John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Brandon Fusaro, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Brandon is a graduate of Burncoat High School in Worcester, MA. Currently, he is attending George Washington University, where he is majoring in exercise science. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Brandon for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Thank you, Madam President. I thank my colleague from North Dakota--both colleagues from North Dakota who are here in the Chamber--and I appreciate his leadership as a former Governor, understanding these issues such as health care, which do profoundly impact the people whom we all represent in the Dakotas. There are some unique challenges, obviously, of meeting the health care needs of people in our States because we have a big geography, lots of wide open space. We do not have the big population centers that are in other places in the country, and so health care delivery and coverage of health care, health care insurance and access to it are enormously important to the people we all represent. I would say it has become abundantly clear that the American people are rejecting ObamaCare, which is the law that was passed several years ago in the Senate, in the house, signed into law by the President. I remember being here at the time and voting on that on Christmas Eve. We were actually here. It was December 24, 4 years ago, I think now, in 2009. We were right up here until the end, and this was, I would say, jammed through the Senate. The majority had the votes. They were not all that concerned about having participation or input from those of us who served in the other party--as a consequence of that just shoved this thing through right on Christmas Eve. I think that was an unfortunate way in which to conduct the business of the Senate, to enact major legislation. It is very rare around here that legislation of that consequence that literally impacts one-sixth of the American economy is shoved through on a partisan party-line basis. So that is the way it was done. We said at the time--many of us were down here on the floor over and over predicting that because of the way this was structured it was going to lead to higher insurance premiums, it was going to lead to fewer jobs in our economy, a lot of stress on employers that were trying to create those jobs. All of that is coming to fruition as we hear now reports day after day after day across this country--from my State of South Dakota, other States across the country--from people who are feeling the very real and harmful impacts of the ObamaCare legislation, both in terms of higher premiums but also canceled coverages, higher deductibles, things that affect the pocketbooks of millions of Americans and issues that are discussed and debated at kitchen tables, but they are profoundly important to the economic well-being of people in this country. When you are seeing the dramatic increases in premiums, the dramatic increases in deductibles, the loss of coverage, the canceled coverages we are seeing across the country right now, it is very disturbing to people. That is why I think you have seen this widespread rejection of ObamaCare. Interestingly enough, yesterday Health and Human Services released new enrollment numbers for the exchanges for October and November. Over the course of those 2 months, in my State of South Dakota, just 372 South Dakotans--or less than one-half of one-tenth of 1 percent of my State's residents--signed up for health care on the exchanges. Ten other States also had fewer than 1,000 people sign up. Oregon, which embraced ObamaCare very early on, had just 44 enrollments. Think about that--44 enrollments to show for 2 months thanks to their Web site, which suffered an even more catastrophic failure than the Federal Web site. In all, there were 364,682 enrolled in the exchanges during the months of October and November--not even one-quarter of the number the administration had projected after 2 months. To meet its goal of 3.3 million signups by December 31, the administration would have to sign up almost 3 million people in the next 3 weeks or more than 145,000 every single day. Considering that the administration has averaged fewer than 6,000 enrollments a day over the past 2 months, I would not want to put a lot of money on them being able to meet that goal. It is obvious from the sluggish enrollment numbers that the American people are rejecting ObamaCare. But if anyone needs more proof, three new polls came out last week, all reporting strong opposition to the law among the American people. The Pew Research Center poll reports that 54 percent of the American people disapprove of the President's health care law. According to Pew's most recent survey, the percentage of Americans who think the health care law has ``had a negative effect on the country'' rose 11 percent just since September of this year. In the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released yesterday, the President's disapproval rating reached an alltime high of 54 percent. When asked what issue shaped their view of the President this year, 60 percent cited ObamaCare. The same Wall Street Journal poll also found the number of Americans who think the President's health care law was ``a bad idea'' reached an alltime high. Quinnipiac University also released a poll yesterday that found that 57 percent of the American people oppose ObamaCare. The President's health care law has never enjoyed strong popular support. But Democrats and the President argued that public support for the law should not be judged until the law's benefits were in effect. The law is now in effect. People can buy insurance on the exchanges. Yet opposition to the law is not declining; it is the opposite that is happening. It is actually rising. Opposition to the law is increasing over time as more and more people become aware of the impact on their personal economic well-being. Quinnipiac reported a 10-point jump in opposition to the law between October 1 of this year and December 11. Meanwhile, support for the law, already low, dropped a further six points over the same time period. Even worse for the President, it is not just Republicans and Independents who are fleeing the President's signature law. Many of the President's strongest supporters, those who initially supported his health care law and helped reelect him last year, are deserting the President. The Pew Research Center found a 10-point drop in support among African Americans since September and a 9-point drop in support among Hispanic Americans--both groups who strongly supported the President in the last election. The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll also found ``faith in Mr. Obama has dropped noticeably in recent months among young voters and Hispanics, two groups that had been among his steadiest supporters.'' So the question, I guess, is why are the American people and even the President's strongest supporters rejecting ObamaCare? Why, now that the law is mostly in effect, is opposition growing rather than declining? Well, I think the answer is very simple. It is because the law has failed to deliver on the President's promises. From rising premiums, to canceled health plans, to lost doctors, ObamaCare is doing the exact opposite of what the President promised it would do. The President said his new law would reduce the cost of health care. In fact, he claimed families would see their premiums fall by an average of $2,500 a year. But that promise fell apart almost immediately after ObamaCare was enacted. In fact, what we are seeing out there is that the average family has seen its health care premiums rise by more than $2,500 since the law's passage. Now that the law is being implemented, those numbers are only going higher. Those families who are lucky enough to keep their plans have been receiving insurance renewal notices with staggering premium increases. Premiums are doubling or even tripling for many families, and deductibles are increasing as well. Imagine getting a $600-a-month increase in premiums. That is $7,200 a year. How on Earth is a working family, a middle-class family in this country supposed to be able to afford that? The President would like you to believe that these Americans' updated, more expensive health plans are far superior to what they had before. But, in fact, many of these plans were as good or better than what these families are getting now. Many of these plans are falling short of people's expectations because they have higher deductibles. Of course, with all of the mandated coverages that are in many of these plans, there are all kinds of things that people who are subscribing, trying to get on the exchanges, are finding they do not need. I have had people in my State of South Dakota who are in their fifties and sixties who are asking why they need to have things such as maternity coverage. You see that as these letters and emails and phone calls are coming into your office and people are finding out about the specifics--the details, if you will--of these various plans, they are rejecting them not only because they have higher premiums, but they are also plans that are not sufficient or adequate compared to what they are currently experiencing with the plans they had before. Now thousands of families around the country are going to be struggling to pay huge premium increases without receiving any additional benefit. The situation is no better on the exchanges. While there are certainly plans with low premiums on the exchanges, many of those plans have deductibles that are so high that, barring some catastrophic illness or injury, the family might as well not have insurance at all. A family without insurance who typically pays $8,000 a year in health care costs may see no benefit at all from an insurance plan with a $12,000 deductible. In fact, they may spend more on health care because now they have to pay high insurance premiums as well. So you have higher insurance premiums, higher deductibles, meaning in many cases that they are not going to reach the threshold that would trigger a payment from their plan, and so they are getting no additional benefit, but they are paying way more for the same or worse coverage. In addition to promising a new era of affordable health care, the President also promised that nothing would change for people who liked the health care they had. He repeated many times--we have all seen the videos of this--that if you like your health care plan, you can keep it. He even went so far as to say ``You can keep it, period'' to make it even more emphatic. ``If you like your doctors, you can keep your doctor, period.'' But Americans are now finding out that was not even close to being true. Millions of Americans have seen the health care plans that they liked canceled by insurance companies in response to new ObamaCare regulations. So far, more than 5 million Americans have lost their health care plans as a direct result of ObamaCare. In fact, today, millions more Americans have lost health care than have gained it under the President's signature law. Millions of Americans are also realizing that they cannot keep their doctors or their hospitals. ObamaCare put in place scores of new regulations on insurance companies and the plans they offer. To meet all of the ObamaCare requirements while still getting their plans approved, insurance companies have been forced to drastically shrink their networks of doctors and hospitals. As a consequence, many families are finding that their new health care plans force them to give up doctors they have been seeing literally for years. That may not sound so terrible to some of us if we do not have a close relationship with our doctors, but what if you are a cancer patient who relies on your network of doctors and oncologists to coordinate your lifesaving care? More than one cancer patient has spoken openly in the press about the struggle to find a replacement health care plan after having their original plan canceled as a result of ObamaCare, a plan that covers all of the doctors and the medicines they are currently using. Joan Carrico, a nurse from Michigan and a cancer patient, published a heartbreaking column on CNBC yesterday updating readers on her struggles to find a health care plan that covers all of her care. I will let her words speak for her and the other Americans in her position: I can't begin to describe how devastated I am. Many people like me, who are in a difficult health crisis and fighting to regain good health, are finding it very difficult--if not impossible--to make sure that we can keep our doctors and receive the chemotherapy and other treatments and medicines that are keeping us alive. . . . I'm scared and wondering what surprises are around the corner. Well, Ms. Carrico brings up another thing people may lose under ObamaCare besides their doctors and their health care plans; that is, their medications. Forbes published an article this week outlining the reasons ObamaCare may cause millions of Americans to lose access to the medications they are currently taking. The author points out that many exchange plans have steep cost-sharing requirements for prescription drugs. Purchasing a bronze plan, for example, the article points out, means you will likely be responsible for 40 percent of a drug's cost. That may not be so bad if we are talking about a common antibiotic, but that gets very expensive when we are talking about more sophisticated drugs, such as cancer drugs and other lifesaving treatments. The second reason patients may lose access to their medications, according to Forbes, is that some plans simply may not cover the prescription drugs that person has been taking. Out-of-pocket limits, the article notes, do not apply if the drug you are taking is not on your new insurance company's ``approved'' list of drugs. You may find yourself paying for a very expensive drug without any benefit at all from your new insurance plan. In addition to higher costs and the loss of their doctor and health care plans, there is another reason Americans are rejecting ObamaCare. ObamaCare is not just bad for health care, it is bad for the economy. New health care regulations are discouraging businesses from hiring and expanding their businesses. Earlier this week a CBS News article reported that ``nearly half of U.S. companies said they are reluctant to hire full-time employees because of the law.'' The Hill reported on a recent survey by the National Association of Manufacturers that found that 77 percent of manufacturers cite soaring health care costs as the biggest issue facing their business. The title of the Washington Post article on the health care law's impact on small businesses says it all: ``Health care law's aggregation rules pose a compliance nightmare for small businesses.'' That is the headline of the Washington Post. Small businesses are responsible for a majority of the job creation in this country. If we look at some States around the country, my State of South Dakota being a good example, most of the jobs, a huge proportion of the jobs created in States like mine are created by small businesses, but the health care law is discouraging them from hiring, drowning them in regulations, and promising stiff new requirements if