car wreck and brought to the emergency room at the same time and they

have a series of x-rays. think about this: they will be out -- they will be out -- is it possible? -- $29,000 before they see benefit from their insurance. $29,000 before they see benefit from obamacare, which is supposed to hold down costs. now, these are statistics and anecdotes. let's speak in a different sense. let's speak about premium hikes. premiums are up 31% this year in louisiana, but they're rising as high as 67% premium increase in arizona, as high as 69% premium increase in tennessee, and that is consistent across the nation. as it turns out, there's one county now which doesn't have any insurance company providing coverage, but there are many other counties in our nation in which there's only one insurance carrier. now, i can tell you that the less competition you have, the

higher costs will go. so as this continues, competition decreasing. as insurance companies like aetna, humana, blue cross in some states are pulling out of the exchanges, we can expect these premiums to continue to rise. now, the situation we're in is that people are either going to be insurance-poor, or they will be forced to go without insurance. and there's an incredible irony here. a bill that was stated -- the affordable care act. with the stated goal of making health care affordable is becoming so unaffordable that people are going without insurance. and i think this will only worsen. up to date, obamacare has received about $10.5 billion in federal tax dollars as subsidies. but -- and there's a series of co-ops that were set up much the co-ops were going to foster competition. as it turns out, 16 out of the

23 co-ops have gone out of business. health expenditures are on an all-time rise. and these subsidies are going away, some of them have been ruled illegal by the federal courts. and so the only -- it'll be only the beneficiary paying the premiums. so despite $10.5 billion in subsidies, insurance companies have lost $2.7 billion. and again if these subsidies go away, they're already illegal, then we can expect premiums to rise even more. now, mr. president, i'm a big believer that if you're going to criticize something, you should offer an alternative. i'd like to point out that this republican and another republican have offered an tern. we call it the world's greatest health care plan. we have kind of a cheeky title to call attention to it. under the world's greatest

health care plan, we change the paradigm of obamacare. if under obamacare the presumption is that government knows best and that folks in washington can make decisions for folks in baton rouge or any other place in the narks that someone in washington knows best and knows what to tell them what they should buy, therefore how much they should spend, under the world's greatest health care plan we take the opposite approach. we assume that the woman in the household -- usually in a woman; i am a physician; i know this -- usually a woman makes 95% of the health care decisions in the family, that she knows best what she needs for her family. kind of a humo humorous anecdot. a woman on the campaign trail came up to me and said, you know, i'm 58. my husband is 57. our two boys are 18 and 19.

unless my name is sarah and my husband is abraham, we are not having more children. we do not need pediatric dentisty and i do not need obstetrical benefits. but that is included in my policy i'm forced to pay for and my husband and i are paid $28 -- are paying $28,000 a year for insurance. another woman walked up to me. my name is tenge knee i'm 56 years owed and +sr an hysterectomy. i will paying for pediatric dentist chained obstetrical benefits. i do not need these benefits, but i sure as heck would like to have my money. so, washington making the decision that these two women in louisiana -- women across the nation -- are paying for benefits they don't need, therefore paying for more, and by paying far more have less to spend on other things they might need to purchase -- for example, flood insurance in my state,

clothing, restaurants, a night out in their own state, wherever that state might be -- they cannot make that decision. in the world's greatest health care plan, we take the power away from people in washington and we give to the family. we allow them to choose the benefits they wish, those that they need, making the decisions between pocke pocketbook and heh care that they are uniquely equal fitted to make. we also do away with the individual mandate. we know that individual mandate. it is the obamacare provision saying that you shall buy insurance or the federal government will fine you. under the world's greatest health care plan, we take all the money a state would receive from the federal government for health care, and we allow the state to give a credit to each snrid that state who is -- to each individual in that state who would be eligible. the state legislature would have the option to to say that everye who is eligible would have the

right. if you have to go to the public library for our access and go home to get the right form and take public transportation back, it is not going to happen. under our plan, you are enrolled unless you choose not to be. we expect to have 95%-plus enroll many. we don't provide the bells and whistles insurance policy of obamacare, but what we do do is give first-dollar coverage. instead of ads,000 deductible for an individual, or a $10,000 deductible for family, every family will have a health savings account with which they have first-dollar coverage. if they need to take their daughter to the urgent care center to have an earache treated, they have first-dollar coverage. there is not a $6,000 deductible to work through. this thethey have a pharmacy bed catastrophic coverage on top.

