Floor Statements

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on the nomination of Scott Pruitt to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, whom I intend to support.

Over the past several weeks, we heard a number of Senators come to the floor hour after hour, 24-hour sessions through the night--1 o'clock, 2 o'clock, 3 o'clock, 4 o'clock--in the morning and beyond, to complain about this nominee or that nominee, to express their concern about this nominee or that nominee. In fact, many times I think the only reason there is opposition to a nominee is that they disagree with a nominee because it wasn't Hillary Clinton who made the nomination.

We have heard countless people come to the floor today to talk about their opposition to the Trump administration EPA. I have a picture on the floor that shows the Obama EPA. This is a river in Colorado, enjoyed by thousands of people each and every summer. This is a picture of that same river under the Obama EPA. This was caused by 800,000 pounds of mineral and other waste going into the river because of a mishandled EPA project. This wasn't Scott Pruitt. This wasn't Donald Trump. This was the Obama EPA that did this. I only wish that my colleagues who have come to the floor for the past several hours had shown similar outrage when the Obama EPA did this to Colorado-- inflicted this kind of damage on people in Southwestern Colorado in the Gold King

Mine spill. You want to talk about protecting States? Why didn't we stand up and protect this river?

On August 5, 2015, the EPA caused this spill. They admit they caused this spill, dumping 3 million gallons of toxic waste into Cement Creek and into the Animas River. Most Americans remember seeing this river. Most Americans remember seeing pictures of what this river looked like across newspapers, across television stations in August of 2015. When I visited South Korea, the President of South Korea asked me: How is the river in Colorado that the EPA dumped toxic sludge into?

In fact, I saw this picture on the news just a couple of days ago. Somebody was using it to complain about the Trump EPA administration. Somebody was using it to attack Scott Pruitt. This picture had nothing to do with Scott Pruitt. This was the EPA led by Gina McCarthy. My response to the spill was that the EPA should be held accountable to the same level at which the EPA holds private businesses accountable. I think that is a pretty good standard. But if the EPA is going to make sure that somebody lives up to a standard, then the EPA should live up to the same standard--that basic standard for the EPA, because the Agency caused this spill, and it simply must apply the same requirements to itself that it does to a private company.

So it was with great disappointment, but very little surprise, that, when the EPA decided to not subject itself to those same standards, they walked away from the promises they made. Sure, the EPA had standards under Barack Obama. They were double standards. The Obama administration EPA's refusal to not receive and process the personal injury or economic loss claims arising out of this spill of the Gold King Mine in Southwest Colorado is appalling. I simply wish the outrage was there when the EPA walked away from the people that it had injured in Colorado. We haven't heard talk about it here.

We have heard a lot of complaints here, but nobody is saying they should be paying for the damage in Colorado they created. After all, we are discussing the EPA, which with the strike of a pen, and oftentimes with very little input from those people who would be affected, uses overly burdensome regulations and a heavyhanded enforcement to punish private businesses.

Despite the assurances and promises of the then-EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy that the Agency takes full responsibility of the Gold King Mine spill, the Agency in 2017--weeks ago--turned its back on the promises it made and denied paying claims for the harm they caused Coloradans. Promises were broken to our neighbors downstream in New Mexico and Utah, including the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and the Navajo Nation.

Administrator McCarthy called me last month, just before the news broke that the EPA would not be processing the claims of dozens of individuals and businesses in Southwest Colorado under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the Federal Government. The spill occurred in August 2015. Over a year later, and in the waning days of the Obama administration, they turned their backs on their promises they made to Colorado and notified us in the waning hours of an administration saying: I am sorry. We are not going to help the individuals who are harmed. This refusal to compensate for the spill is unacceptable and wholly inconsistent with the EPA's commitment to take full responsibility with the States, local and tribal governments and communities.

This past election, voters said they wanted something different from the last 8 years in Washington because what they experienced was not working for the people--broken promise after broken promise. A year and a half ago, the EPA caused the Gold King Mine spill, and the past administration refused to make it right for Colorado. The status quo at the EPA is not acceptable because broken promises are the status quo.