they have 50 or more employees. I can't tell you how many times, when I am traveling in my State of South Dakota--or, for that matter, traveling outside my State but specifically in my State of South Dakota--when I am talking to businesses, to people who are creating jobs, investors, the uncertainty associated with this health care law and the new costs because of its mandates and its requirements are making it more difficult and more expensive for them to create jobs. So what are we seeing as a result of that? We are seeing a slower, much more sluggish economy; chronic high unemployment; and fewer jobs, particularly for people who are coming out of college. Younger Americans in particular are paying a dear price because of the slow economy. When businesses do not hire, the economy suffers. Every American who has spent weeks, months, or years struggling to find a job suffers too. I know my Democratic colleagues here in the Senate know all of this. That is why some of them are starting to run away from ObamaCare too. Democrats in Congress may have supported the law, but now that they have seen how it looks in reality, some of them--particularly those running for reelection--are eager to distance themselves from it. No one running for reelection wants to be too closely associated with the law that is raising Americans' health care costs, taking away their health care choices, and hurting an already struggling economy. The American people have spoken. They do not like ObamaCare. They do not want ObamaCare. They cannot afford ObamaCare. It is time for Democrats in Congress to start listening. I always think it is never too late to do the right thing. I hope that as more Americans start to weigh in and start to engage in the discussion about how this is impacting them personally, that will have such a profound impact on Members of Congress here in Washington, DC, that they will come to the conclusion that many of us reached a long time ago; that is, this is a bad, flawed bill, built upon a faulty foundation that is destined to fail, and that the best thing we can do is pull it out by the roots and start over in a way that makes sense for the American people, that addresses the challenges we have in our health care system in America today but does it in a way that does not require the government to take over literally one-sixth of the American economy and create political control--command and control from here in Washington, DC, over literally one-sixth of the American economy. One out of every six dollars in our economy today is spent on health care. Think about that. There are very few areas where you can say that complete, total government intervention impacts that big of a swath of our economy. Unfortunately, government intervention is impacting way too much of our economy. As a consequence, we are paying a price in the form of fewer jobs, chronic high unemployment, and a slower, sluggish, anemic economy, which is making it more difficult for people to find jobs and more difficult for us to get ourselves out of what is a very difficult economy. My hope would be that before this is all said and done--and I do not know when this will happen; hopefully sooner rather than later because I think the sooner we make that adjustment and decide this was the wrong course and reverse course and go in a different direction, the less damage we will do to people's livelihoods, to their personal economic circumstances, and the less damage we will do to the overall economy in this country. I hope that realization comes sooner rather than later. But I think what will drive it--I have maintained all along that ultimately the only thing that can really change this is the American people because clearly we have a President of the United States for whom this is his signature achievement. Unless he starts hearing from the American people, he is unlikely to change. We have a lot of people here in the Senate--every Democrat here today who was here in 2009 voted for this. Not a single Republican who was here in 2009 voted for it. That is probably one of the reasons this is such a failed policy. It did not have input or buy-in from the other side. It did not get some of the best ideas coming to the forefront. There was a much better way to do this. Many of us who have been around here for very long have been proposing solutions to address health care challenges that have been rejected by Democrats here in Congress. We have talked a lot over the years about allowing people to buy insurance across State lines. Why wouldn't we create interstate competition? Competition in a free market economy generally, as a matter of principle and as a matter of practice, drives down price. If we create more competition and give people more choices, that tends to drive down prices. That is a fairly basic economic principle. Why wouldn't we allow small businesses to join larger groups where they can get the benefit of group purchasing power and thereby put downward pressure on the cost of health care in this country? Why wouldn't we allow for expanded opportunities for people to take care of their own health care circumstances by allowing for expanded, larger health savings accounts, opportunities for people to put money aside in an account, perhaps buy a catastrophic policy with a high deductible but tax free. They can put money aside that allows them to cover some of those health care costs that don't reach that catastrophic level. What about finally doing something to reduce the cost of defensive medicine, which means we would have to reform our medical malpractice laws in this country and weed out a lot of the junk lawsuits that clog our legal system and make it so much more expensive to deliver health care. I talk to physicians all the time for whom concern about liability is a major issue. It creates overutilization. You take all this great technology we have in America today, and you have physicians who are worried about being sued. Of course, they are probably going to run duplicative tests. Anybody who is involved in the delivery of health care in this country knows very well about the cost of practicing defensive medicine. There have been many studies done on it, all of which conclude that it adds significantly to the cost of delivering health care in this country. There are differences of opinion about how much that is, but there is no question that it is a factor in the high cost of health care. There have been proposals. There are a number of my colleagues on this side of the aisle who have suggested allowing people to have their own personal, refundable tax credit for the purchase of health insurance and to create equity between the tax treatment of health care that people can get through their employer with that which they would be able to get in the individual marketplace. Again, the principle is greater choice, greater competition, and therefore lower prices. It is a fairly straightforward and simple formula when it comes to a market-based approach to how we deal with the health care crisis we have in this country. Clearly, we have programs such as Medicare and Medicaid where the government is fairly heavily involved in the delivery of health care in this country. That too is an area where we need to be looking at how we can reform and make those programs work more efficiently, more effectively, in a way that hopefully maximizes the return the taxpayers get on those particular programs. If we look at programs such as Medicare, there was a good example a few years ago, which was Medicare Part D, which is the only program I can think of since I have been here--or, for that matter, since I have been following policies that have been put in place over time--that has actually cost less than what it was projected to cost. Why? Because it allowed for competition. It created a private component where private insurance companies would vie for, would bid for the business of senior citizens across this country when it comes to their medications. As a consequence of that, we have seen those costs come down to a reasonable level. It actually has cost less than what was anticipated. That is a principle we could start to apply in other areas. There are a number of things that could be done to reduce the cost of delivery of health care when it comes to the component of it that the government is heavily involved with. But the point, very simply, is that whenever we create more choices, when we create more competition, it has a downward impact on costs. It drives costs down. So why weren't a lot of these things considered or incorporated into ObamaCare when it was passed? Well, we all know the answer to that. It is because the majority party, which had the votes, decided to do it their way. They decided to go their own way, and as a consequence we ended up with a bill, a piece of legislation, and now a huge new program that has been an utter disaster. I think any objective observer would come to that conclusion based upon the rollout of the Web site and everything subsequent to that that impacts costs; that impacts people's ability to keep the plan they have and the doctor they have; that impacts to the economy, which is overburdened with the cost of regulation in the new law; as well as the many--and I say ``many''--taxes that were included in the new law. There were many new taxes included, not to mention lots of cuts to Medicare, which, interestingly enough, were double-counted. That was allowed to be used as ``savings'' put in the Medicare trust fund, therefore extending the lifespan of Medicare. At the same time, that was going to be spent on the new health care proposal. Only in Washington, DC, could someone get away with an accounting convention that would allow someone to double-count revenue, which is essentially what happened. We raised that question many times, and eventually we had a letter from the Congressional Budget Office that said: Yes, this is double-counting revenue. You are spending the same money twice. Yet the majority party had the votes. Around here, it is a function of math: If you have the votes, you can do pretty much whatever you want. And that is what they did. We are paying a dear price for that, but the people who are really paying the biggest price are the American people, who are seeing these increased premium costs, increased deductibles, fewer jobs, slower economy, and lower take-home pay. That is the bottom line. It boils down to basic economic terms. What we are talking about is a slower, more sluggish, anemic economy, chronic high unemployment, and lower take-home pay for middle-class America. In fact, if we look at average household income, which is something we use as a metric to measure people's overall economic situations, the average household income in this country, since 2009 when the President took office, has decreased by about $3,700 per family. There are a lot of things, obviously, that contribute to that, but I don't think it is any surprise that when you drive up the costs of something that everybody needs in this country--and by that, I mean health care--in the form of higher premiums and higher deductibles, it is inevitable that you are going to see a lot of people's household incomes impacted by that. Then you couple and layer on top of that the impact it has on the economy. When you have a sluggish economy creating fewer jobs, that, too, has a very devastating impact on people's personal economic circumstances and livelihood. So average household income, since the President took office, has gone down by about $3,700--lower take-home pay. That is another of the results and the outcomes and the ultimate impacts, if you will, of policies created in Washington, DC, that make it more expensive and more difficult to create jobs in this country. As I said earlier, I think ultimately what will get us to where we really can change this, change course, change direction, take this thing which is headed for the cliff and turn it around and move it in the other direction, is going to be the American people. If every Senator, every Member of Congress, if the White House is hearing what I am hearing from people in South Dakota, perhaps there is some hope that we can persuade enough people in Congress that we have to change the direction we are heading. I would like to share a few things that I heard from people in my State of South Dakota. A male constituent from Sioux Falls, SD, wrote and said: I just received notice that our health insurance will go up almost 60 percent due to the ACA, from $718 per month to $1146 per month. We will also lose our prescription drug benefit and office co-pay benefit until each of us reaches a $5,000 deductible. We have maternity benefits now and pediatric dental and vision care, although I am 64 and my wife is 59. This will cost us an additional $5,000 per year. For somebody who is trying to make ends meet in this country, trying to get the mortgage paid, trying to put a little aside for their kids' education, $5,000 is real money. That is a tangible impact of this law on the economic circumstances, the standard of living, the quality of life this particular couple is experiencing in America today. ObamaCare is sticking hard-working Americans with higher costs for unnecessary coverage. Families were denied the ability to keep their plans--the plans that best fit their needs, lifestyles, and budgets. The following is a letter we received from a female constituent from Wilmot, SD: My husband and I have four small children and purchase our own health care. My husband runs his own small business and I am privileged to stay at home. We are very healthy, so we have always purchased a plan with a large deductible, so we can afford a reasonable premium. Today we received our letter from our health insurance provider letting us know that next month our premium will be jumping 232 percent! That's over $500 more a month--and we barely use our health insurance. We currently live in an 1,800 square foot house and have been trying to find something bigger. This jump in our monthly health care premium could prevent us from being able to afford any kind of monthly house payment. ObamaCare is cutting into the carefully planned budgets of American families, holding them back from the futures for which they have carefully budgeted. This is an example of a family who is trying to get by--four small kids--and they buy their own health care in the individual marketplace. The husband is self-employed, runs his own business, and the mom has been able to stay home and care for those four kids. They work very hard staying healthy and very rarely use their health insurance policy. They are going to see a 232-percent increase, over $500 more a month. They live in a 1,800-square-foot house. They had hoped to be able to find something a little bit bigger, and they aren't going to be able to because of the consequences of ObamaCare. A female constituent from Spencer, SD, writes: Thanks to ObamaCare, my monthly premium will increase over 100 percent, which equals 45 percent of my monthly income. My daughter lost her insurance, as well. The ACA is not affordable, and if I could tell the President so, I would. My private insurance did change. The Obama administration has broken its promise that Americans who wanted to keep their plans could. We are