if they are in a car wreck, they are admitted to the hospital, then they will be protected from medical bankruptcy by that catastrophic coverage. another thing we do by giving power to the patient is we have price transparency. urns obamacare, we've -- under obamacare, we've seen prices rise and rise, rise even more. part of the problem, the consumer has no power. she does not have the ability to know that if the doctor orders a c.t. scan for her child, if she goes to this place and pays cash, it is $250 or that place it is $2,500. i picked that numbers, by the way. "the los angeles times" had an article a few years ago. they found that the cash price for a c.t. scan in the l.a. basingen varied from $250 to $2,500. there would knob way in a someone would know -- there would be no way that someone would know. if the world's greatest health care plan, the power of price transparency is given to the mom

so she knows where she can take the comield for the best price and quality and balance that with her bucket. if the family wishes to take matters into their own hand, they can put their family credits intcredits into pool, bp policy, give to the employer as the employee's contribution for an employer-sparspard plan and buying into the richer coverage that employers typically give -- i can go on -- but if you will, the premise i learned as a physician, if you give the patient the power, she will make the right decision for her family, both for their health and pocketbook. unlike obamacare, which says, family, you don't -- you're not as wise as folks in washington, we're going to tell you what you have to buy, therefore, what you have to pay, and if prices escalate even more and you decide you can no longer afford insurance, we're coming after you to make you pay a penalty.

it is wrong and bad for families. by the way, the principle under the world's greatest health care plan is what is -- a word i like to say in a phrase, giving the patient the power. but the academic li literature would call it the activated patient, swrun who is now full -- someone who is now fully engaged in managing her and her family's health care. not only does that result in lower cost. statistically, it gives you better outcomes. there is a physician -- a congressman on the other side in the house of representatives who tells a story of someone he worked with. they went to a health savings account and the manager came up and said, dr. flemming, i don't particularly care for this plan because it doesn't pay for my inhaler. he said, well, your health savings account can pay for your inharrell. i suppose if it's not -- inhaler. i suppose if it's not covered by your pharmacy benefit. but if you stop smoking, you don't need an inhaler.

he washington, d.c., away not thinking about it. she later approached him. let me tell you, doctor, you're right. i stopped smoking. i no longer need an inharrell. that is a personal story, if you will, that which is statistically demonstrated. if people become engaged in their health care, they are not only healthier, but they save money p. under the world's greatest health care plan, we take that republican principle of believing in the power of the individual to shape her life and her family's destiny in a much more positive way than you would expect from a bureaucrat telling you to be passive and to otherwise obey. now, i'll return, mr. president. unfortunately, the president's health care law, the affordable care act, obamacare, is crushing the middle class with ever-higher premiums, higher deductibles, higher copas, and

-- higher copas, and the inability to pay as they cut back. republicans have offered and alternative. that one alternative is the world's greatest health care plan. and in our alternative we give the patient the power. mr. president, i would suggest that would be an important area of compromise that we all see in giving the patient the power, the individual american the responsibility is a better way to go. mr. president, i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. a senator: thank you. i'd like to thank senator cassidy, dr. cassidy, for his creative ideas, the world's greatest health plan, the way he frames it in terms of his