I have had earnest conversations with Mr. Pruitt over the past several weeks about my sincere disappointment about those broken promises, what we had to go through in Colorado, and what businesses had to go through in Colorado as a result of the EPA spill.

You can imagine that in an area that is reliant on tourism, what photographs of this in headlines across the country and in nightly news stories can do to a tourism-based economy. Those kayakers we saw in this chart had to shut the river down. Outfitters weren't allowed to be on the river. Dollars were lost because guides couldn't get out there. Booked trips that had already been paid for had been canceled. People didn't go because of the EPA's spill. The EPA's refusal to pay for lost property, lost economic opportunity, and lost business opportunity is simply unacceptable.

In the earnest conversations I have had with Scott Pruitt, he has promised to make it right. He has promised to stand up for the people in Colorado. He has promised that he will make amends and pay for the damages that the Obama administration refused to pay for. He assured me that he is going to make it right, that he is going to work with the people the EPA injured and those who experienced economic losses and make sure that they are fully compensated. He agreed to come to Colorado shortly after his confirmation to make sure that the people of Colorado know that he will fulfill the promises that were failed under the Obama administration.

I would also like to talk about another top legislative priority of mine--passing Good Samaritan legislation. Good Samaritan legislation would allow Good Samaritans, like the mining industry, State agencies, local governments, nonprofits, and other groups the ability to clean up the environment and improve water quality conditions around abandoned mines. According to the Government Accountability Office, or the GAO, it is estimated that there are more than 160,000 abandoned hard-rock mines that exist across the United States, and at least 33,000 of these mines pose environmental or safety concerns.

One of the immediate actions we can do in Congress to address this toxic waste and improve our environment is to pass Good Samaritan legislation. It has been decades that this Congress has tried. It has been decades that this Congress has failed. It is time to start succeeding and time to start cleaning up the environment.

The last time the Environment and Public Works Committee was able to advance legislation on Good Samaritan was in 2006, from my predecessors, Senators Wayne Allard and Ken Salazar. Unfortunately, since 2006, this concept has been unsuccessful and caught in partisan politics.

It is time to take steps forward for facilitating cleanup of the Nation's abandoned mines to prevent more spills like the Gold King Mine.

I have secured the commitment from Scott Pruitt to work with me on this legislation at the EPA to get this done, to work with both sides of the aisle to accomplish something, so that we can prevent this from happening. I am not going to stop working until our constituents are made whole from the EPA-caused spill at the Gold King Mine. I am not going to stop working until we pass--and we have to continue working to pass--the Good Samaritan legislation.

The 33,000 mines that pose a risk to the West is unacceptable. Our citizens, our pristine environment, our waterways, our children--this wasn't Scott Pruitt. This wasn't Donald Trump. This was an EPA under the previous administration, led by Gina McCarthy and President Obama, that walked away from the people of Colorado and the promises made. And it heartens me greatly to know, at least, that we have an administration that will move away from every promise abandoned to fulfilling the promises of protecting our environment.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

To the Senator from Illinois, the EPA admits they caused this spill. Does the Senator from Illinois realize that the EPA then failed to live up to that promise?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

To the Senator from Illinois, the EPA stated that they caused this spill. Dozens upon dozens of individuals and businesses filed a claim against the EPA for damages caused by a spill that the EPA admits. Scott Pruitt has said that he will fulfill the promise of paying for those claims the Obama administration denied.

Will the Senator agree that the EPA, under the last administration, failed to deliver on the promises made of paying these claims?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I thank my colleague from the great State of Montana.

During the debate on the floor just a while ago, we heard more debate on something that is very near and dear to my heart; that is, the matter of the Gold King Mine and the EPA's self-admitted responsibility on spilling 3 million gallons of toxic sludge into the Animas River in Colorado.

The debate around the floor and my comments this morning have centered on the EPA's admitted liability and fault in spilling millions of gallons of sludge into a river, promising they would make the claims, pay for the injury that occurred, and then denying those claims and walking away.

Had the private sector been involved, my question to the Senator is this: If the private sector admitted guilt in spilling 3 million gallons of toxic waste into a river, would they be held accountable?