also learning that this law simply isn't affordable for many middle-class families, such as this lady from Spencer, SD, whom the Obama administration said it would protect when they said: ``If you like your insurance plan, you can keep it, period.'' A lot of Americans took that to the bank. Clearly, they should have known better. The double talk coming out of Washington, DC, is not only frustrating a lot of Americans, it is creating cynicism and a lack of trust and confidence, which is going to make it difficult to do big things in the future. A male constituent from Rapid City, SD, wrote: I know you did not vote for this-- Thank you-- but I wanted to tell you. My health care premium went from $640 a month to $1080 a month. My deductible went from $3600 to $5000. I feel like the federal government has stolen over $5000 a year from me. Americans feel betrayed by this law, likening the increased rates to theft by their own government. That is the level of frustration people across this country are feeling. They are frustrated, they are discouraged, they are despondent, and they want something to give. They want something to change. They know we can't continue down this path and expect that any of these families are going to be able to provide a better standard of living and a better quality of life for their children and grandchildren. The family has over a $400 increase in their monthly premium and a $l,400 increase in their deductible. That is the effect on this constituent in Rapid City, SD. A constituent family from Watertown, SD, writes: You need to know how ObamaCare is harming my life and health care. We were one of the families that lost their health care plan. We heard President Obama say, ``if you like your health care, you can keep it.'' That was a lie. Our new health care plan is going to cost our family $21,600 a year compared to the health care plan of 2013 which cost us $7,335.96. That is a 300-plus percent increase. We are a healthy family of six people. We are outraged and upset. Madam President, these letters and calls to my office echo similar complaints from American families back home in my State of South Dakota and all across the country. ObamaCare is costing this family more money and denying them the plan they want. That is the real life, real world impact. If you think about it, this is really pretty staggering. This new health care plan is going to cost this family over $21,000 a year compared to $7,335 today. A 300-plus percent increase for a healthy family of six. You can't blame them when they say they are upset and outraged. Who wouldn't be. Who wouldn't be. This is from a small business owner from Brookings, SD, who writes: In the mail today was a letter from my health care insurance provider . . . and, well, guess what? Thanks to the great ObamaCare plan, my monthly premium almost doubled, and my deductible doubled. I'm a small business owner, and I would like to hire an employee next spring. . . . Well, that's not going to happen. When will those we elect to Washington ever do something to help people and small businesses? Madam President, ObamaCare is not only slamming individuals, it is hitting the small businesses, the job creators that Washington needs to be protecting. ObamaCare is stopping employers from expanding their workforce. In a bigger place, in a big city, this may not have the same domino effect or the ripple effect that it does in a small State such as South Dakota where you have a small business owner, such as this gentleman from Brookings, SD, who wants to expand his business, wants to hire another employee but is saying that is not going to happen, and the reason it is not going to happen is because of this huge increase in their monthly premiums--almost doubling the monthly premium, and doubling the deductible. I don't know how an employer in this country today, who is trying to grow a business, expand the business and provide for themselves and their families, perhaps put a little aside to use for the kids' college education or perhaps put a little aside for retirement, deals with the doubling of probably one of their biggest costs of doing business, and that is the cost of health care. You double your premiums; you double your deductible. This is from a mother in Garretson, SD, who writes: Next year, our insurance is changing, and I will lose my family practice doctor of 22 years--the doctor that delivered all my children and that has cared for our teenage children all their lives. We will also lose all the backup doctors our family has seen when we couldn't see our regular doctor. I was happy with my insurance, and now I have to lose my doctor. This is more testimony from people losing their plans and doctors, which the Obama administration--President Obama himself--repeatedly, over and over, told the American people they could keep. Families are losing their trusted doctors. Whether it is a doctor, a hospital, or prescription drug coverage, these are all real life examples, real world examples of the impacts of ObamaCare that point to just one thing, and that is this law, No. 1, doesn't work, and No. 2, it can't be fixed. There is no way we will be able to address what most people care about when it comes to their health care--and that is the cost--when we require the people who provide that health care coverage to deal with more mandates, more requirements, higher taxes, all of which are going to get passed on and paid for by the very people in this country who are just trying to make ends meet and make a living and provide for their families. Those are seven examples from my State of South Dakota. I could go on, because there are many more examples. There are examples from people all across the country. But I think the point that needs to be made here--and can't be made often enough--is that these are real world economic impacts that are affecting every day Americans in a way that is making it more difficult for them, making their economic circumstances more complicated and more difficult. What, if anything, should we here in Washington take away from this? First off, as I said earlier, this doesn't work. Let's start over. Let's do this the right way. It is not too late to do that. It is never too late to do the right thing. We could, if we decided to pull this thing out by the roots and start over, come up with a whole series of reforms that would move us in a step-by-step direction toward the ultimate goal, and that is to address the health care challenge we face in America today; that is, the cost. I don't think there is any American family, any individual, as they think about having to purchase health care--and particularly if you are a young healthy person, obviously, you don't want to pay a lot for it because you are probably not going to use a lot. Yet those are the people who will get hit the hardest. I can't tell you, if you are in your 20s, how much more you are going to have to pay to get health care coverage in this country, simply because the law requires what they call the community rating band be narrow so that people who are healthier and younger are going to pay much more to cover people who are less healthy. That is a reality in the legislation and it is a reality now in terms of the way it is being applied and being implemented. So we are looking at a lot of people in this country--for sure younger Americans, but Americans of all ages as well--who are looking at higher cost because of these regulations and mandates and requirements that are being imposed upon the insurance companies and health care providers in this country. The new taxes, which I mentioned a little bit earlier, are also something that ultimately get passed on. When we were debating this, the Democrats argued that we would have $\1/2\ trillion in tax increases and $\1/2\ trillion in Medicare cuts and that was how this was to be financed. It turns out when it is fully implemented the cost is much higher. What they did is they front-end loaded some of the revenues and back-end loaded the costs. When the Congressional Budget Office looked at it, in a 10-year window, they said there will be about a $1 trillion cost. When it is fully implemented, and we see the full impact of the cost and the revenues together, the 10-year cost is more like $2\1/2\ trillion. So it was a massive expansion of the Federal Government-- literally the largest expansion of the government in 50 years. It was literally a takeover of one-sixth of the American economy. That is what health care represents in this country. So if we think about that in those terms, how much this thing is going to cost--and at the time they said: Don't worry, it is all paid for. It will not add to the deficit--we are finding out now more and more information, with more and more analysis being done, and it is coming to light that, in fact, it is going to cost way more than what was initially expected. I think this is the tip of the iceberg, the tip of the iceberg in terms of the cost to the American taxpayers. Again, this is financed by higher taxes, all of which get passed on to the very people in this country this is supposed to help. The Medicare cuts that were proposed to help pay for this, many of us said at the time were cutting hospitals, cutting home health agencies, cutting nursing homes, cutting hospices--which is what this did. This was all designed to take $\1/2\ trillion. But again, when it is fully implemented, it isn't $\1/2\ trillion, it is $1 trillion, when you look at the full 10-year implementation. But taking this out of Medicare was, No. 1, going to help pay for all the new benefits that would happen under ObamaCare; and No. 2, somehow--somehow, don't ask me how-- it was going to be credited to the Medicare trust fund, thereby extending the life of Medicare. How do you do that? How do you, with a straight face, say we are going to take--let's just use the conservative number used by the Democrats on the floor--$\1/2\ trillion out of Medicare, use it to finance a new entitlement benefit and somehow be able to say we are going to credit the Medicare trust fund and that this is actually going to prolong the lifespan of Medicare? It was absolutely stunning at the time that we were having this debate and we raised these issues. But people would say: The CBO says this, the CBO says this. That is because CBO uses some pretty strange accounting conventions that aren't used anywhere else in the world. Anyplace else in the world you would be in jail for doing something like that, for double counting revenue-- spending the same money twice. But that is essentially what happened. Many of us at the time, as I said, raised this issue on the floor and tried to point out we are spending the same money twice. At that time it fell on deaf ears. To me, that is again a symptom of a process that is geared to get a result with a majority vote driven through here, jammed through here, forced through here on Christmas Eve. We all had that vote Christmas Eve morning, and all I can say, as someone who was here and observed that entire process, we tried our best to warn the American people about what was going to happen. It is too bad we didn't at the time decide, as we usually do when we do major legislation--major legislation that has enormous consequence for the American people--to do it in a bipartisan way that incorporates the best ideas of both sides of the aisle and perhaps gets a big bipartisan vote. Usually, when you pass major legislation around here, you are sort of hoping for 70 to 75 votes, perhaps even more, because you have the buy-in, everybody has been involved in helping shape and formulate that legislation. But that wasn't the case when this passed. Again, I understand. This becomes a function of math. You have the votes or you don't. That is the way this place operates. At that particular time, 60 votes was something the majority had the luxury of and didn't seem to care a whole lot about what Republicans had to say. The President was bent on getting his initiative through and getting it his way. Today, that is the reason, in my view at least, we are where we are, with a piece of legislation the impacts of which are now being fully felt by the American people, and their conclusion is what I think their conclusion should be: This is a really raw deal. I can't tell you, as I think about the broader context, beyond just the world and the space of health care when it comes to public policy, how these decisions that are made here, major policy decisions, impact the broader economy. There is no question, there is no debate about the impact this is having on the economy. If you talk to any small business person in this country, anybody who has the responsibility of providing health insurance for their employees, who has the responsibility for hiring and employing people and, hopefully, paying them a living wage and benefits that go with it, there is no question this is having a detrimental impact on the overall economy, which continues to sputter along at a 1 to 2 percent growth rate. The best thing we could do, if we want to really help the American people and really improve the standard of living and the quality of life for people in this country, is to first get people unemployed back to work; but, secondly, get the economy expanding at a faster rate. We are growing at 1 to 2 percent a year instead of 3 to 4 percent, and that has a profound impact in not only the number of jobs created but also the wealth that is created. When we think about an economy that is growing at 3 to 4 percent versus an economy that is growing at 1 to 2 percent, the difference in the gross domestic product, the difference in the total economic output is substantial. In fact, it is dramatic. What does that mean? It means a lot, not the least of which is that government revenues are a lot lower than they otherwise would be. If you had a more robust economy, growing at a faster rate, people are working, people are investing, they are making money and they are paying taxes. We have this debate around here like it occurs in some sort of vacuum or static environment. Republicans come in here, those of us who believe in limited government, and we talk about doing what we can to make government more efficient and make it cost less. Democrats believe that we ought to have more revenue, more taxes; and the problem isn't that we spend too much, it is that we tax too little. That is a fundamental philosophical debate that we have here on a regular basis. One of the reasons, by the way, why it is so hard to reach a significant budget agreement: There is a profound difference in the way we view the world and how we get our country on a more sustainable fiscal path. There are those of us who believe in spending reforms, lower spending, a more limited role for the government and think that is what we ought to be doing. Democrats by and large believe that we just need a little more tax revenue. If we just raise taxes a little bit more, we could do more here in Washington for the American people. I happen to be of the view that the American people can do just fine for themselves if you allow them to keep more of what they earn. The reality is that there is a third way, and that is to grow the economy. We can reduce spending, we can raise taxes. We ought to reduce spending. We ought to reform spending in a way that changes this fiscal trajectory which we are on today, which becomes increasingly problematic the farther we get down the road in the future. But in addition to reducing and reforming our spending programs in this country, we also ought to be looking at growing the economy and actually making the pie bigger. Because that is a surefire way, a certain way of getting the kind of growth in the economy which would allow Federal revenues to go up rather than down. We have seen this over time historically. If history is any sort of guide and we go back to the 1920s under Coolidge or to the 1960s under Kennedy, a Democratic President who understood the importance of reducing marginal income tax rates or Reagan in the 1980s or more recently in the last decade President George W. Bush, when you reduce taxes on income and investment, you don't get less revenue. You get more because it changes the behavior of the American people. People have an incentive then to invest, to go to work. That generates not less revenue but more and puts us in a situation where we are much better off, not only in terms of our economy and the opportunities it provides the American people but also to the fiscal track we are on as a Nation. I see my colleague from Kentucky is here. I know he has some observations on this issue of ObamaCare, the economy generally, and other matters before us. But certainly one of the reasons we are here is because we have this rush to approve all of these nominees to these various agencies of government--many agencies which are guilty of the very overreach which has contributed to where we are with regard to ObamaCare. We have too many regulatory agencies with way too much power and are circumventing the will in many cases of the Congress to accomplish an agenda that is very contrary to the very things I just talked about, which are economic growth and job creation. But through the Chair, I yield the floor for the Senator from Kentucky. I believe Senator Paul is here to take up the measure.