[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 142 (Tuesday, September 20, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5902-S5904]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017--MOTION TO PROCEED--
Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding rule XXII, the motion to invoke cloture on the motion
to proceed to H.R. 5325 ripen at 5:15 p.m. today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous Consent Agreement--S.J. Res. 39
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding rule XXII, at 11:15 a.m. on Wednesday, September 21,
Senator Paul or his designee be recognized to offer a motion to
discharge S.J. Res. 39; that there be up to 3 hours of debate, equally
divided between the proponents and the opponents, with Senator Paul
controlling 30 minutes of the proponents' time and Senator Murphy
controlling 15 minutes of the proponents' time; and that following the
use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote in relation to the
motion to discharge.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Vermont.
(The remarks of Mr. Leahy pertaining to the introduction of S. 3359
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
[[Page S5903]]
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Nomination of Merrick Garland
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, it has been 187 days since President
Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. That is a long
time. Since March 16, we have been waiting for a hearing. It is really
extraordinary when you think how long we have seen the third branch of
government unable to fully function because of inaction in the U.S.
Senate.
Republicans have a constitutional duty to uphold, and they have not
done their job. We all have that constitutional duty. We are standing
at the ready. We are willing to remain here in session until we can get
this done. We need a hearing now. We need to get Merrick Garland on the
Court before the Court begins its new session on October 1.
Unfortunately, we are likely to leave--maybe at the end of this week or
next week--without a hearing.
The Republican leadership's inability to consider Garland's
nomination puts the Court at frequent risk of deadlock, which is not in
the interest of families or of those whose interests are coming before
the U.S. Supreme Court. It is a shame because Merrick Garland is a
uniquely qualified jurist. In fact, Republican colleagues have noted
his qualifications in the past, but the reason Republicans haven't
acted is simple, unfortunately, and that is a political calculation.
When we look at the Court on October 1, when they are seated, it will
look like this, with a vacant chair. The question is, Whom are they
holding the chair for? I envision behind this chair a shadow of the
Republican nominee--someone who is standing behind there. And it is
clear that Republicans in the Senate are holding this seat open for
Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, in hopes that he will be the next
President.
I am not sure about you, but when it comes to filling this empty
seat, ``Celebrity Apprentice: Supreme Court Edition'' is not a show I
want to watch, and it is certainly not a show that the American people
will benefit from.
Many of my Republican colleagues also recognize that the nominee for
President on their side poses a risk to our judicial system. When the
Republican nominee attacked a Federal judge's impartiality on the basis
of his parents' ethnicity, the majority leader said he ``couldn't
disagree more with a statement like that.''
Why then would he leave this seat open for that person to fill? How
can you justify allowing someone to nominate a Justice to the highest
Court in the land when it is clear that nominee has no respect for the
judiciary as an institution?
Another one of my Republican colleagues described the Republican
nominee's comments--one of many of his comments, but described one set
of comments as ``the literal definition of racism.'' Yet that person is
supporting Donald Trump, and they are holding a seat open for this
person who has said things that are literally the definition of racism.
This colleague actually at some point came out on the record as not
supporting the nominee, and he has been joined by other Republican
Senators. Yet they potentially keep a seat open for this person to fill
on the highest Court in the land.
Another Member of this body has referred to the Republican nominee as
``a pathological liar'' who ``doesn't know the difference between truth
and lies.'' Senate Republican colleagues can't justify holding up Judge
Garland's confirmation, but all of my Republican colleagues are doing
that, hoping that Mr. Trump is the person who gets to nominate this
Justice in January. It makes no sense.
They all remain unified in their opposition to Judge Garland, who is
one of the most qualified and well-respected judges of this generation.
They are unified in not moving forward, even though many of them have
said very positive things about him in the past, and I would expect to
see that in the future. I have to wonder what exactly those Senators--
especially the ones who are opposing their party's nominee--are waiting
for because it is obvious to me that just about every Member of this
body believes that Judge Garland would do an excellent job on the
Court.
I call on all Republican colleagues to do their job to hold a hearing
to bring this nomination to the floor as quickly as possible, to not
hold open a spot on the highest Court in the land for someone who many
of them have been running to distance themselves from.
This is a very serious issue. We talk a lot about the Constitution
around here. We have three branches of government, and one right now
cannot fully function in the public's interests on behalf of
businesses, families, young people, older people, and children because
they don't have the full membership of the Court. It is our job in the
U.S. Senate to make sure they have all of the members present when the
new Court sits, starting on October 1.
I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Do your job.
Now is the time to do your job. The American people expect us to do our
jobs. Do your job and don't hold a seat open for the Republican
nominee, whom so many of you have expressed such displeasure for. It is
time to do your job as the Republican majority in the U.S. Senate.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Tribute to Becky Fleeson
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about a
member of my staff who will soon be leaving. Becky Fleeson, our
director of administration, is the embodiment of a servant leader. She
is tenacious, she is dedicated, she is loyal, and she cares.
Becky is exactly the type of person you want batting for your team.