If the Senator would yield, what the EPA has stated is admitting fault, admitting and promising that they would pay for those who were injured, and then just weeks ago, as the previous administration was ending, they denied every single one of the private claimants. The Senator has talked about Scott Pruitt at EPA.

When I spoke with the Administrator-designate of EPA, Scott Pruitt said they would make the private claimants whole; that they would pay the Navajo Nation; that they would pay the claims made by outfitters who were shut down.

Will the Senator help me make sure that the EPA stands up to its obligations and recognize that Scott Pruitt--at both the EPW confirmation hearing and to me--has committed that the EPA will do what they did not do; that is, to make our citizens whole?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Thursday, February 16; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; finally, that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session, as under the previous order.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of Senators Schatz, Whitehouse, and Hirono, the Senate resume morning business and then stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, as I stated repeatedly before the Presidential election of this past year, we stood, and continue to stand, at a very pivotal time in our Nation's history.

After 8 years of using the judicial and regulatory systems to push through its legislative agenda, the balance of power had shifted from what our Founders intended. Our Founders intended the Congress to make the laws and write the laws, the executive branch to implement the laws, and the judiciary to be guardians of the Constitution, not to make the laws.

That is why we said that the next President of the United States, whether they be Democrat or Republican, would have the opportunity to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court, following the Biden rule--the edict that there wouldn't be a confirmation hearing for a Supreme Court nominee until after that year's Presidential election--to allow the American people to make their decision, giving the American people a say in the direction of this country for years to come. In return, they have given us this nominee.

It is with great pride that I rise today to talk about the nominee today--a fellow Coloradan, Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court. Judge Gorsuch comes to the Court with that unique western perspective that the Presiding Officer and I share. Our States of Utah and Colorado obviously like to see that western perspective shared at the Tenth Circuit Court, where it is housed in the West, but at every level of our courts and to the Supreme Court-- adding to Justice Kennedy's background and to others who share that same perspective and history in the Supreme Court.

Born in Denver, Judge Gorsuch is a fourth-generation Coloradan, coming from a long line of individuals who have dedicated their life to service not only to the State of Colorado but to the Nation. His mother, Ann Gorsuch, served in the Colorado House of Representatives and, during the Reagan administration, she was the first female Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. His grandfather, John Gorsuch, founded one of Denver's largest law firms, Gorsuch Kirgis, where both he and Neil's father, Dave, practiced throughout the firm's successful 60-year-old history. His stepfather, Robert Buford, was a former speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives who went on to become the head of the Bureau of Land Management.

Judge Gorsuch is also one of our country's brightest legal minds, with a sterling reputation, and significant experience as a Federal judge and a private litigator. He has impeccable academic credentials and is a widely respected legal scholar. He received his bachelor's degree from Columbia University, graduated from Harvard Law School, and was a Marshall scholar at Oxford University, where he obtained a doctorate in legal philosophy.

Of course, I cannot forget the summer he spent at the University of Colorado as well. Judge Gorsuch clerked for two Supreme Court justices--Byron White, a Colorado native as well. In fact, in his comments last night after the announcement of his nomination, Judge Gorsuch mentioned that he worked for the only Coloradan to serve on the Supreme Court and also the only leading rusher in the NFL to ever serve on the Supreme Court.

He also clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy, as well as for Judge David Sentelle on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Following his clerkships, Judge Gorsuch went into private

practice, eventually rising to the rank of partner in the elite litigation law firm of Kellogg Huber, leaving practice in 2005 to serve as a high-ranking official in the Bush administration Justice Department. A year later, President George W. Bush nominated Gorsuch to serve on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, a position for which he was confirmed by a unanimous vote. I think it is very telling that not only was he confirmed by a unanimous vote, but roughly 11 or 12 members of the Democratic conference were there to vote for Judge Gorsuch. There are people serving today who voted for Judge Gorsuch. I believe SCOTUSblog recently reported that when Judge Gorsuch was nominated to the Tenth Circuit Court, then, Neil Gorsuch's confirmation hearing was sparsely attended. I believe it mentioned that only a few people attended. I think Senator Lindsey Graham, our colleague from South Carolina, was one of the Senators to attend his confirmation hearing. I believe Senator Leahy, our colleague from Vermont, submitted questions for the record. But as SCOTUSblog cited, very few people attended his confirmation hearing because of the high caliber and high quality of the nomination. He was introduced by my predecessor from Colorado, Ken Salazar, and was praised from Senator Salazar's perspective for being impartial, fair, and the having the kind of temperament that we need in the circuit court.