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Isaiah Wonnenberg, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Isaiah is a graduate of Gregory High School in Gregory, SD. Currently, he is attending University of South Dakota, where he is majoring in political science. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Isaiah for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, once again I come to the floor to discuss the negative impacts ObamaCare is having on my constituents in South Dakota and to countless Americans across the Nation. Since this health care law was enacted in 2010, I have come to the floor on numerous occasions to discuss the number of promises the President made to the American people, promises that have been broken. My colleagues and I have highlighted the fact that the President's promise, ``if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan--period,'' simply isn't true. Reports indicate that more than 5 million Americans already have received cancellation notices from their insurance companies and much of the ObamaCare policy has not even been implemented yet. What is worse, the administration knew they would never live up to this promise. Instead of finding a permanent solution to the problem, they proposed a political solution. Today I would like to highlight yet another broken promise made by the President that is resulting in sticker shock as many Americans purchase health insurance. While campaigning for the Presidency, and in speeches leading up to the passage of ObamaCare, President Obama promised the American people that their premiums would decrease by up to $2,500 per family. Instead, many families are facing sticker shock. Since enactment of ObamaCare, health care premiums have actually increased by more than $2,500 per family--that according to the Kaiser Family Foundation annual survey. As a result, many American families are sitting around their kitchen table trying to figure out how they are going to shift their finances around to afford health care when they were promised their premiums were going to go down by $2,500 per family. As the President has said, this law is more than just a Web site. We agree with that; this law is more than just a Web site. This law is a series of broken promises that are resulting in higher premiums, higher deductibles, and higher out-of-pocket costs for middle-class families, money the families could be using to help pay off student loans, save for a house, or start a business. Those are now going to be used to pay for government-approved health care. Recent reports out this week by the New York Times and Wall Street Journal highlight the fact that deductibles and other costs under ObamaCare have surged. The Wall Street Journal reports that the average individual deductible for a bronze level plan on the exchanges is over $5,000 a year. This means a policyholder would need to pay over $5,000 in order for their insurer to start making payments. One of my constituents recently informed me that her family's health insurance plan was cancelled and the new policy she was offered would double their deductible to $5,000 per individual. She and her husband have three children. In addition to a higher deductible, this family faces higher premiums, higher copayments, and a higher out-of-pocket maximum. She goes on to say, ``Please explain how this new coverage is considered `affordable' under the Affordable Care Act?'' Another couple in my State of South Dakota informed me, in the form of an email, that their premiums were going up by $400 a month and the deductibles were going up by $1,400 on their policy. Their question was, What is the Federal Government doing? The gentleman says I feel like the Federal Government just stole $5000 from me. That is the frustration people across the country are feeling as a result of ObamaCare. The middle class is faced with higher costs, while their take-home pay and hours are being reduced. As more and more Americans begin to formulate their family budget for 2014, they are going to learn that yet another promise by the President has been broken. Not only are they losing the plan they were promised they could keep, they are facing sticker shock over the increased cost of health care coverage. This flawed law will continue hitting middle- class Americans in their pocketbooks as the Nation's economy continues to struggle to regain its footing. The flawed rollout of ObamaCare is no secret. We have all seen what were described as the countless glitches associated with the rollout. But to make matters worse, recent reports indicate that in October, one in four ObamaCare enrollees faced a glitch not many were aware of. This glitch, called an 834 error, has prevented insurers from receiving the proper information regarding people who believed they had successfully enrolled in a health care plan. In essence, 25 percent of the initial enrollees in ObamaCare, after persevering through the errors on a Web site that was not ready for prime time, may not have proper coverage come January 1 of 2014. What is even more troubling is that the administration estimates that 10 percent of new enrollees will continue to face this problem. Here we are, 23 days before January 1, and those who worked through the headaches of healthcare.gov may or may not have coverage. Unfortunately, this administration continues to refuse to seriously address these problems. Even though they have unilaterally delayed several portions of this law from taking effect and have previously failed to meet half of the requirements mandated by the law, the administration will not provide the same relief for the individual Americans as it has for big businesses. This law is fundamentally broken and we need to start over. Rather than expand the government's role in providing health care, we need to enact policies that make the private insurance market more competitive to ensure that individuals and families have choices when it comes to their health care. Yet the unfortunate reality for middle-class families is that their premiums, their deductibles, their out-of-pocket costs under ObamaCare are not glitches, they are a harmful reality that is resulting in sticker shock for literally millions of Americans. We can do better; we should do better. This is more than just a Web site. It is the substance of this law that was built upon a faulty foundation that is leading to canceled policies, higher premiums, higher deductibles, higher taxes, fewer jobs, and lower take-home pay for the American people. This is a direct shot at the heart of the American middle class. The President last week got up and made a speech where he talked about income inequality. What he should have focused on is the best way to get rid of income inequality is to repeal this health care law because what is going to happen to middle-class families and middle- class Americans under this health care law is much higher costs, much lower take-home pay, many fewer jobs for them and for their children, and a lower standard of living and lower quality of life than they have enjoyed in the past. This will be the impact upon middle-class Americans as a result of this law. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the National Defense Authorization Act, an amendment I have filed, Amendment No. 2903, which supports the next generation long-range strike bomber. I hope we do get on the Defense bill. This amendment, like many of the amendments that have been filed to this bill, is both germane and noncontroversial. As has been the past practice with the Defense authorization bill, my amendment should be included in a managers' package that could be passed by unanimous consent. In the past, when the Senate has considered the National Defense Authorization Act, we have had an average of around 11 recorded votes. That is the historical average. This year so far we have had two. For amendments included by voice vote or unanimous consent, anywhere from 80 to 100 amendments tend to be the norm. In other words, that is the number of amendments that we process, not have recorded votes on, but amendments that are offered to the bill and handled one way or another but end up getting added to the legislation. This year we have not even been able to have a managers' package, which would include many of these noncontroversial amendments. I support Senator Inhofe, who is the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee and my Republican colleagues here in the Senate, in the approach they have taken while this bill has been on the floor. Considering this bill, there needs to be an open amendment process. We are not talking, as I said, about the hundreds of amendments that have been filed, but a reasonable number should be considered on the Senate floor. Everyone here is aware of the time constraints we are under, but that is not an excuse for bypassing an open amendment process on this important piece of legislation. As the Senate debates the annual Defense authorization bill, our military continues to face increasing budget constraints. These budget constraints have forced our military to prioritize and develop ways to increase efficiency and reduce spending. As we look ahead, the Department of Defense must continue to focus on ways to best prepare for the threats our country will face in the future. On all fronts, these future threats will require an increasingly mobile force that relies on speed and technology to reach conflict points around the world. With regard to the Air Force, this means a modernization of our current fleet. According to General Welsh, the Chief of Staff for the Air Force, the next generation long-range bomber is one of the top three procurement programs our Air Force must pursue to modernize our fleet and to meet future challenges. The other two, the F-35 joint strike fighter and the KC-46 aerial refueling tanker, are currently underway. The next generation bomber, which General Welsh has called a must- have capability, will ensure our ability to operate effectively in anti-access and area-denial environments. As potential adversaries continue to modernize their anti-aircraft systems, our ability to penetrate those systems must modernize as well. The Department of Defense has already begun investing in the research and development phase for the next generation bomber. In the meantime, our current bomber fleets, B-2s, B-1s, and B-52s, continue to provide robust deterrent in long-range strike capabilities. The upgrades which are currently being made to these aircraft allow them to operate in the modern environment. However, as this fleet continues to age into the mid-2020s, the next generation bomber will need to come online. My home State of South Dakota is home of the 28th Bomb Wing, which commands two of three combat squadrons operating the B-1B strategic bomber. The men and women of the 28th Bomb Wing have bravely defended our country in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2011, the B-1 played a key role in Operation Odyssey Dawn, launching from Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota, dropping munitions in Libya, and returning home in one continuous flying mission. This operation marked the first time the B-1 launched combat sorties from the continental United States to strike targets overseas, and it exemplifies the B-1's crucial flexibility and capability to project conventional airpower on short notice anywhere in the world. Of the three aircraft in our bomber fleet, the B-1B has the highest payload, fastest maximum speed, and operates at the lowest cost per flying hour. As I have said before, the B-1 is the workhorse of our U.S. Air Force. As the R&D continues for the next generation bomber, the Air Force has already identified many essential capabilities to this aircraft. According to the Air Force, the next generation bomber should be usable across the spectrum of conflict from isolated strikes to prolonged campaigns. It should provide the Commander in Chief the option to strike a target at any point on the globe, and it must be able to penetrate modern air defenses despite an adversary's anti-aircraft systems. In terms of payload, it must be capable of carrying a wide mix of standoff and direct attack munitions and have the option for either nuclear or conventional capability. As part of the strategy for development, the next generation bomber should allow for the integration of mature technologies and existing systems, taking into account the capabilities of other weapon systems to reduce program complexity. While developing the next generation bomber will not be easy, the Air Force has learned several important lessons from its most recent procurement efforts. The Department of Defense has already streamlined requirements and oversight to ensure a timely decisionmaking process for the next generation bomber. This initiative has included efforts to reduce costs for the overall program with a goal of preventing cost overruns which have plagued previous acquisition programs. The Department of Defense already knows the importance of this program. As outlined in the 2015 to 2019 Program Objective Memorandum, the Air Force intends to prioritize the development and acquisition of the long-range strike bomber over the next several years. As the Air Force continues to modernize, the long-range strike bomber remains a must-have capability for future combat operations. This amendment is very straightforward. I hope we get back on the Defense authorization bill. I hope we have an open amendment process. I hope that amendments such as this, which are germane and noncontroversial, can be included in a managers' package of amendments or at least considered on the floor by my colleagues in the Senate. It is essential in light of the many challenges we face around the globe today with the potential adversaries out there and the threats that exist as we look out over the horizon that we make every preparation and take every necessary step to ensure our country can defend itself and our allies around the world. American interests and American national security interests are always at stake, and it is important for us to invest wisely in those types of weapon capabilities that can ensure that the United States is prepared for whatever contingency might develop around the world. I hope we will get back on the Defense authorization bill, allow amendments to be considered, as they have been in the past. Whenever we have processed Defense bills in the past, we have had a process that has allowed for consideration of many amendments. As said before, we had 80 to 100 amendments in most cases and multiple rollcall votes--way more than we had on this bill so far. This is important to the men and women who wear the uniform of the U.S. military. This should be a priority for us, and it should be a priority for our country. I hope we can get the bill on the floor, process amendments, pass it, and get it on the President's desk where it can be signed into law. