currently the chief judge of the d.c. circuit. also known at second-highest court. he is a he been a federal judge for nearly two decades. he has more federal judicial experience than any supreme court nominee in our nation's history. he's a former federal prosecutor. he's been praised for his work leading the justice department's efforts on the ground in oklahoma city in days after the worst act of homegrown terrorism in our country's history. the republicans and democrats alike have recognized chief judge colin as a brilliant, impartial judge with unwaiving fidelity to the rule of law. republicans of this body as well as democrats of this body said so when they voted for his confirmation on the d.c. circuit.

republicans should get to work on chief judge garland's nomination and bring it in time for the first oral argument in october. of all the challenges facing our country, ensuring the supreme court can serve its highest constitutional function should not be one of them. this is a problem the senate republicans are making but one they can easily solve this month. let's do our job. we took an oath to uphold the constitution. let's show that we raised our hand and said we swear that we will uphold the constitution, we really meant it. the president fulfilled his oath. it's time for us to do our job and fulfill ours. mr. president, i see my friend on the floor seeking recognition. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: thank you. we have a couple of votes coming up that are very significant.

certainly the occupier of the chair is fully aware of it, having served on the committee that has worked on this legislation. i'd say one thing about the stuff that we crank out of our environment and public works committee. it's been pretty significant. we had the fast act, the first highway reauthorization bill in 18 years, i guess. 17 years. a major one. then we did the chemical bill. that was great. now we're going to do the wrda bill. one of the things that's interesting about it -- i'll hold this one up for a second -- is that just look at the number of ports we're talking about. i've often prided ourselves in tulsa as being the most inland port. however, it could conceiveably omaha. it gives you an idea of how significant this is. you heard me talk yesterday about what will happen if we don't make this law this year.

if that happens, 29 navigation and flood control and environmental restoration projects are not going to happen. there will be no new corps reforms to let local sponsors improve infrastructure at their own expense. there will be no fema assistance to states to rehabilitate the unsafe dams. there will be no reforms to help communities address clean water and safe drinking water infrastructure which is a serious problem in my state of oklahoma. there will be no deal on the coal ash which plagued the coal utilities for years with lawsuits to settle. finally, we have the very difficult issue that we have dealt with to most people's satisfaction. we're going to want to get this done in fast order. today is a very important day in accomplishing that. here's some other reasons why the bill is so important. the bill gets us back to every two years. we -- at one time when the

first wrda bill came out -- and i was there when that happened -- we were to have a wrda bill, water resources and development act, every two years. we started slipping and during the last eight years prior to coming back to majority, we didn't address this. this puts us back into our schedule of doing it every two years, and these are reforms that can't wait longer. secondly, we have been reminded several times recently of the need for corps projects. we saw the algae wash up on the beaches in florida this summer, the project that will fix lake okeechobee and prevent this problem in the future is in the wrda bill, the wrda 2016. i don't like everglades projects generally. in fact, i can remember it wasn't that many years ago i was the only one voting against the everglades restoration act. however, let's keep in mind at that time there was not a chief's report on it. and now that i've been -- now

that there is, we have something very significant that does affect that. this chart shows the algae plume in st. lucie, florida. this is a picture of the algae blooms caused by deteriorating water conditions. not only are these blooms environmentally hazardous, but they're also economically debilitating to communities living along senator from florida's working -- along south florida's working coastline. communities depend on fresh water flows to drive tourism but as these blooms spread along the coast economic development is negatively impacted. if we don't authorize the central everglades planning project those communities will cease to exist. we also saw historic flooding in baton rouge, louisiana. there are two ongoing corps projects that could have prevented much of the damage that we saw last month.

wrda 2016 directs the corps to expedite the completion of these projects. this chart here is the baton rouge, louisiana, flooding. we can no longer use a fix as fails approach to american flood protection. it is not about economic losses that communities face after devastating flooding. it's about loss of human lives. we're talking about human lives, not acting is just not an option. last year there were several collisions in the houston ship channel because of the design deficiency the channel is too narrow and the coast guard declared it to be a precautionary zone. this chart shows the houston ship channel collision from 2015. without this bill, the navigation safety project to correct this issue won't move forward.

the corps of engineers projects help, projects help generate $109 billion in annual economic development and generate $ 32 billion in revenue for the united states treasury. few understand the economic benefits associated with wrda. as i noted yesterday, expansion of the panama canal is complete, now allowing the larger, i think we call them the postpanama boats -- and look at the comparison between the two. this one can be used in what is happening now. so this chart, the pre and the post panamax ships, by not funding this program many will go unfunded making it difficult to fund new vessels. one i pointed out yesterday was

in charleston, south carolina. they have a 45-foot channel. with this bill we'll be projecting to get to the 50, 51-foot channel necessary for this ship. the alternative is they have to go out somewhere in the caribbean and break down these loads so they can come in on smaller ships. that increases the cost dramatically, and we're not going to let that. -- that happen. the investments in drinking water and other investments are important. just don't forget the fact that we can use our ports right now that we can't use when the big ships start rolling in. the investments in drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, both public health and our economy, i mentioned that in my state of oklahoma this is really significant. you get the states where they are not wealthy states, where

primarily rural areas, and we -- the unfunded mandates that come in are just unbearable. i say from experience, i used to be mayor of a major city for a number of years, in tulsa, oklahoma. at that time our biggest problem was unfunded mandates. that's what we're suffering from today. and we can pretty much correct that with this, with the changes we're making in our wrda bill. a recent study by the water environment federation shows as this chart shows, chart 7, for every $1 million of federal spending on drinking waters and clean water infrastructure, we get $2.95 million in economic output for the u.s. economy. due to the, their ripple effect through the economy, these investments will result in new federal tax revenues nearly equal to infrastructure investments. this is why we need to pass the wrda bill now, and we have it

in front of us today. it is a bill that will help protect america's working people and has major economic benefits. so, the path forward, the main reason i wanted to come back down, this is the second time that we've made this. it is not a mandate. it's just that the managers of this bill -- that's myself and senator boxer from california -- and the leadership, we agree in order to get people to put their amendments down, we put a deadline which is noon tomorrow. we ask that you get your amendments down this afternoon. we're talking about amendments now to the managers' package so we will not be able to consider those in our package. that doesn't mean we're shutting them off because next week we'll have the opportunity to present some. but if you want to really have them seriously considered, they need to be in our package. it should come as no surprise as our committee has asked for any and all amendments in july prior to the august recess in

preparation for floor consideration in september. again, last week when the inhofe-boxer substitute to s. 2848 was circulated, our office stands ready to assist in any technical capacity in answering questions. i have to say that senator boxer and i have worked very closely together. there are a lot of amendments that have come up and have been discussed. some have been accepted. others are being considered. some are popular with democrats and not republicans, and the reverse is true too. this is our opportunity to do it. so if members are unable to make this noon deadline tomorrow for our managers' package, we'll still work to ensure that all amendments receive equal consideration as we work to clear as many amendments as possible and work to move amendments in regular order prior to the amendment filing deadline for the underlying bill next week. we have the opportunity to do