Judge Gorsuch is an ardent faithful defender of the Constitution and has the appropriate temperament, as then-Senator Salazar noted, to serve on the Nation's highest Court. Of course, he was then talking about the Tenth Circuit Court. Judge Gorsuch recognizes that the judiciary isn't the place for social or constitutional experimentation, and efforts to engage in such experimentation delegitimizes the Court. He has said:

This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to

debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the

judiciary. . . . As a society, we lose the benefit of the

give-and-take of the political process and the flexibility of

social experimentation that only the elected branches can

provide.

Here we see his understanding that certain debates are to take place where debate is held by those elected directly by the people--in the Congress.

Judge Gorsuch believes in the separation of powers as established by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution. As he rightly stated, ``a firm and independent judiciary is critical to a well-functioning democracy,'' understanding the value of three branches of government, the value of an independent judiciary, understanding that there are certain things dedicated exclusively to the judiciary, to the legislative branch, and to the executive.

Judge Gorsuch is not an ideologue. He is a mainstream jurist who follows the law as written and doesn't try to supplant it with his personal policy preferences. He said: ``Personal politics or policy preferences have no useful role in judging; regular and healthy doses of self-skepticism and humility about one's own abilities and conclusions always do.''

Judge Gorsuch understands the advantage of democratic institutions and the special authority and legitimacy that come from the consent of the government. He said: ``Judges must allow the elected branches of government to flourish and citizens, through their elected representatives, to make laws appropriate to the facts and circumstances of the day.''

Judge Gorsuch appreciates the rule of law and respects the considered judgment of those who came before him. He said:

Precedent is to be respected and honored. It is not

something to be diminished or demeaned.

This morning, I had the opportunity to meet with Judge Gorsuch--of course, knowing him from Colorado and the town of Boulder, where he lives today, and also where I received my law degree. We spent a lot of time talking about our favorite passions in Colorado, whether it is fly-fishing, whether it is paddle-boarding. Of course, he spends a lot of time out on the Boulder Reservoir, enjoying recreation--just like every other person in Boulder does and every other person in Colorado does--as somebody who understands the great outdoors. We talked about the rule of law. We talked about the separation of powers, his concern over originalism and textualism, and following in the footsteps of other great Justices on the Supreme Court.

We talked about something he said last night when his name was put forward for nomination by President Trump. We talked about a statement he made to this effect: If a judge likes every opinion that they have written, every decision that they have reached, they are probably a bad judge. I think this goes to his insistence that, as a judge, you must put your personal beliefs, your personal policies aside to rule as the rule of law requires and to rule as the Constitution and the statutes require.

We discussed in our meeting decisions he made of which he didn't like the outcome but believed that the rule of law required a certain outcome--whether it was a felon who possessed a handgun or whether the Federal Government had misspoken to the accused and he believed that the government had done the accused wrong.

While Judge Gorsuch personally believed that perhaps he would have liked to have found a guilty decision or agreed with a guilty decision, he couldn't do it because of the standards that were applied in the case--the grammatical gravity that had to be ignored in order to reach the conclusion the lower court had reached.

His ability to put personal opinions aside, I think, is what makes him an ideal candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court. Over the coming days and months, we are going to have many opportunities to talk about the qualities of Judge Gorsuch, but we have already heard many people complain that perhaps they didn't pay enough attention to Judge Gorsuch 10 years ago. They talked about their concern, this newfound concern that was not available--that apparently wasn't there 10 years ago when this Senate unanimously supported Judge Gorsuch.

I have even heard complaints that they didn't like the way that his nomination was announced--a complaint about how the President announced the nomination. Those are the kinds of concerns we are hearing about Judge Gorsuch today because they didn't like the way he was announced.