years of practice and the sincerity with which i know he has practiced in all kinds of health care settings and done a lot of work with folks who never could and never would have afforded health insurance. dr. cassidy, thank you for what you're doing and joining with us to try to solve this issue. mrs. capito: mr. president, i rise today to join many of my colleagues in sharing the realities of obamacare. we've heard a lot of about this, my home state of west virginia, for many this law has been devastating. while a number of people insured has increased because of the expansion of medicaid in my state, the way these policies were put into place has created possible catastrophic fiscal cliffs for states. my state, by the way, last fiscal year was over $300 million in the hole because of other issues. and now they're looking at this fiscal cliff of having to pay full freight for the medicaid expansion. there is now a segment of our population who is falling

through the cracks when it comes to health reform. they make too much money to qualify for medicaid or subsidies and end up paying the full cost of increasing individual coverage premiums. these families, these working families are being faced with skyrocketing premiums, co-pays and deductibles. talk to any health care center, talk to the hospitals. this rising amount of deductibles is influencing their bottom line because they're chasing not uninsured. they're chasing now people's deductibles. and in my state and across this country we have little, if any, choice in insurers. if you have seen that often-repeated phrase, and i'll say it again, the claim if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, this has been pure fiction. the provider and hospital networks have shrunk and insurers have shifted away from options that give patients the choice that they were promised

and that they counted on and are now being pushed into much more restrictive plans. one of other local papers ran a story about a west virginian in just this situation, a small business person who labeled this plan accurately calling it the unaffordable care act. quote, since obamacare my premiums increased at least $450 per month in the last couple of years. the plan i had was canceled, so if you like your health care, you can keep it, his was canceled. false statement. he had to enroll in a new plan. his premiums are currently over $1,350 a month. between the high deductible and meeting the out-of-pocket maximum, this west virginian has to pay 20% all out of pocket. and the situation is likely to get worse. of in west virginia, we, like many other states, are currently waiting to see what our premium increase is going to be for 2017. it hasn't been approved yet by the state insurance commission.

the question is not whether there will be an increase. that is a given. the question is how enormous will it be? if nearby states are any indication, there is much to be concerned about. in the state of tennessee, the state insurance commissioner recently sounded the alarm saying the obamacare care exchange in tennessee is very near collapse. rates there have skyrocketed to between 44% and 62% increase. and sadly, this story is the same whether you're in arizona, new hampshire, iowa, nebraska, west virginia, all too often these rate increases are coming with much less coverage as well. i recently spoke with a west virginia small business person who has absorbed the cost of the increased premium for their employees, realizing they can't afford it. but at the same time that employee is getting much less coverage, higher deductibles,

higher co-pays. attempting to switch to a lower-cost plan comes with its own perils. the average bronze plan deductible in 2016 was $5,700. and this is assuming that you have choices. a recent analysis by the kaiser family foundation found that a third of all counties in the united states will only have one obamacare insurer next year. this is up dramatically from the 7% of counties in 2016. and it is largely the result of major insurance companies scaling back or withdrawing their participation on the marketplaces. and unfortunately, there is nothing that indicates that this trend will not continue. many counties are becoming obamacare ghost towns. in pinal county, arizona, 10,000 people bought exchange coverage this year, but no insurers are planning to offer

plans on the exchange next year. what are they supposed to do? i fear the scenario could all too easily play out in west virginia, where traditionally over the course of obamacare, we've only had one, we've only had one insurer for the entire 55 counties. this year we happen to have one insurer for 45 of the 55 counties. this lack of competition in the marketplace is nothing new for our state. this has been the reality for the vast majority of our residents, and now we're seeing it just expanding all across the country. this lack of choice along with unaffordable premiums, co-pays and high deductibles has prompted most americans to reject obamacare plans and not even join nationwide enrollment in obamacare exchanges is only half what was originally planned. we owe it to those we represent to do better. we've heard senator cassidy talk about his ideas. we have great ideas on this side of the aisle to improve and

we've asked and voted many times to throw out obamacare and start over. i think that is the direction we need to go because americans deserve a health care system that works for them every day from year to year. it's becoming clearer and clearer that obamacare is not that plan. thank you, mr. president, and i yield back my time. mrs. fischer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: thank you, mr. president. i would like to thank my colleague from west virginia for her comments on this health care law and also my colleague from louisiana. i've just returned, as we've all had, from our time in our state and traveling our state. i know my colleague in west virginia heard the same stories that i heard in nebraska. people are worried. they are afraid. they are very, very concerned about their futures and what

