[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 13073-13074]
[From the U.S. 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.
  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for the quorum call be rescinded.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'

[[Page 13074]]

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 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.

                          ____________________