We are going to have a lot of opportunity to talk about his temperament, those things he believes are important as a judge, those things he believes are important to make decisions. I look forward to having a conversation about what I believe is a brilliant legal mind-- someone of a brilliant legal mind, someone with a sterling reputation, someone who has been known as a feeder judge of clerks to the highest Court in the land, someone who rules on the law and not on his personal beliefs, someone who believes in the Constitution and not in the role of legislator from the bench.

I am grateful I had this opportunity to support a Coloradan, a man of the West, to Nation's highest Court, and I look forward to working to place Judge Gorsuch as Associate Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mr. President, I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I understand an appointment was made during the adjournment of the Senate, and I ask it be stated for the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that not withstanding the resolution of the Senate of January 24, 1901, the traditional reading of Washington's Farewell Address take place on Monday, February 27, 2017, at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 40, submitted earlier today.

I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 41, submitted earlier today.

I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

I now ask for a second reading and, in order to place the bill on the calendar under provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 11 a.m., Thursday, February 2; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of H.J. Res. 38; finally, that there be 6 hours of debate remaining, equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Whitehouse.

Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record a copy of my remarks to the Longmont Chamber of Commerce on its 130th anniversary.

The material follows:

remarks to the longmont chamber of commerce

I rise today to honor the Longmont Chamber of Commerce on

its 130th anniversary. For more than 100 years, this chamber

of commerce has been an important resource for businesses of

all sizes in the Longmont area.

Colorado's Northern front range has experienced significant

growth within the past few years, with an influx of residents

moving to this region. Longmont, which sits in Weld and

Boulder counties, is now home to nearly 100,000 people. The

community's strong manufacturing, agriculture, and innovative

technology companies have all contributed to Longmont's

development.

The Longmont Chamber of Commerce has been an active

participant in helping all industries succeed and grow.

Annual events, like the ``Unity in the Community'' event,

draw more than 1,000 representatives from business,

government, and nonprofit organizations. In addition,

Longmont has received multiple recognitions for its ability

to problem solve, and make their community a better place to

live for all residents. In 2006, Longmont received the All-

America City Award from the National Civic League, and in

2008, was named as one of the Top 100 Best Places to Live by

Money Magazine.

The Chamber of Commerce will continue to play a critical

role in the growth and development of Longmont, as the Front

Range sees an increase in population and business endeavors.

Longmont is fortunate to have a dedicated organization like

the Chamber helping its residents grow their businesses.

Congratulations to the Longmont Chamber of Commerce on

reaching this significant milestone.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the continued broken promises of ObamaCare--the Affordable Care Act--that passed in the most partisan of fashions several years ago, and to discuss the process by which we are putting together a repeal-and- replace package and the pieces we will be voting on tonight and over the next several weeks and months.

ObamaCare's failures are simple. The promises that have been broken are clear. While partisan supporters of the administration's plan continue to promote the success of this poorly conceived law, Coloradans know far better.

Time and again, hundreds of thousands of Coloradans have felt the consequences of the Affordable Care Act in their pocketbooks, in their workplaces, in their doctor's offices, and in the choices they have for health care. The past 6 years have been marred by higher costs, fewer choices, and less competition in Colorado and across the Nation.

It is now time that we stand up for the American people to restore reliable and stable health care, as well as health care markets and insurance markets, and to undo the damage done to our health care by the failed law known as ObamaCare.

Let's just review the broken promises we have seen--not just a broken promise that the President himself made to the American people but broken promises echoed by the partisan supporters of ObamaCare. President Obama assured the American people over 35 times: Don't worry about ObamaCare because if you like your plan, then you can keep it, period. It is on video. It is on YouTube, and you can probably find it on Snapchat. It is available to find, this first broken promise.

As Coloradans began to receive cancellation notices, they quickly learned that this promise was far from the truth. In late 2013, nearly 335,000 small group and individual policies in Colorado were canceled due to requirements in the Affordable Care Act. These cancellations also included my family's cancellation, because we had chosen to stay in the private market in Colorado. But in August of 2013, we received the letter that 335,000 others received in Colorado saying that our policy had been canceled thanks to ObamaCare.