this. we are -- we are operating on deadlines now. it's been my experience in the senate that until you have a deadline where you have to do it, people generally speaking find other things to do. we're going to hold your feet to the fire this time. let's try to get this through. i see senator boxer. let me comment on how, you know, not just this bill, but we've worked on so many bills that are very meaning until to the american people. i can remember when they said on our side that we're not going to have a five-year massive highway reauthorization bill. and yet, i tried to explain to my conservative friends that that is the conservative approach. because the only alternative to that is you have to have extensions. if you have extensions, that doesn't work at all. now, we have worked very well together. that, and of course our chemical bill we're able to do and now we're going to get this done. we're going to get it done next week. so what i'd like to do is yield

to senator boxer and then retake the floor for the motions that will be necessary. mrs. boxer: thank you. madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i want to say to my colleague i'm just going to speak for 30 seconds because i said a lot yesterday, and i agree with your analysis of how important this bill is. i certainly agree that we have shown this body that we can overcome our differences and bring important bills to the floor. this one, is critical. my friend has gone into it in great detail. we're talking about clean water, drinking water. we're talking about navigation, the economy, how do you move products and ports and so on. it just covers the gamut of issues that are so important. and i think we've done it in a way that's fiscally responsible. so i'm just here to, again, associate myself with your remarks, also calling on my side. if anybody has amendments -- i

don't think our side has any more than the few that we have already started to work on. look, we're trying to get this done quickly. we're trying to accommodate everybody. and i think most people agree if senator inhofe and i can agree on something, then it pretty much is not controversial. so i'm here to just lend my aye voice to the voice votes we're about to take. mr. inhofe: i think your job has done a better job in getting your amendments in than our side has. in talking to you and the leader over there, we're down to about seven, i think, that we're considering. i encourage our republicans to do the same thing and get this thing done so we can make it happen. i take this opportunity to thank you for the hard work. mrs. boxer: you're very welcome. you're welcome. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up en bloc. that would be heller 4981 and

merkley 4991. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the amendments. the clerk: the senator from oklahoma, mr. inhofe, proposes four other senators, amendments number 4981 and 4991. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that the senate now vote on these amendments en bloc. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. inhofe: i know of no further debate on these amendments. the presiding officer: there is no further debate. all those in favor say aye. opposed, nay. the ayes appear to to have t the ayes do have it. the amendments are greed en bloc. -- are agreed to en bloc. mr. mccain: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: madam president, the last few weeks, my home

state of arizona has been thrust into the national spotlight. i wish i could say it's because of the success of our sports teams or the strength of our universities. instead, it's because arizona has become ground zero for the collapse of obamacare. leaving most of our citizens with limited choices and higher costs when it comes to the president's signature health care law, a law that i fought against for weeks on end, which the majority then on the other side of the aisle with 60 votes, without a single republican vote, without a single republican amendment, passed into law. and the president in 2009 said -- quote -- "if you've got health insurance, you like your doctor, you like your plan, you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. nobody is talking about taking that away from you." leet mlet me repeat the words oe

president of the united states after on a strict party-line basis, they passed obamacare. "if you have got health insurance, you like your doctor, you like your plan, ub keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. nobody is talk about taking that away from you." that's a quote from the president of the united states. he also said if you like your health care policy, you can keep your policy, period." ever since the passage of obamacare, americans have been hit by broken promise after broken promise and met with higher costs, also choices and poor quality of care. let me read just a few of the most recent headlines addressing the collapse of become -- of obe in arizona. i would ask that these articles be included in today's record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: september 2 20, 15, "phoenix health plan dumps

obama exchange." i point out that the majority of the population of my state is in mayor copy parks county. "parliamentary inquiry inan-- --pinal county left without no public options." "the county obama forgot. "usa today" august 30, 2016, "health care choices choked further." august 10, 2016. "obamacare consumers face higher costs in fall." "time," august 25, 2016,"aetna has revealed obamacare's many broken promises." the "arizona republic," "arizona consumers fret as obamacare insurance options dwindle." the "arizona republic," june 14,

230126, "insurers seek rate hikes for a.c.a. plans." come november 1, this will be the reality for hundreds of thousands of hardworking arizonans currently enrolled in obamacare. already united health, humana, health choice insurance company, aetna, and now phoenix health plans have all announced they are exiting arizona's marketplace. up until last night, arizona had the distinction of being home in america without a single health provider offering plans in 2017. while i'm pleased that bluecross blueshield decided to step in to save pinal county from having no choices, there is no reason to believe this is an economically viable or sustainable end

result. the fact remains -- this is a far cry from what president obama promised before and after signing his signature health care reform bill into law. the mass exodus of health snushers from the obamacare -- insurers from the obamacare marketplace should come as no surprise to anyone. over the last few years, massive financial losses have been reported as a result of participation in the federal exchanges. united health, for example, recently projected to lose well over $1 billion as a result of the poorly constructed obamacare marketplace. for the insurers who continue to participate in the exchanges, their only option is to raise premium rates astronomically high in order to cover their losses. in fact, one of the insurers in arizona in maricopa county said

they're going to ask for a 65% rate increase. co-pays are going up into the thousands of dollars. what's clear -- what is clear is that become become is crumbling, and arizonans are being left to pick up the pieces. let me direct your attention to this map. as you can see, as it stands today, 14 of arizona's 15 counties will have a single -- that's one -- a single health insurer to shop for coverage when open enrollment begins on november 1. that includes maricopa county, arizona's most populous county, impacting more than 120,000 of my fellow citizens. this is down from the eight health insurer options that maricopa residents had in 2016. let me repeat.

in 2016, they had eight health insurers to choose from. guess what they're going to have in 2017? one. along with every other county in arizona with one exception that will have two. as you can see, none have three. and up until yesterday, pinal county was in the red. for some families, worse still of these 14 counties, -- of those 14 counties, 13 counties will see their premiums by 51%. their premiums will increase -- 13 of these counties will see their premiums increase on an average by 51%. this could mean hundreds of dollars more per month out of their paychecks. i doubt -- i doubt that their

standard of living and their pay has increased sufficiently to cover a 51% increase in their premiums. that's why cynthia conform, associate director of health reform and private insurance at the kyes kaiser family foundation recently stated, "most other parts of the country, large cities like phoenix have multiple insurers participating in them. arizona is by far the most affected state when it comes to these exits." for a thraw president obama said would bring "more choice, more competition and real health care security," obamacare has delivered nothing more than empty promises. today thousands of my fellow citizens are asking, what happens if the only plan being offered in my county doesn't cover my current doctor or the coverage is insufficient for my

family's needs, or should i purchase health insurance at all, given all the upheaval in the market? well, when crafting this law, president obama and congressional democrats thought it would be a good idea to penalize those people who don't enroll by forcing them to pay a fine, to pay a fine if they didn't enroll. put sumly, if you don't enroll, you pay a fine. if there is a monopoly in a given county with no competition, you're penalized. being forced to choose between a much more expensive plan and paying a fine is unconscionable. in other words, you have two choices: not paying -- not accepting the one plan or paying a fine. not unconscionable. that's why yesterday i joininged senators cotton, sasse, flake, and barrasso in introducing legislation that would protect i had haves living in a county