For nearly a decade, I have been fortunate to have her on mine. Becky
is more interested in getting the job done than in taking credit for
it. She doesn't back down easily. She can be tough too. That is part of
her job description, but if you want to know the truth, Becky is
actually a bit of a softie.
She is also a bit of a prankster. Becky is usually someone you would
trust with sensitive tasks without a second thought, but on April
Fools' Day you can't trust her for a second. Take this year, for
example, when Becky tried to convince us she was pregnant. Turned out
she actually was and didn't know it at the time. Seems the Guy upstairs
has a sense of humor as well.
Well, Becky would tell you her life has never been the same since she
and her husband George welcomed little Winnie into their lives. Now
they are preparing to welcome Baby Fleeson No. 2 in just a few months.
It has really been something to watch Becky mature over the years,
from a fresh-faced college grad to a seasoned professional, honorary
Kentuckian, and dedicated wife and mother. When confronted with
hardship along the way, Becky has fought through with grace and with
strength--and the support of her fellow McTeamers.
I know Becky loves her colleagues, I know Becky loves the Senate, but
most of all, I know Becky loves her family. So when Becky told me she
was ready to dedicate herself full time to raising her kids, I couldn't
have been happier for her. We will all miss her good humor, her work
ethic, and her integrity. And later this afternoon, we will look
forward to celebrating her.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
ObamaCare
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, in Washington, DC, today is just another
day of bureaucratic rollouts, regulatory nightmares, and government
overreach, but if you are in Colorado today, it is also sticker shock
day because today the people of Colorado found out--thanks to the new
numbers just confirmed by the Colorado Division of Insurance--that if
you live in
[[Page S5904]]
that State, you are going to be paying, on average, an additional 20.4
percent for your health insurance this coming year under ObamaCare.
That is the individual rate that was just confirmed for the 2017
plans--a 20.4-percent increase.
Remember the promises that were made when ObamaCare was put into law
in the most partisan of fashions. The promise that if you like your
doctor, you can keep your doctor has been proven untrue. And if you
like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan has been
proven untrue. Why do we know that? Because in Colorado alone, over the
past 3 years, over 750,000 Coloradans have had their insurance plans
canceled.
Let's just go through those numbers. Over 92,000 people with
individual plans from UnitedHealthcare, Humana, Rocky Mountain Health
Plans, and Anthem will be forced to find new plans in 2017. In May,
UnitedHealthcare and Humana announced they were not going to be
offering plans in Colorado at all. We have seen Aetna reduce
significantly the number of plans they will be offering. We know the
health care co-op in Colorado collapsed because it was unsustainable
thanks to the way ObamaCare was designed, costing over 80,000
Coloradans their health insurance. Back in August of 2013, we saw
hundreds of thousands more in Colorado lose their health insurance.
That doesn't sound like a promise that has been kept to me. That is a
promise that has been broken.
We also know ObamaCare promised it would reduce the premiums by
$2,500 per family. Yet here we are today talking about a 20.4-percent
rate increase on the Colorado people alone. We know from studies that
one-third of Colorado counties aren't even going to have a choice of
more than one insurance provider to choose from. Despite the third
ObamaCare promise that the people of this country would have more
opportunities to buy different insurance products, more choice, more
consumer insurance options, over one-third of the counties in this
country will have only one choice or perhaps even fewer.
That is why two pieces of legislation introduced in recent days by
Senator McCain and Senator Sasse are so important. What do they do?
Senator Sasse has introduced legislation that says if an insurance
increase is more than 10 percent, then you don't have to abide by the
individual mandate forcing people to pay these outrageous increases
thanks to ObamaCare. It also says, if you are paying 8 percent of your
income in insurance premiums, you don't have to abide by the mandate of
ObamaCare. It gives people the ability to actually have that financial
certainty they are looking for--the certainty ObamaCare promised but
failed to deliver.
Senator McCain's legislation says, if a county has one or fewer
health insurance options to choose from, they also will receive relief
from ObamaCare's individual mandate.
These are important because in States such as Colorado, the
government is forcing you to pay at least 20.4 percent more if you are
in the individual market. That is the average rate increase. While the
20.4-percent increase in the 2017 plans is certainly a significant
amount, that is on top of last year's rate increases. If you live on
the Western Slope of Colorado, last year you saw average premium rates
in the individual market increase by 25.8 percent. One of the most
expensive markets in the country is the Western Slope of Colorado--the
mountains of our State.
We have not been able to break down what it means for the Western
Slope. That individual impact might even be higher for Colorado's
Western Slope. We don't have those numbers broken down because it was
just released today--this massive increase under ObamaCare--but if you
just take the statewide average of the individual plan with a 20.4
percent, along with the 25.8 percent from last year, that is an almost
50-percent increase in insurance over the past 2 years. In 2017, it
will increase 20.4 percent, on average, and this past year it increased
25.8 percent. That is a nearly 50-percent increase.
The people of Colorado can't afford ObamaCare. ObamaCare can't keep
its promises. We have to find real solutions for the American people,
and I urge the President to come forward with the acknowledgment that
his signature law is a signature failure.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ayotte). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, in order to have a quick discussion
with colleagues about the state of play on the short-term CR, we will
push the vote back a few minutes.
____________________