But, unfortunately, those cancellations--those 330,000-plus cancellations in August of 2013--were just the beginning, because in January of 2014, the Colorado Division of Insurance canceled an additional nearly 250,000 plans for the same reason.

Again in 2015, Coloradans were made abruptly aware of the failures of ObamaCare when another 190,000 more plans on the individual and small group market were canceled. In total, according to the Congressional Research Service, over 750,000 health insurance plans were canceled in Colorado between 2013 and 2015.

The promise that if you like your health care plan, you can keep it was so bad--that promise was so broken--that the fact-checking organization PolitiFact named it the ``Lie of the Year'' for 2013. PolitiFact didn't really need to name it the ``Lie of the Year,'' because over 750,000 people in Colorado got a letter in the mail telling them it was a lie.

Broken promise No. 2 from ObamaCare: Americans were told that the Affordable Care Act would reduce costs for families, businesses, and our government. In fact, President Obama said that under his new health care law, a typical family would save up to $2,500 a year on premiums by the end of his first term. Look it up on video, on YouTube. However, hit with the rising costs, Coloradans became acutely aware this too was yet another broken promise. Statewide, premiums in Colorado will rise by 20.4 percent on average for plan year 2017 on the individual market. That number is even higher in some of the more rural areas, like the Western Slope of Colorado. Where is the Western Slope? That is what most people think of when they think of Colorado, an area with mountains, forests, and great beauty. That area has been harder hit than many areas across the country with higher premium increases.

A year prior to this next plan year, in 2016, the Colorado Division of Insurance found that premiums on the individual market rose a whopping 25 percent on the Western Slope, plus the higher than 20 percent premium increases.

One woman living in Colorado on the Western Slope saw her premium rise from just a little over $300 a month to $1,828 per month, or nearly $22,000 a year. Here is her quote:

It's actually like another mortgage payment. I have friends

who are uninsured right now because they can't afford it.

Insurance is hard up here.

That is the Western Slope of Colorado, where people have seen mortgage-payment-size health insurance bills being added to them because of a bill that the President promised would lower their health care costs.

An increase of nearly 26 percent is devastating for most families, but in 2014 an Americans for Prosperity study showed that nearly 150,000 Coloradans saw their health insurance become 77 percent more expensive. These sharp increases in prices and coverage have left Coloradans reeling, and we have a duty--a duty--to make sure we provide them with the financial relief they deserve and the health care we know we can put together.

Broken promise No. 3 of the Affordable Care Act was the menu of options that was promised--the choices that the Affordable Care Act would bring to the marketplace. President Obama promised Americans that a greater choice and a menu of options to choose from would be right around the corner as a result of the Affordable Care Act, but Coloradans again found out that wasn't true. Of the 64 counties in Colorado, 14 counties have only one carrier to choose from and 29 counties have only two plans for the year 2017 on the individual market. We can see the plans right here. That is the western part of Colorado that I was talking about seeing such high premiums--77 percent and a higher percentage next year. Here, we can see counties with only two carriers to choose from, and 14 counties only have one to choose from.

So the President's signature health care law failed in this respect to create the menu of options, but it did succeed in creating monopolies.

President Obama also insisted that competition would increase through consumer-run coops. The Federal Government spent a great deal of money to prop up the consumer coops and to make sure they had the marketing in place. Over 80,000 Coloradans felt the impacts of this broken promise when the Colorado health coop was declared to be insolvent by Colorado insurance commissioner Marguerite Salazar. Eighty thousand people had their insurance coops declared insolvent because of the poor Affordable Care Act law.

Not only did the failure of this promise leave 80,000 people scrambling to find coverage, but it forced the coop to default on its Federal startup loan, valued at an estimated $72 million. So 80,000 people were out of coverage because of the failure of the Affordable Care Act, and $72 million went out of the American taxpayers' pockets because of the Affordable Care Act--money the American taxpayers will never see again. What is more, it cost taxpayers nearly $40 million to shut the coop down. Of the 23 original coops, only 6 are remaining and 17 consumer-run coops as a result have failed. The 23 startup insurers received a total of roughly $2.5 billion in loans under the Affordable Care Act, and only 6 remain. That means that even more money the American people gave to this government to be good stewards of--through their hard-earned tax dollars, through their premium taxes--will never be seen again. This is an unacceptable and egregious use of taxpayer dollars.