with no competition in the federal marketplace from having to pay a penalty. these americans should not be forced to bear the burdens of a health care system that was fatally flawed from conception. the collapse of obamacare in arizona and across the country confirms what republicans have warned all along: government-mandated health care is unsustainable. now that the law is unraveling, it's no surprise that democrats are clamoring for a so-called public option. it is nothing more than government-run health care. if anything is clear about this failed law, it's that more government intervention is the wrong solution to fixing our health care system. this failed law will only continue to place undue burdens on arizona families unless we repeal and replace obamacare with real reform that encourages competition and empowers

patients to make their own health care decisions. i'll continue to push for this bill with senator purdue that would do just that: replace obamacare with commonsense solutions that empower patients and doctors, not the government. to take back control of their health care. until then, hardworking americans will continue to bear the consequences of a failed obamacare. you know, madam president, i ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with th the senator frm wyoming. officer sphe without objection. mr. mccain: i see my friend, dr. barrasso. i would ask dr. barrasso, dr. , what happens -- what happens to average citizens when, as in the case of my state, where all but one county only has one option, one health provider, what happens then i'd ask you, doctor? mr. barrasso: wcialtion it's

so interesting that the senator would bring this up because the entire state of wyoming has found itself in dpeac exactly te situation. the president promised a marketplace. what the american people have gotten is a monopoly. in one-third of all the counties in the country, they are down a single -- and it is not really a choice. it is a take-it-or-leave-it situation. i call these place places fallio the obamacare wasteland. and it is unfortunate to see it in county after county. you have been talking about the headlines down here. 31% -- one in three counties, one choice ives. that's not what the president promised. that's one broken promise after another. and i don't know if you saw the most recent polling today out from gallup. they said a couple of things. the number of people that disapprove of heck law is going up. the -- of the health care law is going up. the number that approve has dropped. people are finally seeing the

truth in spite of all of the things that the obamacare, the -- the obama administration, the democrats who passe passed this, have been saying for years. mr. mccain: another question. we see -- and it is well-publicized -- the increases in premiums. for example, maricopa county, the health care provider remain something asking for 65% increases in premiums. but what about the co-pays? in other words, isn't it hard for americans to understand why they would literal lit pay thousands of dollars before they would be eligible to receive the care? mr. barrasso: well, that's it. the deductibles and the co-pays, i would tell my colleague from arizona, is exactly one of the reasons that people are saying they are disaapproving of the health care law. one of the premiums have continued to go up. but on top of that, even if you get a subsidy that president obama says is helpful, it doesn't touch that first dollar

or the second or the5,000th, because people before they actually get to use the so-called insurance, they have to come up with -- for families sometimes it is up to $10,000 oust their own pocket -- out of their own pocket before -- so the inurns is not really use -- so the insurance is not really useful. it is empty coverage. it is not what people want, which is affordable care. mr. mccain: so, if you're an average citizen and you see your deductible -- a couple of how to dollars, it seems to me that your only other option is to go to the emergency room, the most expensive form of health care. is that -- mr. barrasso: that's very often the case. we're seeing more and more of that across the country much the emergency room doctors are saying, they are swamped. but the president says, oh, they get obamacare, they're going to

find family doctors and go there. that's not what's happening. what's happening, the emergency rooms are being for and more included and involved and that's where patients are turning to. which is why the poll today, the gallup poll -- and i'm sure the numbers may be worse in arizona -- it says 29% of americans say they have personally, personally been hurt the by the health care law. a lot lower numbers say they have been helped. to help people that didn't have insurance, the president and the democrats and those who voted for this bill should never have had to hurt so many americans. and today just about one in three americans say they and their families were personally hurt by this law. those are the numbers that are out today. mr. mccain: the next town hall meeting that you or i have, somebody is going to stand up and say, okay, obamacare has failed, senator barrasso or senator mccain. what's the answer? mr. barrasso: we have introduced, a numbers of us and

senator graham called the health care choice act to let the states have much more say in this. the state health care choice act. it provides freedom, flexibility, choice. so much of the reason that the prices have gone up so high is that the president has decided what kind of insurance people need to buy instead of letting people let themselves decide what they need, what's best for them and their families. and i've gotten letters, and i know you have as well, from families who before had insurance that worked for them, but it wasn't good enough for president obama because he feels he knows better than the people know about themselves and their families. so we want to provide this freedom and flexibility and choice, let states decide whether they want to comply with the mandates of obamacare or not. let states have a much more involvement than washington one size fits all that i know doesn't work for wyoming and i suspect doesn't work for arizona

either. mr. mccain: at a town hall meeting someone will stand up in cody or tucson and say, senator mccain, the cost of my prescription drugs has gone up 100%, 200%, whatever. how do we answer people who literally can no longer afford in some cases lifesaving prescription drugs? mr. barrasso: obamacare has actually made that worse. because if you take a look at the number -- and a lot has to do with the deductibles and co-pays because people who get insurance through obamacare we found over the last several years have paid twice as much out of pocket for their prescription drugs as have people who got the insurance through work. with work the co-pays are lower, often it's first dollar coverage for the medications which are expensive because of the breakthroughs and life expectancy now in the country continues to go up because of the advances in medicine and

technology. so all of these advances have been very helpful for us as citizens of this country and as people living on this planet. the costs are there and obamacare is finding that those people that have to get prescriptions filled and have obamacare are paying over twice as much as what people are paying who get insurance through work, which is why we need to get away from obamacare and repeal it and replace it with really patient-centered care, which we're not getting right now under the obamacare health care law. mr. mccain: it seems to me that as we debated for weeks on the floor on the floor of the senate that the fundamental premise of obamacare was to take money from healthy young americans in order to pay for the health care needs of older, not-so-well americans. and we are seeing a lot of young

americans who are saying i'd rather pay the fine. i'd rather pay the fine. so the estimates of those who would be enrolled is roughly half of what the congressional budget office predicted that they would be enrolled, which then has obviously a huge effect on the whole ability of health care -- obamacare, to care for these people. mr. barrasso: that was the front page story of "the washington post" on sunday, august 28. "health exchange signups fall short." the congressional budget office expected 24 million people to sign up, and it's now at 11 million. so less than half of the number of people that they predicted to sign up have done so. and the reason is that so many people, and they turn to look at that, why don't people sign up? because they believe it's a bad deal for them personally.

and they look at it from these high co-pays that the senator from arizona made reference to. the highway co-pays, the -- the high co-pays, the high deductibles and the premiums and they say why not just pay the fine? it's a lot cheaper to pay the fine than buy the insurance and then find out i can't use it anyway because the deductibles and co-pays are so high. mr. mccain: so if you're a young person and you have paid the fine, but yet you get in an automobile accident, on the way to the hospital wouldn't you want to sign up for obamacare? mr. barrasso: interestingly enough, president obama has made it pretty easy to do that. and what we found in watching some of these testimonies from around the country, in one state you had over 250 people that signed up, got treatment, over $100,000 worth of treatment and then dropped the insurance.