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Ayotte), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Senator Thune pertaining to the introduction of S. 1724 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. THUNE. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss again how ObamaCare is negatively impacting American families. NBC News is reporting that 5 million Americans have received cancellation notices from health insurers. In my home State of South Dakota, the Sioux Falls Argus Leader is reporting that nearly 3,000 people have lost the plan they had. Yet this administration is merely pursuing political bandaids for the problem created by the President's health care law. The President is trying to fix this problem of canceled plans, but his solution is a politically motivated bandaid in response to pressure from Members of his own party who are nervous about the next election. The unfortunate reality of his bandaid is that it won't work. Instead of taking responsibility for his failed policies and broken promises, he is changing his mind about how he wants his law to work at the eleventh hour. He is kicking the can to State insurance regulators to determine whether, in 48 days--which is from the date of his announcement on Thursday--they can reverse a train wreck that has been barreling down the tracks for nearly 4 years. The President's health care law told the entire country that compliance with the President's law must occur on January 1, 2014. In response, industry and State regulators complied. Now, after relentlessly pushing a law that is fundamentally flawed, the President is changing his mind. He is expecting the State insurance commissioners to bail him out, to allow Americans to keep the plans they were promised they could keep. Since passage of his health care law, the President has continued to tout his law and has continued to make promises to the American people that he knowingly cannot keep. While I agree that Americans should be able to keep the plans they have and like, this eleventh-hour attempt at a fix is an indication that the underpinnings of this law are irreversibly flawed. The administration is now trying to live up to a promise it made despite the fact that they knew the promise wasn't true. In fact, the President repeated and reiterated that promise as recently as September 26 despite the fact that the administration knew it wasn't true. In 2010 the administration knew that up to 93 million Americans in the private market were in danger of losing their current health care plan. But the deeper problem with the President's fix is that it is merely a bandaid. By this time next year Americans will be in this exact same situation all over again. The President is not focused on finding a good permanent solution but a good political solution. Putting this bandaid on the problem now may get him and his party past next year's elections. He seems more interested in preserving that power than creating real solutions to the underlying issues. In fact, the President is so concerned about the politics of his actions that he is considering yet again a way to bail out his union friends. As part of the health care law, unions agree to pay a tax to help pay for the cost of expanding coverage. This tax, known as the reinsurance tax, is scheduled to be paid by self-insured plans, including plans administered by unions and many of the largest businesses in America. But the unions are unhappy that they have to pay money into a fund to help fund a benefit for someone other than their dues-paying members. They took their complaints to the administration, and, buried in a regulation issued last month, the administration announced they intend to exempt unions from paying this tax. Yesterday the Wall Street Journal editorial page articulated exactly why the unions should not be exempt from this tax. The editorial, called ``ObamaCare's Union Favor,'' argues that ``the unions ought to consider this tax a civic obligation in solidarity with the (uninsured) working folk they claim to support.'' It further states that ``there's no conceivable rationale--other than politics--for releasing union-only plans from a tax.'' As the editorial pointed out, exempting unions from this tax will only mean increased taxes on nonunionized Americans in self-insured plans since the tax is structured in a way that it must raise a total of $25 billion and isn't structured as a straight percentage like most taxes. Granting this political deal to unions is why I am introducing the Union Tax Fairness Act. This bill would ensure that unions live up to the commitments they made when they put their political weight behind the health care law. It is political deals such as this that highlight how this law is failing the average American. This reinsurance fee exemption isn't the only backroom deal the administration is trying to grant unions. Earlier this fall the administration tried to find a way to provide ObamaCare subsidies to ineligible union employees. I introduced a bill called the Union Bailout Prevention Act which was aimed at ensuring the administration could not make that special deal either. It is clear that this President--President Obama--is trying to fix problems in his health care law by making decisions and exemptions based on favors to his political allies. Democrats are on the run from the law they once championed. They recognize this law is sagging under its own weight. Last week there were 39 House Democrats who voted against the Obama administration by supporting the Upton bill that provides a better solution to allowing Americans to keep plans they like than what the President proposed. Even former President Bill Clinton said President Obama should keep his word when it comes to allowing Americans to keep the plans they have and like. In this Chamber, several Senate Democrats are running for the exits and looking for a legislative escape hatch of their own. Unfortunately, the solutions proposed by this administration to fix problems in the health care law are only temporary solutions. Their solutions to problems are either temporary delays--as they did with the employer mandate and the 1-year extension of 2013 plans--or political favors to their friends and allies. Instead, this administration should agree to delay this entire law for all Americans. Americans are deeply skeptical of the Affordable Care Act. According to last week's Gallup poll, 55 percent of Americans now disapprove of the health care law. There is a more recent poll this morning in which ABC News and the Washington Post have that number at 57 percent disapproving. The time to act is now to ensure Americans can keep the plans they have and like. This ``fix'' won't prevent Americans from losing their coverage, facing sticker shock and premium increases, or losing their doctors. This law is fundamentally broken, and we need to start over and enact real reforms that decrease costs and improve access to care. As do so many of us in this Chamber, I hear on a daily basis from my constituents in South Dakota about the very real impact this is having on middle-income Americans. This is an email I received last week: My wife just received our health care insurance policy renewals for 2014 and we are in shock! Our monthly premiums increased from $400 per month to $1,000, or over $7,000 more per year. My wife age 59 and me age 60 now receive maternity benefits and some other very limited coverage. We lost our prescription drug co-pay and doctor visits co-pay. These expenses will now be included in our $6,300 deductible. I will have no option for any subsidy to offset these increases in premiums. He goes on to say: Please, please push for a reversal of this horrible health care plan. My wife and I are physically ill after receiving this letter from our insurance carrier. Again, the government is destroying our lives and we need you to stop this madness. This is just one example of many that I have heard from my State of South Dakota and many that my colleagues here in the Senate are hearing from all across this country. It is clear this program, this health insurance law, is not ready for prime time. It is time for us to take a timeout and to go back to the drawing board and construct a plan, an insurance program for this country, legislation that will help reduce the costs for working-class Americans, give them access to better quality of care, and allow them to keep the doctor they choose, which is very much in jeopardy as well as a result of this takeover, literally, of one-sixth of our economy. There is a better way, as I think countless--millions--Americans are finding out through canceled coverages, sticker shock from skyrocketing premiums, and the new knowledge that they may not be able to keep not only their health insurance plan but also the doctors they like. This is a grim reality for way too many Americans, and it is time for us to step forward and do something about it. The President's proposal is a bandaid. It is a political solution. It is not a permanent solution; it is temporary. We need long-term fixes put in place that will address the health care concerns people have. The way to do that isn't to have the Federal Government literally assume control of one-sixth of the American economy and all the decisionmaking that takes out of the hands of ordinary, middle-class families--people across this country who are working hard to take care of their families.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss again how ObamaCare is negatively impacting American families. NBC News is reporting that 5 million Americans have received cancellation notices from health insurers. In my home State of South Dakota, the Sioux Falls Argus Leader is reporting that nearly 3,000 people have lost the plan they had. Yet this administration is merely pursuing political bandaids for the problem created by the President's health care law. The President is trying to fix this problem of canceled plans, but his solution is a politically motivated bandaid in response to pressure from Members of his own party who are nervous about the next election. The unfortunate reality of his bandaid is that it won't work. Instead of taking responsibility for his failed policies and broken promises, he is changing his mind about how he wants his law to work at the eleventh hour. He is kicking the can to State insurance regulators to determine whether, in 48 days--which is from the date of his announcement on Thursday--they can reverse a train wreck that has been barreling down the tracks for nearly 4 years. The President's health care law told the entire country that compliance with the President's law must occur on January 1, 2014. In response, industry and State regulators complied. Now, after relentlessly pushing a law that is fundamentally flawed, the President is changing his mind. He is expecting the State insurance commissioners to bail him out, to allow Americans to keep the plans they were promised they could keep. Since passage of his health care law, the President has continued to tout his law and has continued to make promises to the American people that he knowingly cannot keep. While I agree that Americans should be able to keep the plans they have and like, this eleventh-hour attempt at a fix is an indication that the underpinnings of this law are irreversibly flawed. The administration is now trying to live up to a promise it made despite the fact that they knew the promise wasn't true. In fact, the President repeated and reiterated that promise as recently as September 26 despite the fact that the administration knew it wasn't true. In 2010 the administration knew that up to 93 million Americans in the private market were in danger of losing their current health care plan. But the deeper problem with the President's fix is that it is merely a bandaid. By this time next year Americans will be in this exact same situation all over again. The President is not focused on finding a good permanent solution but a good political solution. Putting this bandaid on the problem now may get him and his party past next year's elections. He seems more interested in preserving that power than creating real solutions to the underlying issues. In fact, the President is so concerned about the politics of his actions that he is considering yet again a way to bail out his union friends. As part of the health care law, unions agree to pay a tax to help pay for the cost of expanding coverage. This tax, known as the reinsurance tax, is scheduled to be paid by self-insured plans, including plans administered by unions and many of the largest businesses in America. But the unions are unhappy that they have to pay money into a fund to help fund a benefit for someone other than their dues-paying members. They took their complaints to the administration, and, buried in a regulation issued last month, the administration announced they intend to exempt unions from paying this tax. Yesterday the Wall Street Journal editorial page articulated exactly why the unions should not be exempt from this tax. The editorial, called ``ObamaCare's Union Favor,'' argues that ``the unions ought to consider this tax a civic obligation in solidarity with the (uninsured) working folk they claim to support.'' It further states that ``there's no conceivable rationale--other than politics--for releasing union-only plans from a tax.'' As the editorial pointed out, exempting unions from this tax will only mean increased taxes on nonunionized Americans in self-insured plans since the tax is structured in a way that it must raise a total