But the careless spending under ObamaCare doesn't just stop there. An audit was released 2 weeks ago by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, and it found that Connect for Health Colorado, Colorado's State exchange,

misspent and mishandled nearly $9.7 million in grants to establish its marketplace. The audit concluded by recommending that the marketplace be required to repay the $9.7 million identified by the Federal Government. The audit found that Connect for Health Colorado did not adequately document $4.4 million, improperly transferred costs totaling nearly $300,000, and made $164,000 in overpayments to subgrantees without identifying a reason.

Furthermore, Connect for Health Colorado spent more than $211,000 on bonuses to executives without providing performance evaluations. The kicker on the $211,000 in bonuses--the largest of which was $18,500 for the CEO--back in 2013, when the exchange was trying to get started, was that the then-CEO of Connect for Health Colorado wanted a raise even though the exchange had enrolled far fewer than half the people it was supposed to. So we have an executive asking for a raise in an exchange that hadn't even met the lowest of the low predictions for what it would do. Here we are, with a new audit from the Office of Inspector General saying that $9.7 million was fraudulently spent. To quote a member of the board at the time:

Given the poor performance for the first two months of

enrollments, I think it's incredibly audacious for the

executive director to request a salary increase.

I think most people would feel like if you're a CEO and you

are significantly underperforming the goals you helped set,

then you layer on that the money comes from public funds, I

think it is highly inappropriate.

I have heard colleagues in the House and the Senate talk about how CEOs are overpaid for the work they do. If the stock prices are low or dividends aren't there, then they shouldn't be as highly compensated as they are. But here we are, a government-funded program from the Colorado health exchange and others around the country using Federal dollars to give bonuses to people who haven't even met the basic projections they were supposed to. It is an unacceptable use of funds.

But the problem is that it is not just funds wasted somewhere else. It is funds wasted that came from the American people's pockets--hard- earned dollars that are being misspent.

The Affordable Care Act has had a negative impact on business owners and individuals. Let's talk about some of the effects on businesses. I will share a letter given to me, from a small business owner to his customers, letting them know how the Affordable Care Act impacted his prices.

Dear Valued Customer,

There is never a good time to announce a price increase but

we have to. Effective February 1, 2017 we will have a 2%

across the board increase for a reason beyond our control.

We've had many challenges over the years but none like

this. 100% of this price increase is due to one thing only,

the Affordable Care Act.

The Affordable Care Act has caused our health insurance

premiums to skyrocket by 42% and our choices of insurance

providers to dwindle down to one.

Some of you may be faced with a similar challenge. It seems

to be a problem all over the U.S.

So now we have the double whammy on the American consumer. Not only are they required by law to buy insurance they can't afford, but they then go buy consumer goods whose prices have increased as a result of the Affordable Care Act. So they are squeezed at home because they have to pay higher insurance premiums--thanks to the broken promises of ObamaCare, thanks to the lack of choice they have with ObamaCare. Now they have to pay higher prices at the grocery store or the implement dealership--wherever it is--because they have had to increase their prices--the people who make those goods, the people who manufacture those goods, the foundries, the equipment dealers. They have to pay for their insurance premiums that they are required, under a broken law, to search and find.

But it is important that we talk more than just about the business impact of the Affordable Care Act, because, day after day, I hear stories from Coloradans who have felt the brunt of ObamaCare's failures. Whether it is letters or emails to the office or whether it is town meetings across Colorado, I hear stories, and I wish to take this opportunity to share some of these from my constituents that demonstrate the impacts of ObamaCare.

A letter I received from an individual residing in Aurora, CO, said:

Cory--As a business owner who pays for my own insurance,

ObamaCare is not working. Last year, my premium went up 20%

for less insurance with a higher deductible and less

coverage.

This year we just got a cancelation notice that our

insurance plan will no longer be offered and we must start

looking for a new plan yet again.