they are gaming the system left and right because that's the way president obama set it up. it was written behind closed doors over in the office of who was then the majority leader, harry reid, but because it's been such a disaster, the democrats have lost the majority, are now in the minority because so many people are bothered by the way that the president and his believers in this process said we got the votes, we're going to do it. we're not going to listen to the republicans. we're not going to listen to people who practiced medicine their whole lives. we know what's better for america than the american people. and that's exactly what we have had happen and that is why so many people are saying not a good deal for me, don't want any part of it. now today we're seeing people with this gallup poll saying it hurt their family personally, 29% of americans say it hurt their family personally and a greater number believe that this is going to hurt, this law is going to hurt health care for them and their families into the future. so that's not a good projection

about what we need as americans in a time when we have more people that are living longer, older, and we want them to lead healthier lives. mr. mccain: i'd like to say, dr. brass so, that i appreciated your leadership on this issue and knowledge and your background for, frankly, ever since obamacare was passed. you've been very helpful to people like me as we have gone through this odyssey where the president said -- quote -- "more choice, more competition and real health care security." he also said, by the way, i think you might recall in his own inimitable style, if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. period. remember that period that he added to the comment? i thank you. i will -- i want to assure the

citizens of arizona that i will do everything in my power to replace, repeal and replace obamacare which is causing so much harm to the people of my state. and it's unconscionable, unnecessary, and have it as one of my highest priorities. i thank dr. barrasso. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak as if in morning business.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: madam president, i come to the floor again, i believe now for the tenth time since march to discuss the zika virus. we were talking about this, i remember -- the first time i talked about this was back in january. there was a report out that said that zika, this disease that was being transmitted through mosquitoes, there was an outbreak in brazil and the alarm bells went off because being from miami, florida, my hometown, you go to the airport and look at the board at the number of flights coming from about a disil brazil and south florida and the numbers are high. my immediate thought was this is going to be an issue for florida and ultimately for america. i saw the outbreak in the territory of puerto rico, a place i've taken a tremendous interest in. as everyone knows puerto rico is not officially represented here in this chamber, but i've always along with my colleague, senator menendez of new jersey and senator nelson of florida, have always looked out for the interest of the island and its people who are u.s. citizens. so knowing the links between

florida and puerto rico and the links between zika and puerto rico, i knew as early as january this was going to be an issue and immediately talked to our border patrol folks and our customs people at our airports and seaports about ensuring we're doing everything we could. in march, when the president came out in february and march and talked about the need for $1.9 billion to fight zika, i believe i was the first republican to come out in favor of, certainly in this chamber to come out in favor of that request because my argument was we don't know fully what we're dealing with but let's get head of it, let's deal with it. otherwise it's going to get worse. unfortunately it did not happen. for much of march and april there wasn't much attention paid to this. the senate did move, and i'm proud of that that after some back and forth this place worked and we worked across the aisle and i worked with senator nelson on his proposal and other proposals. i believe i'm the only member of

congress that voted in favor of every single zika proposal. in my mind i want the money to flow so that local governments and states can deal with it and researchers can develop a vaccine. and we passed a law, $1.1 billion. it was a promise. -- compromise. it was less than what the president asked for but money began to move. unfortunately the house has a different idea and finds us in the stalemate we're in today. when we left in july there had not been a reported case of transmission of zika from a mosquito. as i warned repeatedly in may, june and july it was only a matter of time. if you spend any amount of time in florida in the summer, you know that it is hot, that it is humid, that it rains and that there is lots of mosquitoes. so you have a state which is the key entry point between the affected areas and the continental united states. you have mosquitoes. and it didn't take a scientist or an expert in zika to know that the combination of those two things were going to lead to locally based transmissions.

sadly, that's exactly what happened. there is a neighborhood in miami, florida, called wnywood. it is the center of art. it has murals. if you go down there, graffiti artists have been allowed to do extraordinary mullers. -- murals. it's come alive at night with restaurants. some of the best restaurants in south florida are in this community. it is a magnet for tourists. there are people that fly to florida, south florida in particular and go to wynwood because they want to be a part of that vibrant area. the c.d.c. came out with a warning telling people to avoid a neighborhood. this is usually the kind of advisory that comes out about avoiding other countries telling travelers specifically to avoid a certain part of a certain neighborhood. can you imagine the impact that had on that community? we talked about the human toll of zika, of the infection, what it does to unborn children.

also the economic impact of having a lead health care agency issuing a warning to americans to avoid a neighborhood in an american city. i promise you, that was not good for those businesses. some of these businesses had to close for weeks on end and days on end. and then a few weeks later we have reports of the disease being transmitted on miami beach. and i don't need to tell you about miami beach. everyone knows about miami beach. it is the cornerstone of tourism in south florida. people come to miami beach from all over the world to enjoy world-class beaches, world-class night life, world-class entertainment and world-class restaurants. i want to put yourself in the position of a small business owner, not a large hotel chain, imagine if you're a family that runs a restaurant on collins family on miami beach and you are depending -- your whole year, your whole budget, your payroll, everything is

built on the predictable travel of those coming in the fall and coming in the winter. they are going to leave money at these restaurants, they're going to go home. now you have the report of these transmissions and similar warnings as well. what you learn from this is that this zika issue is not just a health care issue -- and that is by far what the primary focus of our tension should be. but it is also an economic issue. it is hurting small businesses. miami beach as a city is going to see tax reference -- tax revenues go down. it is going to hurt one of the engines of our tourism sector, the reports of this transmission. you know what's hurting it even worse? when people turn on the news, here's what they're hearing. people are being infected with zika in florida, and congress is still haggling and fighting over it and they can't get anything done. that does not inspire confidence. today i have filed a bill, an

additional bill, in addition to calling for us to move on zika, let me touch on that point first. it's just inexcusable. how did we get to this point? and how did something like this, a public health crisis, become a political tool to be played with back and forth? and yet, that's what washington has become, a place that's become expert at literally turning any issue into a political issue. and it's done so again with this issue. that's why people are grossed out and disgusted by american politics. when they watch it on the news and they see all this fighting, they don't get it. they don't understand. you know you've got this problem. you know it's spreading and hurting people. we had a case of a child born with zika in miami-dade county in jacksonville. not with microcephaly, with zika. how can we turn this into a political issue? but that's what we've done. it took too long for many in my own party to realize this was

important. i will say this: the senate did it. the senate funded it and i think at this point that is probably the fastest and best way forward if we're serious about funding this is to go back to what the senate did. and i'll continue to work with our colleagues to make sure that's a part of whatever vehicle we use to fund the government and keep it open through the rest -- through most of the rest of this year. but today i filed a bill to help people being economically impacted by it. it is a bill that deals with small business administration and what it does is it basically gives the small business administration the authority to give out small business loans to communities negatively impacted by health-related travel advisories issued by the centers for disease control and prevention. as you know, as i said earlier, the c.d.c. has already issued those travel advisories for windwood and for the south beach areas of miami-dade county. that doesn't mean a week from now there won't be another area added to that, including another area in your states, my colleagues. you don't know when that's coming. so if they were hit by a storm,

they would equa qualify for thi. they have been hit by a storm. it happens to be a health care storm. it's hurting them economically. we need to make sure they have the ability to provide the short-term, low-interest loans to businesses in order to be able to weather this health care zika storm. i don't know why anyone would be against this. i'm not sure why anybody would to be it. my hope is we can move quickly on it. it is important. i know there is a lot of jurisdictional pride around heards and committees say you have to come through us. i hope you can make an exception on this issue because these communities are hurting bad. i hope we can get that passed. other servicemen and women are deployed all over the world. they don't have a choice. when the u.s. military tells you and your dependents you must now go to honduras, you're going to

be stationed at in guantanamo bay, you can't say, i'm the no going because there's zika there. you have to go. and we need to make sure we are protecting our men and women. according to the pentagon, as of today, there are 81 u.s. service members and 19 dependents that have tested positive for the zika virus, three of them by the way are pregnant. so i filed a second bill to prk our service members from zika. it's called the service members zika protection act. and it provides u.s. troops with additional protections from the zika virus. by authorizing the secretary of defense to transfer funds within the existing department of defense medical and health research accounts in order to combat the zika virus. this is -- i'm hopeful we can unite behind that as well. and with over 100 members of our military and their families already infected with zika, we need to take specific precautions to help them and help our partners who host.