of $25 billion and isn't structured as a straight percentage like most taxes. Granting this political deal to unions is why I am introducing the Union Tax Fairness Act. This bill would ensure that unions live up to the commitments they made when they put their political weight behind the health care law. It is political deals such as this that highlight how this law is failing the average American. This reinsurance fee exemption isn't the only backroom deal the administration is trying to grant unions. Earlier this fall the administration tried to find a way to provide ObamaCare subsidies to ineligible union employees. I introduced a bill called the Union Bailout Prevention Act which was aimed at ensuring the administration could not make that special deal either. It is clear that this President--President Obama--is trying to fix problems in his health care law by making decisions and exemptions based on favors to his political allies. Democrats are on the run from the law they once championed. They recognize this law is sagging under its own weight. Last week there were 39 House Democrats who voted against the Obama administration by supporting the Upton bill that provides a better solution to allowing Americans to keep plans they like than what the President proposed. Even former President Bill Clinton said President Obama should keep his word when it comes to allowing Americans to keep the plans they have and like. In this Chamber, several Senate Democrats are running for the exits and looking for a legislative escape hatch of their own. Unfortunately, the solutions proposed by this administration to fix problems in the health care law are only temporary solutions. Their solutions to problems are either temporary delays--as they did with the employer mandate and the 1-year extension of 2013 plans--or political favors to their friends and allies. Instead, this administration should agree to delay this entire law for all Americans. Americans are deeply skeptical of the Affordable Care Act. According to last week's Gallup poll, 55 percent of Americans now disapprove of the health care law. There is a more recent poll this morning in which ABC News and the Washington Post have that number at 57 percent disapproving. The time to act is now to ensure Americans can keep the plans they have and like. This ``fix'' won't prevent Americans from losing their coverage, facing sticker shock and premium increases, or losing their doctors. This law is fundamentally broken, and we need to start over and enact real reforms that decrease costs and improve access to care. As do so many of us in this Chamber, I hear on a daily basis from my constituents in South Dakota about the very real impact this is having on middle-income Americans. This is an email I received last week: My wife just received our health care insurance policy renewals for 2014 and we are in shock! Our monthly premiums increased from $400 per month to $1,000, or over $7,000 more per year. My wife age 59 and me age 60 now receive maternity benefits and some other very limited coverage. We lost our prescription drug co-pay and doctor visits co-pay. These expenses will now be included in our $6,300 deductible. I will have no option for any subsidy to offset these increases in premiums. He goes on to say: Please, please push for a reversal of this horrible health care plan. My wife and I are physically ill after receiving this letter from our insurance carrier. Again, the government is destroying our lives and we need you to stop this madness. This is just one example of many that I have heard from my State of South Dakota and many that my colleagues here in the Senate are hearing from all across this country. It is clear this program, this health insurance law, is not ready for prime time. It is time for us to take a timeout and to go back to the drawing board and construct a plan, an insurance program for this country, legislation that will help reduce the costs for working-class Americans, give them access to better quality of care, and allow them to keep the doctor they choose, which is very much in jeopardy as well as a result of this takeover, literally, of one-sixth of our economy. There is a better way, as I think countless--millions--Americans are finding out through canceled coverages, sticker shock from skyrocketing premiums, and the new knowledge that they may not be able to keep not only their health insurance plan but also the doctors they like. This is a grim reality for way too many Americans, and it is time for us to step forward and do something about it. The President's proposal is a bandaid. It is a political solution. It is not a permanent solution; it is temporary. We need long-term fixes put in place that will address the health care concerns people have. The way to do that isn't to have the Federal Government literally assume control of one-sixth of the American economy and all the decisionmaking that takes out of the hands of ordinary, middle-class families--people across this country who are working hard to take care of their families.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the news out of South Dakota is like it is everywhere else--it is all bad. It is cancellation notices and sticker shock that families, individuals, and small businesses are experiencing. This is a letter from a couple I received from my State. It says: We got the letter. We just received a cancellation letter from our health care provider . . . I am a self employed plumber . . . We have had the same kind of health insurance for years . . . It works for us, we are happy with it. When our current plan expires in 2014 it will no longer be available. We will have to get a new plan. We will be forced to lower our deductible, carry insurance for pregnancy, pediatric eye and dental care, etc. My wife is 50 years old, I'm almost there. WE DON'T NEED COVERAGE FOR PREGNANCY OR

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. I suggest it starts with shutting this down and starting over. We need to create more options, more choices, and more competition in the health care economy so people can get away from the sticker shock we have seen with ObamaCare and get costs down. We need to get away from these cancellation notices that are going out and allow people to keep the care and doctor they have and like. Because of the broken promises under ObamaCare, that is not happening. Until we decide this was the wrong direction and pivot and go in a different direction, we are going to continue to see the results we have today--higher costs, more cancellations, people not being able to keep the care they like or the doctor they like. We can do better and should do better. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, the question of the week is, more important than apologizing, will President Obama live up to his promise that Americans can keep the care they have and like? Democrats are clearly running away from embracing this law and are suggesting the President live up to his promise as well. Yesterday former President Clinton said: I personally believe, even if it takes a change to the law, the President should honor the commitment the Federal Government made to those people and let them keep what they got. That is from former President Clinton yesterday in a interview he did. More and more we see people on the Democratic side of the aisle coming forward, acknowledging what many of us have been acknowledging for a long time; that is, this is not living up to expectations. We need a timeout. It is clearly not working, it is not ready for prime time, and it is obvious that we need to acknowledge that and come up with plan B. Senator Durbin, here in the Senate, said in an interview Tuesday that the cancellations of their coverage that people might face under ObamaCare and the statement that people could keep their plans ``should have been clarified.'' Democratic Representative Kurt Schrader from Oregon thinks the President was grossly misleading to the American public and said: I think the President was grossly misleading the American public. Senator Feinstein, who is not up for reelection, is supporting legislation to allow individuals to maintain enrollment in the plans they like. These mistruths are clearly affecting the President's credibility. President Obama's approval ratings have dipped to a record low. A poll from Quinnipiac University that was released shows respondents disapprove of the President's job performance by a 54-to-39 margin. His approval rating of 39 percent is worse than his previous alltime low of 41 percent in the Quinnipiac survey done previously. Further, more people--52 percent--say the President is not honest and trustworthy. We are on the verge of another misstatement from this administration where they make promises to the American people that they do not meet. Last month the administration promised they would have healthcare.gov fixed by the end of November. It appears unlikely, according to today's Washington Post, where a headline reads: ``Troubled HealthCare.gov unlikely to work fully by end of November.'' For proof that this Web site design has been a failure of leadership, compare it to Cyber Monday volume at amazon.com in 2012. According to amazon.com's press release, it sold 27 million items on Cyber Monday, or 306 items per second. That is how the private sector has been able to process huge volumes of data and requests. If we compare and contrast that with the rollout of ObamaCare and healthcare.com, it is a stunning failure--even epic in terms of the inability of that whole program to function with any level of competence. It is clear that technology exists to fix the Web site to handle high volumes, but, as the President has said, the health care law is more than just a Web site, and that is where most of us come down on this issue. This is a flawed policy that is causing millions of Americans to lose the health care they like. Most of us know someone who has had his or her health care canceled by ObamaCare, and it is going to get worse. The Associated Press reports that at least 3.5 million have received cancellation notices, and that number is expected to increase to tens of millions of people. As Americans--millions more--are losing their plans, only thousands are signing up through ObamaCare. Constituents are encouraged to visit our Web site at republican.senate.gov/yourstory to submit their stories about how this is impacting them personally. The American people deserve to have their stories heard, and Americans deserve to have the President and congressional Democrats keep their promise. We believe what former President Clinton said yesterday is correct; that is, President Obama should honor the commitment the Federal Government made to those people and let them keep what they have. That is essentially where we are today. I would simply ask rhetorically, what is the President going to do to address and honor the promise he made to the American people that they can keep what they have? Increasingly, more and more Democrats--and, of course, there are many of us on this side of the aisle who predicted this would happen a long time ago--realize this was an ill-conceived policy. I have maintained for a long time that it was built upon a faulty foundation; therefore, you cannot just fix a Web site or have an IT specialist come in and expect this to get better. This is a flawed policy, and it is already having profound and harmful impacts on the American people. We believe many more people will be harmed in the future as the insurance is fully implemented. The best we can do for the American people in order to minimize the impact and harm is to put off, suspend, delay--whatever you want to call it--the implementation of ObamaCare. Frankly, the best we could do in the long run is pivot away from this failed policy and move in a direction that actually does address some of the fundamental problems we have with health care in this country today. There is a whole list of solutions Republicans have advanced and put forward in the past--for example, allow people to buy insurance across State lines and create interstate competition so we have insurance companies competing with each other. Obviously, if we have competition and the forces of the market at work, it helps to bring down costs and prices. Another example is to allow small businesses to join larger groups to get the benefit of group purchasing power--to pool, if you will. That is something we have been proposing for some time, and it has been consistently defeated by Democrats in Congress. Other examples are reducing the cost of defensive medicine by ending the junk lawsuits that clog up our legal system and drive up the cost of health care, allowing an expanded use of health savings accounts and those types of vehicles that are out there for people today to put money aside for their health care needs; allowing people to have a refundable tax credit so they can buy their own insurance, which would give them more choices, create more competition, and, again, put downward pressure on the cost and price of health care in this country. Those are commonsense step-by-step solutions that we think would work so much better than having one-sixth of our entire economy, which is what health care represents, taken over by the Federal Government. Political command and control in Washington, DC, is driving the decisionmaking for Americans across the country. As we have already seen, the Federal Government does not do complicated tasks very well, and the Federal Government doesn't do comprehensive tasks very well. Everybody talked about a comprehensive solution to this problem. Clearly, we have problems in America today that need to be addressed. We have a lot of people who don't have health care, and that needs to be fixed. We have people with preexisting conditions, and that needs to be addressed. There are solutions to those problems that don't include and don't entail having the Federal Government take over one-sixth of the American economy, which is what happened with ObamaCare. We are seeing the impacts and the results of that today. I suggest we take a timeout and make a conscious decision to move in a different direction--a direction that will lead to lower costs, higher quality of care, allow people to keep the plan they like if they like it, allow people to keep the doctor they like, and keep the cost of health care at an affordable level. One thing we have seen since ObamaCare passed and is now in the process of being implemented is that the promise that people would see their health care costs go down, not up--that promise is another broken promise because what we are seeing in America today is canceled policies. As people try to get new policies, there are increased costs. We are seeing that in the individual marketplace. When the President was campaigning for his health care law, he said he would drive the costs down for families by $2,500 per family. Yet we have seen the cost per family increase since he took office by $2,500. We have a cloud hanging over our economy right now because of this massive new regulation with a massive amount of government mandates. Due to government-approved insurance, the workweek has been redefined from a 40-hour workweek to a 30-hour workweek. We have a lot of employers who are creating part-time jobs instead of full-time jobs. In order to avoid the mandates and requirements and costs associated with ObamaCare, employers are hiring people to get under that 30-hour workweek. There are a lot of people who are hired to work 29 hours a week. Well, Americans can't take care of their families and meet the needs they have in their personal and family budgets on 29 hours a week, so more and more people are having to get more than one job. In fact, some estimates show that the majority of jobs that have been created over the last year have been part-time jobs, not full-time jobs. That is the impact this is having on the overall economy. If we are serious about getting the economy growing and expanding again and creating good-paying jobs for middle-class Americans, there are a number of things we can do to create that kind of economic growth. What we have seen of late is a growth rate that hovers between 1 and 2 percent. The economy is lethargic and sluggish compared to any historic average. We continue to have chronic high unemployment. If we factor in that the labor participation force is literally at the lowest level in the last 35 years, we would have to go back to the administration of President Carter. At that time there were fewer people working as a percentage of the entire workforce. If we factor that in, we have an economy that is in a very bad way. As I said, there are a whole series of things that need to be done to get the economy growing and expanding at a faster rate, create more jobs, and increase the take-home pay for middle-class Americans. We really need to start over with Obamacare. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, as we approach Veterans Day on Monday, I want to rise to recognize the selfless service and sacrifice of America's veterans. As we reflect upon the generations of men and women who have answered the call to serve and defend our freedoms, we especially remember those who have given what President Lincoln so eloquently called ``the last full measure of devotion.'' Just as we owe it to the memory of those who have given their lives for freedom, we also have the solemn obligation to ensure that every servicemember comes home and that we care for those who still bear the wounds of war. Some of these wounds are physically visible, while others are not so apparent. We have made great strides in caring for our servicemembers, especially in regard to lifesaving procedures on the battlefield and rehabilitative care through the Department of Veterans Affairs, but there is still much we must do to combat the epidemic of mental health issues among veterans. Traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, and the alarmingly high rate of suicide among our servicemembers remain among the most pressing issues our veterans face. We owe all of our veterans a tremendous debt of gratitude, and we must uphold the foremost duty of providing for their care. This responsibility includes aiding our veterans as they transition to civilian life by finding ways to put their skilled military training to work and through providing timely processing of medical claims. We must rise to the occasion to make sure our past mistakes are not repeated as our troops return from current and future conflicts. In my home State of South Dakota, it is easy to see the integral role veterans have played in shaping who we are as South Dakotans--a legacy that dates back to before the founding of the State itself. South Dakotans have always punched above their weight when it comes to military service in all the various conflicts in which our country has been involved over the years. The values of service and honor are woven into the fabric of our communities. With each passing day these values are strengthened by the men and women currently serving at Ellsworth Air Force Base and in the South Dakota Air and Army National Guard and VA centers around my State. I doubt there are many South Dakotans who do not have a family member or friend who has worn our Nation's uniform. I know firsthand the sacrifice made by our Nation's veterans because my own father Harold was a decorated World War II Navy pilot. Like all our veterans, my dad served with pride and dignity, protecting our democracy at home and abroad. One of my favorite memories since I have been in the Senate was the opportunity to accompany my father to the World War II Memorial and show him that great memorial that was erected in honor of his generation's veterans. I was humbled by the quiet reverence they had for their comrades lost in battle and reminded of the ultimate sacrifice made by so many of our countrymen. We should be grateful for the generations of men and women who have given of themselves on behalf of our great Nation. There can be no mistake that America's veterans have served bravely and honorably, making America the country it is today. As we celebrate a weekend filled with fanfare and celebrations, with people involved in their weekend activities, I would ask that we all take a moment to remember the service of those who did not make it back to their families and that we rededicate ourselves to caring for those who continue to bear the cost of our freedoms. May God bless our veterans, and may we continue to honor those who have nobly answered the call to serve. On this Veterans Day, may we all keep the brave members of our military and their families in our thoughts and prayers as they continue to serve our great Nation.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, recently, President Obama made the comment that ObamaCare is not just a web site, it is much more. I could not agree more with that statement. His health care law is also a list of broken promises that harm middle-class Americans. While he was trying to sell ObamaCare to the American people, President Obama repeatedly stated that ``if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period.'' He did not say that if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan unless your health care plan changes or if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan unless your health care plan gets canceled. He didn't say that you can only keep your health care plan if the White House likes your health care plan. He said, ``If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period.'' It is pretty emphatic, I would argue, when the President of the United States says something such as that. Yet just 1 month after the ObamaCare exchange rollout, at least 3.5 million Americans have received insurance cancellation notices, according to the Associated Press. That number just reflects the number of dropped plans in about 25 States. There are about 25 other States that have not reported their numbers yet. A report by the American Action Forum cites that this number is expected to dramatically increase in the coming months. On Sunday, former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs conceded that it was certainly wrong for the President to claim that ``if you like your plan, you can keep it.'' The Washington Post fact checker even gave the President four Pinocchios for his oft-repeated pledge that no one will ever take away your health care plan. We are now learning it is actually only if the White House likes your plan that you are going to be able to keep your plan. We are also learning the White House knew people would be losing their coverage. After ObamaCare was signed into law, the President's administration released regulations that would invalidate grandfathered health care plans if they made routine changes. This information was buried in 2010 regulation and, despite the fact that the administration had posted this regulation, the President continued to state, ``If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan.'' At the time this regulation was released, the administration issued estimates stating that 40 to 67 percent of Americans who purchased insurance in the individual market would lose their coverage. The administration also stated in that regulation that by the year 2013, 39 to 69 percent of businesses, large and small, would lose their grandfathered plans. What the President blatantly left out of his promise was the caveat that if the Federal Government approves of your health care plan, then you can keep it--not if you like it you can keep it, but if the Federal Government likes it, then you can keep it. But what we are finding is the opposite is true. It is a completely broken promise--completely. What makes this issue even more startling is that in 2010 Senate Democrats voted along party lines to reaffirm that those Americans who like their plan can only keep it if it receives a government seal of approval. In September of 2010, Senator Mike Enzi from Wyoming proposed a resolution to block the way the administration was planning to handle plan cancellations. On a party-line vote, Democrats killed the resolution, effectively endorsing the administration's proposal to cancel plans individuals have and like. After breaking his oft-repeated promise, the President is now telling millions of Americans who had their insurance canceled that they should just shop around for policies that can be more costly on a Web site that does not function. It is clear the administration has mislead Americans with their promises. Jerry Buckley of Marion, AR, says he did not pay attention to any of that because the President kept telling you this will not affect you if you like what you have. Despite being assured he could keep his plan, Mr. Buckley received a letter from Arkansas Blue Cross Blue Shield saying his policy did not comply with the new regulations under ObamaCare. A comparable plan has a higher premium, higher out-of-pocket costs, and less coverage. As the leader of our country, the President's words matter. He needs to be held accountable for these millions of insurance plans he promised the American people they could keep. Simply having administration officials apologize for a broken Web site is not a solution. The issues run much deeper than anything any IT expert can fix. This is fundamentally about the flaws in this law. That is why the cancellation notices continue to go out despite the President's assertions and promises that if you like your plan, you can keep it. In addition to the cancellation notices, consumers are experiencing sticker shock when they see what plans are available to them this next year. Forbes reports that premiums in 41 States are going to increase under ObamaCare. My home State of South Dakota ranks seventh on that list, with premiums rising 77 percent, on average. In four States, insurance premiums are expected to rise over 100 percent. A Washington Post headline from the weekend reads: For consumers whose health premiums will go up under the new law, sticker shock leads to anger. The article cites an anecdote by an area lawyer, Deborah Persico. Ms. Persico recently found out her insurance is being canceled due to ObamaCare. Under a comparable plan with the new law, her premium is going to increase by 55 percent and her deductible will double. She expects this new plan will cost her at least $5,000 a year more than she pays under her current plan. There are millions of middle-class Americans just like Deborah whose health care costs are skyrocketing under ObamaCare. The rising premiums are affecting both Americans who buy their insurance in the individual market and those who have employer-provided health care as well. In an effort to avoid these higher costs, small businesses are renewing their plans early to avoid requirements imposed by ObamaCare. Insurance brokers told USA Today that 60 to 80 percent of small businesses with less than 50 employees are scrambling to renew their policies before the year's end to avoid paying the ObamaCare prices for 1 more year. With our still sluggish economy and unacceptably high unemployment rate, Americans cannot afford ObamaCare. This catastrophic law is leading to canceled policies, higher costs, and less coverage. Senate Republicans want to hear your stories. If you had a plan of your choice canceled, visit Republicans .senate.gov/yourstory. It is now evident that after supporting the rule that led to insurance cancellations, nervous Democrats are beginning to recommend a delay in the individual mandate. It is clear that even those who supported this law in 2009 and 2010 are having second thoughts, but second thoughts are not enough. We need to work together to repeal this law and replace it with policies that actually lower the cost of care and allow individuals to keep the plans and the doctors they like. Republicans will continue to fight to protect as many Americans as possible from this train wreck, and we hope the Democrats in the Senate will work with us. Over the weekend we saw more examples, including a story in the Wall Street Journal from yesterday, about a lady who lost her coverage and can't use her doctors. She is a stage 4 cancer survivor, and she has used health care facilities in her own State of California that have done wonderful things for her in treating her illness. Yet under the ObamaCare policies that are currently in place, she is losing that coverage and losing access to her doctor. The promise that ``you can keep your plan if you like it'' and the promise that ``you can keep your doctor if you like your doctor'' are broken promises that cannot be fulfilled. The President of the United States, over and over, said, ``If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.'' We know that is not true, and we know it is never going to be true. We know now, going back to 2010, they knew it wasn't going to be true. They were predicting that there were going to be cancellations and sticker shock. Yet never once did the President modify his statement. He consistently said, ``If you like your health care plan today, you can keep it, period''--completely misleading. Millions of Americans who have received cancellation notices and who are seeing skyrocketing premiums are in peril in their ability to cover themselves and their family. There is a better way. There was a better way back then and there is a better way today of bringing down health care costs and making it more affordable for more Americans, allowing them to have access to the health care plan they like and the doctor they choose. Yet if we stay on this current path, we are headed for a train wreck. We have time to turn the train around before this is fully implemented, and I hope to find bipartisan cooperation because health care is an important issue to millions of Americans. It is a pocketbook issue that affects so many families across this country, and their ability to provide affordable coverage for themselves and their families is an economic issue and something everybody talks about at the kitchen table. We can come up with a better solution. We should come up with a better solution. If we don't, not only will we see millions of Americans with canceled coverage and millions of Americans with dramatic increases in the amount they are paying for health insurance coverage today, we will also see the impact this will have on jobs as more and more employers find it more difficult to retain their employees and hire more workers. The chronically high unemployment rate we see today, as well as the historically low labor participation rate, the reduced take-home pay we have seen for middle-class Americans, those will become a permanent state for the American people. I think the American people want to see us work on policies that will improve their standard of living, improve their quality of life, get more Americans back to work, and increase take-home pay for middle-class Americans. This policy takes us backward. This policy takes us down a track that leads to broken promises and unfulfilled expectations for the American people. It is high time we change that. We can do that. I hope we will find the bipartisan cooperation here and hopefully the engagement of the President of the United States who, after all, made the promise that ``if you like your plan, you can keep it, period,'' repeatedly, over and over--a broken promise. It is not too late to do the right thing. I hope we will be able to find the bipartisan cooperation to do that. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Utah and appreciate his very eloquent remarks. He has been a great leader on health care issues for a lot of years around here and was a fierce opponent of ObamaCare when it passed and laid out very compelling arguments at the time about why we should not adopt this law. Unfortunately, for the people of this country, many of the predictions he made are coming out to be true. I appreciate the leadership he provides for us as a member of the Finance Committee and his continued advocacy for policies that are good for consumers in this country when it comes to the issue of health care. This Friday marks a full month since healthcare.gov went live. This is the Web site that, in conjunction with the new health care law, was promised as a solution to all of the problems in the delivery and cost of health care in this country. To be frank, I do not think anybody on either side of the political aisle would deny this fact: These past 29 days have been nothing short of a disaster. The administration will not disclose how many Americans were actually able to enroll in plans. They are not forthcoming when it comes to disclosing exactly what the problem is with the Web site, other than calling the problems glitches. Well, glitches refer to temporary problems that are easily remedied. The problems with the health care law cannot merely be called glitches. The problems go deeper than technical problems on a Web site which, by the way, cost $400 million to develop. As the President said last week, ObamaCare `` . . . is not just a website. It's much more.'' Well, that is true. It is much more. It is a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation that is resulting in real- life consequences for middle-class Americans. My colleagues and I, the Senator from Utah and others, have been speaking about the broken promises of this legislation since it came to the floor of the Senate almost 4 years ago. We know this law will not work as promised. Unfortunately, thousands of Americans are realizing it too as they face higher costs and canceled insurance plans. Many Americans are experiencing sticker shock when it comes to their health care costs. Middle-class Americans already struggling to make ends meet are now facing steep premium increases in the ObamaCare exchanges. Last month, Avik Roy of Forbes reported on a recent study that said: ObamaCare will increase insurance rates for younger men by an average of 97 to 99% and for younger women by an average of 55 to 62%. In my home State of South Dakota, that is more than just a statistic; that is a grim reality facing thousands of young men and women. By comparing a typical low-cost plan for a healthy 30-year-old person in my State of South Dakota this year with a bronze plan that they would be able to get in South Dakota's health care exchange next year, the premium increases are nothing short of staggering. Younger women are going to face a 223-percent premium increase and younger men are going to face a 393-percent premium increase when you compare data from HHS with data from GAO about premiums in South Dakota in January of this year. That is more than a $1,500 annual increase for women and a $2,000 increase in health care premiums each year for 30-year-old men in my State of South Dakota. But it is not just South Dakota. It is not confined to South Dakota alone, and people in my State are not alone in their experience of sticker shock. Look at what is happening in the State of Nebraska where premium increases are 143 percent or in Georgia where premium increases are 198 percent. Money that could be used to pay off student loans, save for a home, or start a family is now going to be used to pay for ObamaCare. According to a new analysis by Avalere Health, Americans could face steep cost-sharing requirements--such as copayments, co-insurance, and deductibles--layered on top of their monthly premiums. It is clear that health care costs are going up--they are not going down--particularly for younger Americans. Additionally, President Obama promised that health care premiums would go down by an average of $2,500 per family. Well, if you look at what family premiums have done, they have actually jumped by more than $2,500 since ObamaCare became law. While costs continue to increase despite the President's promises to the contrary, household income has fallen by over $3,700 since President Obama first took office. No IT specialist can fix the problem of increased health care costs due to ObamaCare. The only fix is to repeal this law and to start over. In addition to higher costs, families are discovering other grim news. For example, they cannot keep the plan they like, despite the fact that the President promised they would be able to. Over and over the President told Americans they would be able to keep the insurance they have. Well, millions are now facing health insurance cancellation notices due to ObamaCare. That number is expected to increase up to nearly 10 million by the end of this year. In fact, just this morning, CBS News published a story. The headline read, ``More than 2 million people getting booted from existing health insurance plans.'' These are Americans who had coverage they liked and now cannot continue to purchase. Finally, after dozens of media reports of Americans who are losing plans they like, the White House spokesman said, it is true that some Americans will not be able to keep the health care plan that they like under ObamaCare. Well, you do not have to tell people in this country, as Deborah from Westchester, CA, said in an article last week in the Los Angeles Times: All we've been hearing the last three years is if you like your policy you can keep it . . . I'm infuriated because I was lied to. CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield is being forced to cancel plans that cover 76,000 individuals in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, DC, due to changes made by President Obama's health care law. That represents more than 40 percent of the 177,000 individuals covered by CareFirst in those States. President Obama said on July 21, 2009: If you like your current plan, you will be able to keep it. Let me repeat that. He said: If you like your plan, you will be able to keep it. That is from 2009. But he also went on to say, ``I won't sign a bill that somehow would make it tougher for people to keep their health insurance.'' That is from another conference he had with bloggers back in 2009. It is abundantly clear that this is not a simple misstatement or a glitch in the law, it is another broken promise that reveals serious underlying problems with the core principles of this law. No IT specialist can fix the problem of canceled plans due to ObamaCare. The only fix is to repeal this law and to start over. The President promised the people could keep a health care plan they liked. But an NBC News article published yesterday shows that the administration knew as early as 2010 that this was not going to be the case. NBC is reporting that 50 to 70 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually--in the individual marketplace-- can expect to receive a cancellation letter or the equivalent over the next year, because their existing policies do not meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. All say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience ``sticker shock.'' You do not have to look any further than George Schwab, a 62-year-old man from North Carolina who said he was ``perfectly happy'' with the plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield, the plan he currently had, which also insured his wife for a $228 monthly premium. But this past September he was surprised to receive a letter saying his policy was no longer available. The comparable plan the insurance company offered him carried a $1,208 monthly premium and a $5,500 deductible. The best option he has found on the exchange so far offered a 415-percent jump in premiums, to $948 a month. The deductible is less-- He said. But the plan doesn't meet my needs. Its unaffordable. I am sitting here looking at this, thinking we ought to just pay the fine and just get insurance when we're sick. That is what Schwab said. Everybody's worried about whether the website works or not, but that's fixable. That's just tip of the iceberg. This stuff isn't fixable. That is from Mr. Schwab of North Carolina. That is just one of many stories out there about how this law is affecting average Americans, so much so that now even Democrats have come out criticizing parts of the health care law. Most recently there were 10 Senate Democrats who asked the administration to delay the deadline to sign up for ObamaCare before the tax on the individual mandate kicks in. While I agree that Americans should not be expected to pay a fine for not having a product they cannot even access, delaying implementation does not solve the underlying problem that this bill is simply bad policy. It was a partisan bill. It was rushed through without adequate forethought in the implementation problems and the serious adverse effect it would have on Americans' daily lives. Giving people more time to try to navigate a broken Web site with glitches is not going to fix this underlying fundamental flaw in this law. A majority of Americans, 56 percent, believe the Web site glitches are part of a broader problem with the health care law. ObamaCare is more than a Web site. Its real-life consequences squarely hit middle- class Americans. Americans are facing sticker shock discovering they are being dropped from an insurance plan they like. As one woman said: I was all for ObamaCare until I found out I was paying for it. That too was a story that the LA Times ran over the weekend. ObamaCare is not ready for prime time. The President has got a new healthcare.gov czar, Jeffery Zients, who has been tasked with coming in and trying to fix the Web site by the end of November. But a fix to the Web site by the end of November does not rectify the underlying problems with this law. The problems with this law are more than just problems with a Web site. We need to continue to work to repeal the onerous parts of this law and replace it with solutions that actually lower the cost of health care and give Americans continued access to a doctor they choose at a cost they can afford. Republicans here at the time when this law was being debated and passed in the Senate several years ago and subsequent to that time have consistently put forward solutions to the health care challenges that we face in this country that do not entail having government take over literally one-sixth of the American economy. As we can see from the rollout, the government does not do complicated things very well. This is a disaster at the rollout, but it is a train wreck in terms of substance and what it is going to do and the harm it will cost middle-class Americans. There are so many better solutions. We should allow people to buy insurance across State lines, create interstate competition, allow market forces to drive insurance costs down, allow people and businesses to join groups so they can get the benefit of group purchasing power, do away with the issue of defensive medicine by getting rid of a lot of the junk lawsuits that are clogging up our legal system in this country, allowing people to have a tax credit where they can buy their own insurance and use their judgment and allow for transparency when it comes to pricing and outcomes so that the market in the competition that exists out there works in a way that makes insurance rates come down for everybody and improves the quality of health care in this country. There are so many good ideas out there that do not involve a government takeover of health care and the results we have seen that has caused. So I hope that not only will the American people who I think are quickly coming to the conclusion that this is a bad law, it is a flawed policy to start with, but Members of Congress here in Washington, DC, Members of the Senate will also come to that conclusion and will decide it is time to not only delay this but to repeal it and start over. We need a do-over. The American people need a do-over. We need an opportunity to put policies in place that actually put downward pressure on insurance rates in this country, rather than increasing them, which is what we have seen with ObamaCare, dramatic increases for many people across this country, loss of coverage that people like. They were told by the President repeatedly, over and over the President went out there and said: If you like the insurance you have, you can keep it. We now know that is not true. We know that the administration knew that was not true. So it is time we acknowledge we need a do-over. The American people need a do-over. We need health care policies in this country that drive down costs for people, for families, middle-class Americans, that improve the quality of health care delivery in this country, and that do not create costly harm to the economy. We hear over and over that the mandates and the requirements and the costs associated with ObamaCare are making it more difficult and more expensive to create jobs in this country. We are seeing an economic growth rate that is sluggish, in the 1-percent to 2-percent range. We are seeing the lowest labor participation rate literally in the last 35 years, since Jimmy Carter was the President of the United States, chronically high unemployment, lower take-home pay, an economy that is suffering from too much cost and too many policies that actually make it more difficult and more expensive to create jobs. We need to be looking at health care policies that improve coverage, lower costs, and make it less difficult and less costly to create jobs in this economy so we can get Americans back to work, we get our economy growing and expanding at a more robust rate and improve the standard of living and the quality of life for people all across this country. This policy, the ObamaCare health care policy, was ill-fated, was misguided from the beginning. Now we are seeing the effects and the results of that. Hopefully, politicians in Washington, DC, on both sides of the aisle will come to the correct conclusion; that is, it is time to start over and do this the right way. I yield the floor.