I read that more and more insurance companies are pulling

out of the Colorado marketplace.

The system is broken, it has only cost us more and more

money for lower quality health care.

Please--do everything you can to stop this failed program.

That is from a Coloradan who has struggled under the burdens and broken promises of ObamaCare.

Let's talk about a letter we received from a family living in Lafayette, CO.

I have a ``Bronze'' HSA plan covering myself, my wife and

my two daughters.

I just received my renewal notice from [the] insurer

informing me that my premium for 2017 will increase by 38.9%.

To put that in perspective our family went from $1,200 per

month or $14,400 per year to $1,667 or $20,000 per year.

While the premium is increasing, the benefits are reduced

as annual deductibles for individual and family plans are

increasing to $5,000 and $10,000 respectively. This is

unconscionable!

The cost of my health insurance coverage has more than

doubled in the last three years and benefits have reduced

with each successive premium increase.

The ACA needs to be repealed immediately!

That is a letter from a family of four who saw a dramatic increase in price, both from the amount they pay every month to nearly $20,000 a year, to a deductible that has gone from $5,000 to $10,000.

Here is another story from a young woman residing in Colorado Springs, CO:

This is the third time since 2010 that I will be losing my

health insurance plan because of Obamacare.

This is the third time. Do remember the promise that if you like your plan, you can keep your plan?

This woman from Colorado Springs already has had her plan canceled three times.

Now I am losing the option of being in the plan I want to

be in.

There is the second promise--that if you like your plan, you can keep your plan; you get the choice of keeping your doctor--broken promises.

I must settle for being in an HMO, and still pay 400% what

I was paying for premiums in 2010.

I also just learned that my carrier is raising rates by 25%

next year on the individual market.

My premiums are already four times higher than they were

before the Affordable Care Act. My deductible and out of

pocket amounts are also much higher.

Obamacare is nothing but a heavy tax for us. Our income

doesn't qualify us for an Obamacare credit.

Since our premiums have quadrupled I figure we are now

paying for the insurance for three or four other families

when we pay for our premiums.

I am very disappointed in Congress for letting this go on

and on and on.

Year after year now my premiums skyrocket and I have fewer

choices in plans. Pretty soon there will be no incentive left

to work hard and earn money in this country.

The government will take it from you and give it to people [to spend irresponsibly in Washington, DC].

To this young woman in Colorado Springs, we are doing something-- finally. Last year, we put on the President's desk a repeal of ObamaCare, and of course it was vetoed. But this week, we will be able to start the process to repeal and replace ObamaCare, signed into law by a President who will indeed sign it.

Another story I would share from a family in Fort Lupton, CO:

It is impossible to afford health care for us.

We are right above the Medicaid limit by $400, and my

husband has gone without health care for 2 years. They keep

taxing him.

Soon we will be a family of 4 with no health insurance. We

will be paying so much to afford health insurance we will

struggle to buy food. We need help and we don't know where to

find it.

These stories demonstrate what Americans are experiencing as a result of ObamaCare and its broken promises. No family should have to decide between purchasing health coverage and putting food on the table. We owe it to these struggling families--stories we just heard, about anyone who is sick or might get sick--to roll up our sleeves

and provide real solutions and to recognize that the Affordable Care Act was a failure, it caused calamity, and it continues to destroy and crush our health care market.

ObamaCare was a poorly designed law that was rushed through Congress on the most partisan of votes. Its nearly 20,000 pages of regulations have had a devastating impact on many hard-working Americans. That is why I will continue to work hard to find solutions that will relieve the financial burden this law has imposed on Coloradans and Americans throughout the country.

We need a health care system that promotes competition, increases flexibility, encourages innovation, and puts Americans back in control of their health care--one that gets ``Dr. Congress'' out of the picture, one that safeguards the doctor-patient relationship, preserves Medicare for our seniors, and one that protects the most vulnerable among us.

I will continue to fight for all of those in Colorado and across the country who are looking for real health care reform, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to do so.

We have a chance this week to act, and I look forward to replacing ObamaCare with something that actually fixes and makes this system work again.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.