i am hopeful that congress will arrive at an agreement this month to fund our nation's response to zika but also that we ensure that those being deployed on our behalf receive every protection we can provide. so these -- noition to the broaderrer argument about -- so in addition to the broader argument about zika, these are two commonsense approaches giferg the department of defense flexibility to move existing money around, additional protections four our service men and women and their dependents who are being deployed and impacted by zika. we have over 100 people now including 81 in uniform that have been imakded by it and 19 -- that have been impacted by it and 19 of their dependents. put yourself in the position after family-owned business in south beach or windwood. instead of 50 people coming in, they have five or ten. they need help. if they had lost power or been hit by a hurricane or tornado, this wouldn't be an issue.

they have been hit by a for neigh dove another kind. one they couldn't prevent or insure against. let's make sure the s.b.a. hags the flexibility to provide them their loans. noition funding this, we've got to get the zika thing done. is it cannot continue to languish. we've got to get the s.b.a. flexibility built into our law. so these small businesses can be provided the resources they need to stay open and not close down as a result of a travel advisory because of a disease being spread by mosquitoes and i think we would all agree that we've got to make sure we're doing everything we can to protect our men and women in uniform who aren't going by choice; they are being deployed to these places where zika is prevalent and they're being infected. there is no excuse to not help them at all. these are the three things i hope we'll do before congress adjourns tend of this month: fund zika fully, give flexibility for our small businesses to get s.b.a. loans who have been impacted by zika,

and do everything we can passing a law to give the department of defense the flexibility they need to use existing money to protect our men and women who are being deployed. with that, madam president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. the senator from ohio. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: madam president, i rise today to talk about aa tax increase in the president's affordable care act. i want to start by commending my colleague from florida for his remarks regarding the zika virus and the impact it's having not just on his state but some on so many others in our country. i thank him for his diligence to trying to get to a solution. and we're so close. we did pass something here in the senate. the house passed something a little different. it is time for us to figure out how to resolve these differences and provide the help needed.

this is a medical emergency. i was on the floor yesterday talking about another medical emergency, which is the opioid history. so these are both issues that i hope congress will act on as part of the process of being sure that the government is funded at the year-end and again i commend my colleague from florida, mr. rubio, for his good work on this. again, what i want to talk about is a tax increase that's actually in the affordable care act. this is a tax increase that many people don't know about but sadly it goes into effect at year-end and is going to affect a lot of middle-income seniors? ohio and around the country. there are millions of seniors who are potentially vulnerable to this tax increase. some of them don't even know about t it comes at 00 time when middle-class families all around this country are feeling squeezed. st's those families who are going to be hit hardest. wages are flat. even declining on average when you take inflation into account,

whereas the cost of living as gone up, hasn't it? and there are a number of fk factors to that. electricity costs have gone up. with regard to health care costs, there is a no question that everybody is experiencing an increase. families, seniors, small businesses. the affordable care act of course was advertised as helping on that. the notion was, as was explained at the time, that there would be about a $2,500 increase per family increase in health care premiums. the cost has sk skyrocketed to e point where for many people it is their biggest cost increase. it was sphoafd bring the health care costs down. the average cost of health care premiums for the individual market in ohio has increased over the past seven years by 90er. 90%. almost a doubling.

when you look at the affordable care act exchanges themselves, it was just reported that we are expecting a 12% on average increase, 12% on average for people in the exchanges. hock afford that? -- who can afforded that? this is a double-digit increase. people are feeling the squeeze. wages flat, expenses up. there's a survey done by the federal reserve recently. half of all americans say they have to borrow money or sell something to cover ads 400 -- to cover a $400 emergency expense. if you've ever had a health emergency, it can happen to anyone, trust me, it usually costs more than $400. seniors are especially vulnerable to these suspensions, particularly those on fixed incomes. one economist testified to the senate finance committee at a hearing we had that in part because of these unexpected health care cost increases, more than 85% of americans are at risk of having insufficient income in retirement. more than 85%.

and we think this middle-class squeeze is going to get worse, not better, in ohio because so many companies are pulling out of the health care exchanges. six of the 17 companies that offer health care in ohio on the ohio exchanges have now decided to pull out because they're losing money, and aetna is the most recent one. this means, of course, leafs choice. when you have less choice, what happens? less competition. less competition, what happens? you tend to have higher cost and lower quality. so this is going to make things even worse. the congressional budget office, a nonpartisan group here in congress, and the joint committee on taxation project that health insurance premiums will continue to grow at about 5% 0en average. so that's just stead did i increase is -- so that steady increase is impossible for people to afford. the part b premium will increase more than that. at about 5.5% per year. for a lot of people in this

situation, they're on a fixed income. their income is not going up 5.5% per year. one way seniors have found relief to take advantage of what's called the medical expense tax deduction. and it's really very simple. it says if your medical expenses exceed 7.5% of your income, then you can deduct all those medical expenses. and a lot of seniors take advantage of that. again, what a lot of seniors may not know is that as of the end of this year, under the affordable care act, it increases that threshold he had -- that threshold increases fr from.5% -- from 7.5% up to 10%. that means a lot of middle-income seniors will not be able to deduct their medicallences because they exceed 7.5% but not 10% of their income. there are about 10 million americans who use this deduction every year, by the way. most of them are seniors. a lot of them make less than the national average household income. most in fact make less than

that. a lot are on a fixed income. i have met with some of these people back home who are directly affected by this. one would be sue son coal betterson from zanesville, ohio. i was with her in columbus last week. she started working when she was 14 years old and she contributed to social security. she thought she had a decent plan for health care with medicare and being able to take this deduction. now as a senior citizen, she's got a chronic illness and she's losing sleep on how she is going to pay for all of her medical bills if this goes up to 10%. her husband worked as substance abuse counselor. he's now living off social security. when he had a heart attack a few years ago the medical expense deduction helped him. it helped him and his wife susan be able to stay afloat. the difference between the 7.5% and 10% may not seem like much to some people but it matters a lot to susan and her husband and

other system,. i met with larry from ontario, ohio. he volunteers to help seniors do their taxes. that's a hard job because the tax code has gotten so complicated. people need help from these advisors sms he trioses to helpe tries to help them through their deductions. the medical deduction is especially for seniors who have just lost their spouse. they have to pay their spouse's medical bills after they're deceased. by the way, i was supposed to meet with somebody named regina to talk about this very tax increase. i was looking forward to t but she couldn't make t no you know why? because the health care problems we're talking about here. she just had triple bypass surgery and has a broken hip. she has to depend on her son who lives with her. her out-of-pocket health care