they're going to see this fall with regard to this health care law. and so i thank my colleagues for their comments that they've given today on this very important issue. and i too rise to address really the stark reality of president obama's failed health care law. the evidence of its failure continues. the latest example: the relentless increase in premium rates across our country. in nebraska, health care plans under obamacare will see premium rates rise more than 30%. nearly every week i hear new stories of the pain caused by this law. and it breaks my heart because it's led hardworking people to the brink of despair. we've sunk to the point where some nebraskans, like many americans across our country, are now asking themselves why

bother? karen in central nebraska shared that most of her paycheck goes to her plan's premium and deductible costs. she is faced with two terrible options. quit her job to qualify for more government subsidies. or opt out of insurance coverage and then pay the penalty. meanwhile, peter, a small business owner in western nebraska, he faces the gut-wrenching decision of raising prices to offset the rising premiums and other unaffordable costs of his obamacare plan. steven in eastern nebraska, another small business owner, he bluntly told me enough is enough. for steven it made more sense to pay the penalty than to budget for his obamacare plan.

if that wasn't enough, steven's long-term family doctor, the medical professional who he trusts, is no longer in his network. so now steven has to travel just to see an in-network provider. because of a law forced upon them, americans are left with difficult choices. mothers and fathers are being forced to choose what is the best interest of their families and what health insurance costs that they're going to be able to afford. hardworking americans are keeping less of their paycheck. they are spending more on these uncontrollable health care costs. they can no longer afford, and in many cases they no longer even have the option to see the doctor that they trust. they are not saving money and they are not better off.

they are living a real american nightmare. nebraskans are all too familiar with the failures of obamacare. the co-op established for nebraska and iowa, it was one of the first ones to fail. and that was in december of 2014. in my letter at the time to then-c.m.s. administrator devenner i sought answers, and i received an answer much later from acting administrator slavik. his response was disappointing, and it clearly demonstrated what we have known for a long time now. the government is incapable of successfully administrating health care coverage. these nebraskans were left with

few options and very little support because of the government's shortsightedness in continuing a doomed co-op. we've witnessed similar disasters with other obama co-ops across the country. the colorado, connecticut, illinois, michigan, new york, oregon, to name a few. at a cost to taxpayers of more than $1.7 billion. of the original 23 co-ops, only 7 now survive. and that's a failure rate, people, of more than 60%. the surviving seven are now being evaluated for their financial health. but one thing is clear, to prop

them up through the next enrollment period only to day their, really inevitable fuel lure, it would be incredibly dishonest to the american people. nebraskans are trusting people. we like to give people the benefit of the doubt. but there is no doubt any longer. obamacare was built on certain l promises, and those promises have been broken. texas time for the government -- it is time for the government to be honest with the american people. it's time to come clean, face up, and act responsibly. we've already taken some positive steps to get our people out of this mess, steps which the vast majority of the members of this senate is approved. the medical device tax and the

cad lick tax, those are clear examples. the majority of this chamber agree on a bipartisan basis that delaying these taxes was a necessary step to alleviate some of the harm that's been caused by this health care law. until voting to delay these taxes, the senate chose the american people over a failed law. that was a good day and that was a good vote. and we must take more actions like that in the future. action, not just talk. actions that will help the american people lighten this law's heavy load, bring families back from that brink. and we must keep doing this until americans like karen and peter and steven are no longer forced to make those unreasonable choices.

at the same time i want solutions for those nebraska families still struggling to find quality and affordable health care. but let's be honest, these solutions are not more bailouts and tax subsidies. no more one size fits all federal mandates. we must all conclude that obamacare is a clear failure. we must once and for all scrap it and then replace it with patient centered solutions. i want to have that conversation and i am ready and willing to do so. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the