costs each month are increasing. she's very worried that it's going to exceed 7.5%. but not exceed 10% and she is real estate going to find yourself in a situation where she cannot deduct these expenses. the ohio aarp has done a good job of providing specific information on this to me and other members of the ohio delegation. that's really helpful. because this is just not about numbers. this is about people. when you talk to these people and see what they're going through, i think it's something that republicans and democrats alike should be able to come together on here to solve before we leave during this session of congress. the data from the internal revenue service show that the seniors who hughes this tend to be the oldest, least healthy and disproportionately women. think about it. to have medical expenses above the threshold means you either have the to have low income, high out-of-pocket medical expenses or both. these are not folks who should be raise -- we should be raising taxes on, especially now. even with medicare, as i said earlier, seniors still spend a large percentage of their income

on health care. the average medicare beneficiary spent more than $,000 a year -- $6,000 a year in medical expenses. the result is some 8.3 million sprns rely on medicaid in addition to comaimplet while this billion dollar tax increase we're talking about today is intended to pay for part of the president's health care law, it could actually in the long run cause more strain on an already struggling medicaid system. i think that's sort of the definition of persony wise and pound -- penny wise and pound fool ierchlt it is about people. some of the most vulnerable. that is why senator brown introduced legislation to block this tax hike from going into effect at the end of the year and extend the current 7.5% threshold that so many seniors are counting on. the bill is bipartisan. it's commonsense. it's a chance for this body to show that it does work for the most vulnerable in our society, that we stand with middle class families who are feeling

squeezed right now and we stand with our seniors. i want to thank senator brown for being an indispensable partner in this effort. i want to thank the supporters of this legislation like the aarp, the american senior housing alliance and the ohio alliance of agencies on aging. i urge my colleagues to join me, join senator brown, join others and join all these other organizations who represent millions of seniors in blocking this billion-dollar tax increase by supporting this commonsense legislation for the sake of those seniors who are caught in the squeeze, those seniors who we represent. thank you, madam president. i yield back my time. madam president, i have four requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. portman: madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, i will shortly -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. wyden: i ask unanimous consent to vacate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: i will shortly ask unanimous consent that the senate pass s. 2952, the stopping mass hacking act. the bill is just one sentence long, colleagues. what it does is simple, but in

my view, it is extraordinarily important. if the senate does nothing, if the senate fails to act, what's ahead for americans is a massive expansion of government hacking and surveillance powers, and it will take place automatically on december 1 of this year. the legislation that i seek to pass, that has been bipartisan here in the senate, would stop this expansion, this automatic expansion of government hacking and surveillance powers. now i said it before and i want to say it again this afternoon. there is no question that it is a dangerous world out there, and i take a back seat to none when it comes to making sure

that our law enforcement and intelligence officers have the tools that they need to keep america safe. in fact, mr. president, i was actually able to add the specific provision expanding emergency powers for our government to act when there's a threat. emergency powers so that the government could move to protect the american people and come back and get the warrant later. but that's not what we're talking about here. what we're talking about here is a staggering expansion of government hacking and surveillance authority. these are major changes to federal policy, mr. president, that are going to come about through amendments to rule 41 of

the federal rules of criminal procedure. so this is the kind of major issue that traditionally comes before the judiciary committee. i say two of my colleagues that i enjoyed very much working wits here. senator cornyn, a member of the judiciary committee, distinguished member of the finance committee. we have big policy issues that come before the finance committee, come before the judiciary committee. we work on them. we work on them in a bipartisan fashion. chairman hatch and i meet every wednesday afternoon to work on these kinds of matters. that's not what's going to go on here with this massive expansion of government hacking and surveillance authority. these rules are going into effect, colleagues, on december 1 if the congress does nothing. if the congress just says, gee, we've got other things to do, these rules go into effect.

and i guarantee you, there are going to be many americans that are going to be very unhappy. and they're going to ask their members of congress what they did to stop this illinois-advised approach. by -- to stop this ill advised approach. in the other body congressman sensenbrenner, the distinguished congressman from wisconsin, is very concerned about this issue. so the american people want security and liberty, but these amendments don't give them much of either. this major policy change is going to make it easier for the government to hack in to the personal devices of americans and collect more information about them. they're going to do it by using computer programs called malware. the malin my view is like -- the mall in my opinion view, is

like malevolent, make us less safe, not more. it could end up damaging not only our personal devices but the power grid in hospitals and nearly any other system connected to the internet. get your arms around that. hospitals in iowa and texas and oregon being damaged not because the congress made a policy decision, but because something was done automatically as a result of a change in the rules of criminal procedure. i just want to say to colleagues, i think there are going to be a lot of unhappy americans if that's the case. the rule change says the government can search potentially millions of computers with one single warrant issued by one single judge. there is no difference in terms of law enforcement access between the victims of a hack and the perpetrator himself. the changes will make people the victims twice over. once by a hacker and once again

by their government. you wouldn't punish the victims of a tax scam or a ponzi scheme with a painful audit. it just doesn't add up. now i understand the passing legislation by unanimous consent is a difficult task. these days you can hardly get unanimous consent to drink a soda at lunch time. but this isn't an issue where the senate can do some kind of ostrich act and ignore the problem. by sitting here and doing nothing the senate will be giving consent to a substantial expansion of government hacking and surveillance authority. by not hacking, the senate would give a stamp of approval on a major policy change that has received no hearing, no oversight, no discussion in spite of the fact that some of the most important companies in america, most important companies in america are

speaking out in opposition to this. in my view, the limits of search and seizure are unquestionably an issue for this congress to debate. the justice department should not have the power to change the practical meaning of the fourth amendment without the people's elected leaders weighing in. instead, the senate ought to be doubly concerned about the fact that the administration wants to conduct proactive cybersecurity policy through some kind of obscure bureaucratic process like rule 41. there aren't folks in oregon, texas or iowa or anywhere else who are following the details of something called rule 41. but i'm telling everybody, they're going to be real concerned about the expansion of government's hacking authority. so i hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bipartisan, bicameral legislation. if this bill cannot pass today

by unanimous consent, i look forward with my colleagues to having a hearing on this issue. i know there's been bipartisan interest in the judiciary committee on this. leaders of the judiciary committee have talked about it. i hope that that hearing will take place shortly so that americans can have a chance to understand exactly how devastating this proposal would be for them. so with that, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 2952 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration, that 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: is there objection?

mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, reserving the right to object, let me start by saying to my friend from oregon, i admire his passion and i admire his creativity at branding legislation. but for reasons i will explain, this is a commonsense procedure that doesn't relate to the fourth amendment, the constitutional right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. this is a venue provision. this has to do with what court you go to in order to get a court order, to get permission from a court after establishing probable cause to conduct that search. senator wyden is weeing consent to block -- is seeking consent to block procedures that have been the product of lengthy

consideration including hearings and deliberation. these rules, as all rules that are applied in the courts are, have been approved by the rules advisory committee. this is a group of judges, law professors, and practicing attorneys. and then it was approved by the judicial conference of the united states. and then, most significantly perhaps, they were endorsed by the united states supreme court. so if there were constitutional or other legal issues and concerns about this, you would think that the highest court in the land would have flagged those and declined to endorse them, but they didn't. these changes have been approved because they are commonsense measures, as i said a moment ago, that relate solely to the appropriate venue for a search warrant. they simply make clear that which federal district court the government should go to in order to apply to a judge for a search warrant in cases involving

sophisticated cyber criminals and people like child pornographers and even terrorists. ultimately, that makes our government more efficient by making it clearer which courts can consider these requests for search warrants and better-equipped to stop these heinous crimes. as i said earlier, these aren't substantive changes. this doesn't change the balance between privacy and security in the fourth amendment to the constitution. rather, the government must still go before a judge and make the requisite showing mured to get a search -- in order get a search warrant. i can't understand who but the most radical of privacy advocates would say that even after meeting the requirements of the fourth amendment before a judge, establishing probable cause to get a search warrant, you would say, no, we don't want

to athrough to happen. i can't -- allow that to havment i can't imagine circumstances where we would say the fourth amendment is trumped by concerns about privacy, especially when the targets that must be proven up in court are cyber criminals, child pornographers and even terrorists. well, we can't let that happen, and that's why these rule changes are so important. our colleague claiment claims te changes are allow for mass hacking and forum shopping. that's the branding i talked about at the beginning. but these claims have been considered and rejected through a thoughtful, thorough process that i have a already described. these changes are modernizing our laws and updating the tools that government has to investigate so that they can better protect us from the very real and increasing threat of cyber criminals and terrorists. the truth is there are more

things we need to do noition this to -- noition this to update and modernize our laws. i would close, mr. president,ly saying that i know there's been public concerns raised and indeed i believe there have been some briefings even today by federal law enforcement agencies and the intelligence community with regard to russian activities in cyberspace, even focused on our very system of elected our officials in the november 8 election. this is not a time to retreat and to allow cyberspace to be run amok by cyber criminals or people who would steal intellectual property or child pornographers or terrorists. this is a vincennesable---- this is a very sensible tool of venue.

the fourth amendment of the constitution protects all of us, as it should, against unreasonable searches and seizures. so for all those reasons, mr. president, i will object to the unanimous consent request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i will yield in a moment to mr. daines, but just so we're clear in terms of my response to the distinguished senator from texas, he has, as some have tried to do, sought to characterize this as kientd kina routine kind of matter, that this was a rule of criminal procedure, of no great import without any far-reaching consideration. i can tell you, mr. president, cybersecurity experts around the country have spoken out virtually unanimously about the

consequences of the government accidentally breaking their computers without telling them. i don't know of anything that is routine about this at all. under this change, the government can search potentially millions of computers with one single warrant issued by one single judge. and, tragically, there's no difference in terms of law enforcement access between the victims of a hack and the perpetrator themselves. so we're talking about clobbering victims twice. first they get clobbered by a hacker and then they could get hurt by the government. now, the distinguished senator from texas seeks to portray this as some kind of far-out kind of matter.

virtually all of the major technology companies in this country have written in opposition to this. scores of cybersecurity experts have written in opposition. and one of the key points they make is you don't punish victims twice in america. you wouldn't punish the visms a tax scam or a ponzi scheme with a painful audit. that's what can happen here. and the idea that a change of this magnitude would be made without any debate, consideration -- there's been no hearing on this matter, mr. president. i know of no meetings. i'd like to hear any member of the united states senate tell me about some meeting they went to. i know of no sessions where the public voice could be heard.

so i'm very hopeful -- and i intend to qom back to this -- and i intend to come back to this floor again in an effort to try to make sure that the public is at least brought into this, because i can tell you, senator daines and i represent a lot of rural hospitals, for example. well, certainly if you have some of what we've been told could happen in terms of what it could mean to computer systems and hospitals and other kinds of facilities, they are rea they'rk their senators, what did you do about that? why did you just let that rule go through that could damage those systems that are a lifeline for americans? so we're going to be back, and as i mentioned before my colleague came, in the other body we're starting to make a fair amount of progress. jim sensenbrenner, a very

influential member of the other body, has taken a great interest in this. a number of colleagues on both sides. so we'll be back. i'm going to yield now, mr. president. i know my colleague from montana, who's been a wonderful partner in this effort, has some comments to make. it highlights once again the bipartisan concern about how the magnitude of this change, colleagues, would take place without any involvement -- none -- here in the united states senate. no hearings, no debates, no discussion. this is a big change. and i hope we'll discuss it. i yield the floor. mr. daines: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. daines: mr. president, my distinguished colleague from oregon commented about how the technology companies are concerned about what's going on. i spent over a decade in the private sector -- in fact, 12 years with a cloud computing company. we had 17 offices around the world, a product in 33 different

languages, and saw firsthand what it means to be engaged certainly in the high-tech business and the challenges related to hacking. and i know firsthand the challenges our country does face when it comes to cyber criminals. we were attacked routinely hand to fend those attacks off and build rock-solid, hardened fire walls to protect our customers because technology has made it ease requester for bad actors to -- has made it easier for bad actors to commit a whole host of crimes and all from behind a computer screen anywhere in the world. and our law enforcement indeed faces tremendous challenges in tracking and stopping these criminals. the fact is, our law enforcement policies need to be updated to reflect the 21st century realities. but these policy changes need to be made through a process that is transparent, that is

effective, and importantly protects our civil liberties. the changes to rule 41 of the federal rules of criminal procedure would allow the government to hack an unlimited number of americans' computers, including innocent victims, with wita single warrant. this rule change was approved behind closed doors with little-known judicial conference. fundamental changes to the way we allow law enforcement to execute searches needs to be made. there's no doubt about that. we are in agreement that changes need to be made. however, it must be through a process that's fully transparent to the american people. we cannot give the federal government a blank check to infringe upon our civil liberties. now, if congress does not act, this rule change will automatically go into effect on december 1. senate bill 2952, the stopping

mass hacking hackett, it stops the rule change and will allow congress to consider new law enforcement tools through -- and this is very important -- the full, open, transparent process that they deserve. i urge my colleagues to support not only this bipartisan but bicameral piece of legislation. i yield back my time. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i come to the floor to speak about the work of the judiciary committee and a little shorter speech on the issue of the affordable care act. earlier this week, the minority leader came to the floor to speak about a supreme court vacancy. he made personal insults and threats, as he tends to do, but political stunts and childish tantrums aside, the minority

leader knows that the american people deserve to have their voices heard on the future of the supreme court. we've made the decision that the next president will select the next justice of the supreme court. we've done that because the next justice will have a profound impact on issues that matter to all of us for decades ahead. and we think the people should have a voice in that matter. i spent the past several weeks meeting with iowans across my state discussing issues that concern them and what's on their minds looking forward through the election -- to the election this fall. the vacancy on the supreme court created by the death of justice scalia came up time and again. at meeting after meeting during

this summer, iowans told me that they appreciate the senate's decision that the next president should nominate justice scalia's replacement. they understood that this nomination will affect the court for years to come. and for that reason, they want to have a voice in the matter, and we will give them that voice that's the position that the judiciary committee took after justice scalia's death. we wrote to leader mcconnell on february 23 to advise him that the next president should select the next justice. we explained it this way -- and i quote from the letter -- "the presidential election is well underway. the american people are presented with an exceedingly rare opportunity to decide in a

very real and concrete way the direction that the court will take over the next generation. we believe the people should have this opportunity." end of quote. our explanation is all the more true as we find ourselves just two months away from the presidential election this fall. i remain convinced that we owe the people a chance to speak their minds on the supreme court during this election. i've not been surprised to hear from my fellow iowans that they want their voices heard on the issue, and the senate's decision to give the people this opportunity is no surprise either. we're acting in the senate's long tradition as a check on the president's power to nominate.

i'd like to take as one example, because i've given several examples in other speeches, but go back to 1968. on june 26 of that presidential election year, president johnson announced his nomination of justice abe fortice to be chief justice of the supreme court twhe chief justice warren declared his intentions to retire. abe fortice, of course, was already an associate justice of the supreme court and had been unanimously confirmed by the senate just a few years earlier. but that confirmation didn't take place in an election year like 1968. within 24 hours of justice fortice's nomination to be chief justice, 19 republican senators issued the following statement

-- and i quote -- "the next chief justice should be selected after the people have expressed themselves in the november election." end of partial quote. at the time democrats held the senate, so these 19 republican members did not control the judiciary committee proceedings on the floor. but those 19 senators promised that if the issue was forced to a vote that they would -- quote -- "vote against confirming any supreme court nominee by the incumbent president." end of quote. these 19 senators made this commitment immediately following the president's' announcement of his intended nomination. for the same reasons the judiciary committee has elected not to move forward, the

president's nomination of a successor to justice scalia. here's what senator howard baker said as one among those 19 senators. quote -- "i have no question concerning the legal capability of justice fortice but there are, in my opinion, more important considerations at this time." to continue to quote senator baker, "the appointment of the chief justice really ought to be the prerogative of the new administration. in my opinion, the judicial branch is not an isolated branch of government. it is and must be responsive to the sentiments of the people of the nation. those are my thoughts. and they're not just shared by republicans. recall of course that then-chairman biden in 1992 said

processing a supreme court nomination in an election year harms the nominee, the country, and the senate. and he only spoke of coming together on a nominee in the next congress with a new president. i'd finally like to address one more argument i've heard recently from those who support the president's nomination this election year. as we've drawn closer and closer to this presidential election, they've tried to use the length of this vacancy as reason to move forward with their president's nomination. i've even heard some say that this is the longest supreme court vacancy ever. that's just plain false. i'll list just a few examples. two vacancies to fill the seats. justices baldwin and daniel lasted longer than two years in

the 1800's. six supreme court vacancies have lasted longer than a year, and two more have lasted nearly that long. as this election draws closer to the day the judiciary committee's position remains consistent. the next president will choose justice scalia's replacement. senators have made this choice before, like the 19 who declared during the 1968 election year that the next president should choose justice warren's remalaysianment. they did so just as then-chairman biden said because that course was best for the country during a politically charged election year. the same thing is true this

election year. the next president will select the next supreme court justice. just a few words i'd like to say to my colleagues on the affordable care act a.c.a. i want to give a direct quote from president obama about obamacare. quote -- "too many americans still strain to pay for their physician's visits and prescriptions. could have their deductible or pay their monthly insurance bill ." i'm glad that the president has finally heard that message. when i was having meetings in some of my 99 counties this year in iowa, i heard plenty from families who felt duped by the promises of obamacare. two families told me that their

obamacare insurance was more than their house payment. many said they did not know how they would continue to pay the premiums. but president obama says in effect, pay no attention to rising premiums and then promises to give people subsidy. but 97% of americans do not receive obamacare subsidies. so obamacare seems to be collapsing. insurers are leaving the exchanges. there's been a lot of news on that lately. premiums are increasing by double digits. in iowa, some of those premiums increased as much as 28% and a lot of states much, much higher. americans have fewer health care choices every day despite the many promises that obamacare

would improve just about every aspect of our health care system. 20% of obamacare customers will be forced to find a new insurance company this fall. so much for the promise that was made in 2008, if you like your insurance, you can keep it. and it's official, you can no longer keep your doctor. so much for the promise of 2020 if you like your doctor you can keep it. the obama administration has now even erased all references on its web site to the words keeping your doctor. the link to the web page that used to say how to keep your doctor now says how to keep -- how to pick a health plan. so combeemed seems to be collapsing this comes as no surprise. obamacare has worked as well as

piling two tons of fertilizer on a one-ton truck. of course any farmer can tell you that that just don't work very well for a long haul. we could enact alternative reforms aimed at solving america's biggest health care problems. good places to start would be cracking down on frivolous lawsuits. letting people purchase insurance across state lines, combriewchg transparency in the health care pricing, giving states more freedom to improve medicaid, using consumer choice to drive competition which in turn drives down court. and changing the tax code so that small business can provide affordable health insurance to their employees. that's something that the obamacare took away that

financial help. and this is exactly what my legislation, s. 1697, the small business health care relief act, will do to give those employers an tient to provide that health to their employees. i give you only a partial list of policy changes. so the american people can know that the failing obamacare program is not the only answer. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. king: thank you. mr. president, last march this body passed cara, the comprehensive addiction and recovery act. unfortunately, at the same time we didn't fund it. we didn't provide any additional funds to support the treatment and recovery of people

throughout the country. since we passed that bill and failed to fund it, 15,000 people have died. 78 a day, three an hour have died because we haven't acted on funding. a a group of us got together on may 2 brought forth an amendment to provide emergency funding to give some substance to this bill which had so much promise and to provide support for recovery and treatment. that amendment was defeated. passing that bill without funding is like sending the fire department to a five-alarm fire with no water. we don't have the means to do what has to be done to defeat this scourge which has taken the life of a subsequent -- a constituent or more in every state in the union.

every one of us has lost lives in our state because of this. treatment works. recovery is possible. it's hard but the greatest tragedy, the greatest tragedy is when someone struggles with this awful disease, is ready to seek help, seeks help and is told sorry, there's a three-month waiting list. that's unconscionable. this is something taking lives right now. this isn't an abstract maybe this will happen in the future. this is right now, today. in maine, washington and nebraska, in texas all across this country. it is the greatest public health crisis of my lifetime. 78 people a day are dying. and it's preventable. there are three lels to -- legso the stool in preventing this.

without all three of these legs the stool collapses and people die. these are real people. i've had round tables in members of, sat next to a deputy sheriff who lost his daughter. one woman said she hoped his son would be arrested so maybe then he could get into treatment. these are regular, ordinary americans that are being affected by this. not only young people. older people, middle aged people. this is a mail josh -- this is a major crisis. i can talk about the fact that opioid prescription drugs lead to heroin and other drugs. but the real subject today is funding. and now i was told back in the spring don't worry we're going to take care of this in appropriations. we're going to have appropriations bills and it will all be dealt with. now we're talking about a continuing resolution which would not have any additional funding unless we find a way to do it. that's my plea today. are i've written to the

president, i've written to the chair of the appropriations committee saying let's find a way to at least fund the $ 181 million that's authorized in cara. at least do that. even if we're doing a continuing resolution. by the way, i don't understand why we're doing continuing resolutions when the agreement has been reached on the amount of the budget, the amount of the appropriations, the appropriations committee has done their work. why aren't we doing appropriations? that's another subject. but however we do the funding this fall, let's deal with this terrible problem that is taking lives, tearing families apart, and deeply wounding the heart of america. mr. president, i ask the consideration of this whole body for this urgent problem and that we take real steps to deliver help to those people that are asking for it. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under

the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following fume nations, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of state, peter michael mckinley of virginia to be ambassador to the federal republic of brazil. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: