Floor Statements

Mr. President, one of the greatest issues impacting the American health care system is the lack of access to high quality care for the uninsured. According to a 2012 CBO study, 26-27 million people will not have health insurance in 2016, with other studies suggesting that number may be closer to 30 million. Recent data from the Health Resource and Services Administration, HRSA, shows that close to 20 percent of Americans live in areas with an insufficient number of primary care physicians. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, AAMC, it is expected that there will be a shortage of 45,000 primary care physicians in the US by 2020, further limiting access to care.

An immediate way to improve access to high quality health care for the uninsured is to engage the physician community to provide greater levels of charity care. Currently, there is little incentive for physicians to provide charity care outside of their normal scope of practice, and the percentage of physicians providing charity care has been in a state of steady decline. Due to reimbursement changes over the years, physicians are currently forced to maintain a certain amount of private, Medicare, and Medicaid insured patients in order to ensure their practices can remain profitable. This often leaves no opportunity to care for patients who lack insurance and who are often the most vulnerable and sick.

The Charity Care Expansion Act would create a much needed incentive for doctors to deliver uncompensated care, thereby improving and expanding access to care for the uninsured.

The bill amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and allows for physicians to have a tax deduction for the taxable year at an amount equal to the amount the physician would have otherwise been paid.

For example, if Medicare would have reimbursed at $100 for a service, the physician would be able to deduct for $100. None of the deduction amounts would be arbitrary.

To qualify for the tax deduction, the bill would require physicians to have a pre-existing relationship with a health care clinic or another organization providing health care which is targeted to serve low income individuals. Through this coordination, the patient would be placed into the healthcare system with follow ups and health care professionals to see, instead of getting lost in the system after treatment. This would also prevent the use of the tax deduction as a tool to write off bad debt.

The limitations on the deduction are 10 percent of gross income of the taxpayer for the taxable year derived from the taxpayer's provision of physicians' services. For retired physicians, no more than a $10,000 deduction would be allowed.

While I am still waiting for a cost estimate on the bill, I repeal the Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant, PHHSBG, which was included in the President's budget as a recommended cut, to provide an offset.

Mr. President, the Empower Employees Act prohibits Federal agencies from automatically deducting union dues from the pay of Federal employees. The current system provided for under title 5 of the United States Code permits taxpayer resources to be used for the collection of these dues, which in turn are often used for political purposes. This legislation takes an important step in eliminating this taxpayer subsidy to organized labor by shifting the administrative burden of funding public sector unions to labor organizations and away from the American taxpayer. Federal union employees enjoy benefits far greater than those in the private sector and the unions' power to bargain is supported by the dues they automatically collect from employees' paychecks. This bill in no way prohibits Federal workers

from joining a union or paying dues, but rather increases freedom and choice for American workers while decreasing the strong-hold that labor unions have on American politics and the Federal budget.

Mr. President, the Empower Employees Act prohibits Federal agencies from automatically deducting union dues from the pay of Federal employees. The current system provided for under title 5 of the United States Code permits taxpayer resources to be used for the collection of these dues, which in turn are often used for political purposes. This legislation takes an important step in eliminating this taxpayer subsidy to organized labor by shifting the administrative burden of funding public sector unions to labor organizations and away from the American taxpayer. Federal union employees enjoy benefits far greater than those in the private sector and the unions' power to bargain is supported by the dues they automatically collect from employees' paychecks. This bill in no way prohibits Federal workers

from joining a union or paying dues, but rather increases freedom and choice for American workers while decreasing the strong-hold that labor unions have on American politics and the Federal budget.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment today to note the passing of Robert Leon Dunlap, of North Charleston, SC. He died Thursday, April 17 at the age of 83.

Dunlap attended Midland Park Elementary School and graduated from North Charleston High School. He served in the Army during the Korean war, and was a 52-year veteran of the Charleston County Volunteer Fire and Rescue Squad. Robert was also married to Gloria Massalon Dunlap for 52 years.

Assistant Chief Dunlap helped found, and served in, the North Charleston Volunteer Rescue Association, which in 1973 was expanded to include all of Charleston County. This volunteer organization responds for accidents, fires, and land and water rescues. Dunlap was the association's treasurer more than 50 years. He earned the Order of the Palmetto for his services, and the current North Charleston headquarters is named in his honor.

While fulfilling his rescue duties, Dunlap also worked at the Charleston Naval Shipyard. During his 39-year career he earned many awards and commendations, including the Navy Meritorious Civilian Service Award.

Dunlap was a life member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 5091, and served as post commander from 1959-1960. He also volunteered with the Boy Scouts, worked with Civil Defense, and donated over five gallons of blood to the American Red Cross.

Dunlap was buried with military honors at Carolina Memorial Park. I join the hundreds of people who attended his funeral and the people of North Charleston in expressing the deepest admiration for his life and work.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Is there a sufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.

Without objection, all time is yielded back.

The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Janice Marion Schneider, of New York, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his strong leadership on that which is obvious to most of us, which is the need to move forward on the Keystone Pipeline.

I was a businessman before I arrived here in Congress and I will tell my colleagues that our goal in business was to do the right thing. As a Senator, I wish to do the right thing for all of the American people. Thanks to the strong leadership of Senator Hoeven, we have an opportunity to do just that. Yet this administration continues to ignore policies that would help hard-working, hard-hit American families.

I think back several years ago when I was growing up in a single- parent household, and I think about the very difficult choices my mom had to make between food and gas and energy consumption. What a horrible position to put any American family in. Yet every single day we delay a decision on the pipeline, we say to struggling families: Not now, not here, but maybe later. That is not the right message to send on the broader topic of this energy economy.

The fact is, if we factor in incomes under $30,000, 25 percent of that income goes toward energy consumption. What a difficult position to find a single parent in, struggling to make ends meet. Yet we have an opportunity not only to address that issue in the broader topic of the energy conversation but to specifically address the issue faced by millions and millions of Americans, and that is the issue of unemployment.

The pipeline is not an issue of politics, it is an issue of the American people. The fact is that over 42,000 jobs would be created and we would pump billions of dollars into the Nation's economy. Yet the administration simply says--after 5\1/2\ years, after several studies-- we should wait a little longer, as if we have not waited long enough, with those 42,000 American families who could be positively impacted by going back to work. How long should we wait to see this administration do the right thing?

I support this proposal. I support the legislation. I support congressional action to move this administration into a position where 61 percent of the American people already find themselves. They are already saying, Let's move forward on the pipeline. They are ready to see action on constructing the pipeline because they understand that if we can't solve this simple issue, where there is already bipartisan support, how do we address the deeper challenges in the energy economy?

I don't often find myself in the position to quote from members or even presidents of labor unions. I have to gulp when I make my next statement, because it is so rare, so foreign to me. But I will say that Terry O'Sullivan, general president of the Laborers' International Union of North America, got it right when he said, ``This is once again politics at its worst.''

Here we see an amazing collaboration between labor unions, Democratic Senators, Republican Senators, and conservative groups, all coming together, asking--even begging--the President to do the right thing. I don't know exactly what it will take to get the President to do what he said during a lunch meeting with all of the Republican Senators when he said, Do you know what we should do? By the end of 2013, we should find ourselves with a decision coming out of his office, his administration. Yet this is 2014. It reminds me a little bit of ObamaCare; they continue to move the deadlines.

We need action for the American people and we need action for the American people right now.

Let me close, Mr. President by thinking through where we are today on such a simple decision. I believe 62 Senators in this body during the budget resolution debate supported moving forward on the Keystone Pipeline; is that correct?

I believe we have had a number of votes over the last 2 years where many Senators have said, have voted, and have written letters asking for action on this pipeline. I think that is correct. Yet if we can't solve a bipartisan issue on the pipeline today, how do we start solving the broader issues regarding energy, including offshore energy production? How do we get ourselves into a position, I say to the Senator from Alaska, where we could have a conversation about offshore production? My State could see 7,500 new jobs and $2.2 billion annually added to our economy, and $87.5 million of new revenue generated for my State. But we can't solve the simple, bipartisan- supported effort of the Keystone Pipeline.

I thank Senator Hoeven for his strong leadership and I hope we will find it possible to move this legislation forward quickly, and let's get it done.

Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Thank you, Madam President.

I rise today to discuss my two amendments to the legislation we have been debating this week. I think most of us would agree we need to give folks a hand up. That makes a lot of sense. But we also need to ensure they have a solid foundation on which it stands. The best way we can help the unemployed is to help them find a job. My amendments aim to do just that. First, we will restore the 40-hour workweek which was destroyed by ObamaCare. The employer mandate currently requires employers to provide health insurance to full-time employees, and the new definition of a full-time employee is 30 hours per workweek. As a result, employers are cutting hours for many of the employees to fewer than 30 hours per week.

I have heard from several employers at home in South Carolina, representing institutions as large as Clemson University and as small as the local surf shop that are suffering the consequences of this new 30-hour definition.

A few weeks ago I was on a bus in Charleston talking with some of my constituents. I started speaking with one young man who had just moved to South Carolina from Georgia looking for new opportunities. He worked for a restaurant and had recently received notice that his hours were getting cut. After talking with this young man for a few minutes, it became very clear to me that his pay was cut and his hours were dwindling as a direct result of the 30-hour rule. Not only was he losing 25 percent of his pay, he was losing the ability to work overtime.

According to the Hoover Institution, 2.6 million Americans are especially at risk of having their hours and wages cut like the young man with whom I was speaking. Of those 2.6 million Americans, 59 percent of them are between the ages of 19 and 34, 63 percent are women, and 90 percent do not have a college degree. Further, families most at risk are those with a median income, $29,126.

Many of these millions of Americans who are earning hourly wages to support their family will see a 25-percent cut in their pay as employers struggle with the massive new costs forced on them by the Federal Government--their Federal Government. Thanks to ObamaCare, not only will these workers not have health insurance but they will no longer have full-time jobs. We must--and I want to emphasize we must-- restore the 40-hour workweek, period.

My second amendment is the same as my SKILLS Act which I introduced as a part of my opportunity agenda earlier this year. It provides much needed reforms to modernize the government's bureaucratic means of workforce development and training programs. With 4 million jobs currently unfilled across our Nation today, including 65,000 jobs in South Carolina, job skills training is critical for folks looking for work. We have to make sure people are prepared

for continued success, and that starts with education and workforce training.

Thanks to the leadership of my colleague, Mrs. Foxx in the House, the SKILLS Act has already passed with some Democratic support on the other side of the Capitol. It is well past time for that to happen in the Senate, and I hope my colleagues will join me in providing more skills and more opportunities to develop the skills to put Americans back to work.

This is truly a conversation about jobs. How do we encourage job growth and stop the government from blocking job creation? It is a simple answer. These two amendments are steps in the right direction. Let's not let politics dictate the future of these two amendments. We can do better, and we should.

Thank you, Madam President, and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so I may call up my amendment numbered 2837, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I offer amendment No. 2837 to S. 2086, the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014. My amendment seeks to clarify that the statute does not favor or promote the use of grants or contracts over the use of childcare certificates, nor does it adversely impact the use of certificates in faith-based or other settings.

What we are talking about today boils down to parental choice and State flexibility--two issues the Federal Government should be thinking a lot harder about on a constant basis.

I ask my colleagues to support my bipartisan amendment to ensure low- income working parents have a choice and that States have the flexibility they need to find the childcare that best suits their child.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, when I was growing up, my now 93-year-old granddaddy would hold the newspaper and read it while he drank his coffee. Every morning it seemed he was always focused on reading the paper. He looked like an executive, a doctor or an attorney, always making sure his grandsons saw him reading.

I learned several years later that my granddaddy couldn't read, but he was wise enough to model the behavior that he wanted his grandsons to follow. The circumstances of his life forced him out of the classroom at a very young age and into the cotton fields to help support his family. But granddaddy has now lived long enough to see a grandson elected to Congress and another grandson earn the rank of command sergeant major in the U.S. Army. Only 1 percent of NCOs reach that rank.

In a single lifetime, families can go from not having a fair chance to learn to read to seeing their kids graduate from college, as my grandfather has seen two of his grandsons graduate. That is the power of America. That is the power of opportunity.

Over the last several months, I have spent many hours talking and working with people from every walk of life, beginning when I was bagging groceries at the local Piggly Wiggly or waiting tables at the California Dreaming or 2 weeks ago when I took a ride on the public bus just to have an opportunity to sit back and talk with everyday Americans about their hopes, their dreams, and their fears or, last weekend, as I swept floors at the local Moe's restaurant. What I have heard is that people in America and throughout South Carolina are hungry for opportunity. They are working hard, but still they are struggling.

People want to work. They want to get ahead, and they still want a better life for their children and their grandchildren. So the questions for those of us in government are simple: Are we a part of the problem or are we a part of the solution? Do we make things more difficult or are we an ally in this struggle to get ahead? Are we trying the same tactics and getting the same results?

It has been said several times that insanity is doing the same things the same ways and hoping for different results. After a nearly 50-year government-led war on poverty, the poverty rates are increasing. Were this a military conflict, we would have changed our strategy decades ago, but somehow we fail to learn and continue to believe that next year it will be different. It has not been different in nearly half a century.

I propose a new way forward--a new way forward so a little girl can rise from the depths of poverty and become the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, a new way forward that will create a place where young men raised in a single-parent household and living in the inner city housing projects can become a world-renowned surgeon, a new way forward so an intelligent young lady living in rural South Carolina who ages out of the foster care program can still afford a college education. I propose a new way forward, and our opportunity agenda does just that.

We will help to turn neglected neighborhoods ravished by poverty into centers of excellence. We will see that these amazing centers of excellence will become economic engines because of the creativity of the people living in the neighborhoods. We will see economic activity in a place that we once thought not possible.

Today, too many Americans are trapped in low-paying jobs because they lack the skills to improve their incomes. These folks are not asking for a handout; they are asking for a hand up. Every day Americans are struggling, working hard, looking for a way to change their destiny.

That is why we have introduced the SKILLS Act. With nearly 4 million jobs vacant in America today, we believe the skills gap can be covered because of the SKILLS Act.

Our second bill we have filed is called the CHOICE Act, Creating Hope and Opportunity for Individuals and Communities through Education. One of the opportunities we see within the CHOICE Act is for those kids who have special needs to have the opportunity to make their education dollars portable. I believe every single American deserves the opportunity to realize their full potential, but too many of these young kids--bright kids with special needs--do not receive the education that is best for them. So the CHOICE Act provides their parents with portability so they can choose the school that best fits the needs of their kids.

The American Opportunity Agenda encourages each of us to reach our full potential. In the coming months we will introduce legislation that encourages reform of our welfare programs. We will fight to change our Tax Code so small businesses can hire more people and not simply pay higher taxes. Finally, we will work with anyone, anywhere, at any time to reduce the regulatory burdens that stand in the way and close the doors of opportunity.

Last week we submitted an amendment that restores a 40-hour workweek that was destroyed in ObamaCare. The effort to restore the 40-hour workweek has been led by my colleague, the Senator from Maine Susan Collins, who understands the devastation caused by ObamaCare, where more than 20 million Americans face the loss of up to 25 percent of their income when they move from 40 hours a week to less than 30 hours a week. I applaud my colleague and others for standing strong

and standing tall to make sure we have a serious debate about the income inequality that is caused by ObamaCare. The effort to restore the 40-hour workweek should be something we all champion, realizing its massive impact on our economy.

I have lived a family's journey from cotton to Congress. I know the sense of empowerment and optimism it provides. Once the standard is set in a family, as my grandfather set it in our family, and once the standard is set in a community or a State, the generations to come will set even higher expectations for themselves because success is created almost anywhere in America today. It happens in studio apartments, at kitchen tables; it happens in garages and classrooms throughout America, but it doesn't often happen in government conference rooms in Washington. I believe, and I have experienced, that with a good education, strong work skills, and the help of our Heavenly Father, all things are truly possible.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

To change the rules our friends on the left had to break the rules. We are here tonight because the Obama administration and our friends on the left needed a distraction by invoking the nuclear option leading up to the vote on Nina Pillard of the DC Circuit. They are attempting to quiet a disaster of their own making.

Please note that this is a court that will hear the ACA disputes. It was easy enough for them to paint a rosy picture of life after ObamaCare. For 3 years they did it, and they did their best to do so, but words could only go so far and no speech will help the failed implementation of the monster they have created.

Health care premiums for the average American family have already gone up by $2,500 since ObamaCare has become law. I wish to say that one more time. The average premium that an American family will have to face and then pay is $2,500.

As costs continue to rise for middle-class Americans, the median household income has dropped by more than $3,600 under President Obama. If we take $2,500 and add in the drop of income of $3,600, the difference for the average American household under President Obama's watch is significant. That doesn't even take into consideration the skyrocketing costs and the increasing deductibles under ObamaCare.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the average individual deductible for what is called a Bronze plan on the exchange, the lowest-priced coverage is a $5,000 average deductible. This is 42 percent higher than the average deductible today of $3,589 one would currently purchase in 2013.

Tell me how this helps those in need. How does this help the most vulnerable in our society? The answer is simple. It doesn't.

We are here because Democrats need a break from having this pointed out to them again and again as newspapers, magazines, and TV stations have been doing for the last several weeks.

In South Carolina we have about 4.7 million people and 600,000 or 700,000 folks do not have health insurance coverage. Think about that. There are 4.7 million South Carolinians, of which about 700,000 today do not have health insurance.

Under ObamaCare, we would hope that the number would go down, not up, that it would go down from 700,000 to 600,000 or 500,000 or 400,000. Over 430,000 of the 700,000 people are eligible for ObamaCare. The number is not going down. The number is going up because 150,000 South Carolinians have received cancellation notices.

Let us frame that a little bit. We have 700,000 uninsured, of which 430,000 are eligible for ObamaCare. Instead of seeing the number of uninsured go from 700,000 down to 600,000 or 500,000 or 400,000, we have seen the number go up because 150,000 people have received cancellation notices--150,000 South Carolinians have received cancellation notices.

Someone would obviously ask the question: How many folks have signed up for ObamaCare in South Carolina?

If 430,000 South Carolinians are eligible to sign up, we ought to answer the question of how many have signed up.

As of late November, only 600 South Carolinians have successfully signed up for ObamaCare. This means that under the implementation process of what some consider the solution to America's woes on health insurance, only 600 South Carolinians have been able to successfully sign up for ObamaCare, even though 430,000 are eligible and 700,00 do not have insurance. Only 600 of them have been able to sign up for ObamaCare.

When we think about those numbers, it reminds me of the challenges we face with going through the process of seeing the DC Circuit Court stacked to hear the disputes.

Part of the challenge we see is that ObamaCare hasn't worked, so stacking the court seems that it is the most likely option for our friends on the left.

When we started out having these conversations about ObamaCare, we started a conversation about those who are uninsured. I think every American in our country wants to see greater access to health insurance.

The vast majority of Americans do not want to see the government take it over, and now we understand why. In 2009--not 1999, but 2009--we had estimated for the unaffordable care act around $900 billion. In 2011 they came back and said: Wait, wait, I need to take another look at this.

The estimate came back at $1.8 trillion. In 2009, it was $900 billion and in 2011 the number had already increased to $1.8 trillion or a 100- percent increase in the estimated cost of the Affordable Care Act.

Only 2 more years later we could see that the number could perhaps eclipse $3 trillion. All we are talking about is the up-front pricetag, the price of ObamaCare on the front. We haven't delved into the actual cost of ObamaCare because those estimates say that on the back end of the Affordable Care Act we are going to see a $7 trillion increase or addition to our debt.

We started in 2009 with $900 billion; in 2011, $1.8 trillion; in 2013, perhaps over $3 trillion, adding $7 trillion to the deficit. That is not the whole picture.

Families in South Carolina still have to struggle with finding access to affordable health care, and ObamaCare is not simply providing the access. We see families such as the Hucks, the everyday American family. Mr. Hucks loves his family. He is in Greenville, SC. He loves his family. He spends 12 to 14 hours a day working as a financial adviser in South Carolina.

Mr. Hucks, unfortunately, faces the challenge of buying health insurance through ObamaCare. As he went through the process of trying to figure out what would happen--certainly he liked his coverage, but, of course, he can't keep it, period. He can't keep it. He cannot keep his coverage.

As I was talking to Jason Hucks in Greenville 2 weeks ago, Jason currently has a Blue Cross Blue Shield high-deductible plan. Remember the word ``deductible'' because we will come back and have a conversation about deductibles. He has a high-deductible plan that covers him, his wife, and their two cute little boys.

Instead of having a conversation between Mr. and Mrs. Hucks about planning for the college education of those two fine young men, they are having instead a conversation about whether they can afford the health care coverage.

What has happened? Let us take a look. Their current plan was a $10,000 deductible that cost them over $415 a month.

To stay on the Blue Cross Blue Shield plan under ObamaCare, Mr. Hucks and his family would have to pay nearly $1,000 a month--$895--almost $1,000 a month, more than doubling the premium. They will see their deductible increase by 150 percent.

A deductible that was $10,000 is pretty high, significantly high. It will go to $25,000 for this young family of four. That doesn't seem right to me; it doesn't seem fair.

We believe in fairness. For those who are most vulnerable, having access to $25,000 before their health insurance company is able to start paying is quite a high price to pay. Digging into your savings account for $25,000--because ObamaCare takes their $10,000 deductible, and not the $15,000, not the $20,000, but the $25,000--is simply not fair. This is not how we treat the most vulnerable in our society, by seeing their deductible go up by 150 percent. I simply don't understand. It is just wrong. It is not right.

Even if they were willing to switch companies, he would still see his rates rise almost 75 percent and his deductible would still rise from $10,000 to $12,000. No wonder they are trying to stack the DC courts. We see here a young family not planning for a 529 plan, not planning to send their kids to Clinton University or the University of South Carolina, but instead they are planning on tightening their belts because they have to have a budget that plans for not a $10,000 deductible but a $12,000 deductible, with a 20-percent increase in the deductible and a 75-percent increase in the cost. This is the effect of the Affordable Care Act. It becomes unaffordable for the average American family.

As for a plan with copays, Mr. Hucks says flatly that he can't afford to have a conversation about copays because a plan with a copay would skyrocket his premiums from $415 or so to as high as $1,200 or $1,500 a month. So instead of being able to go see a doctor and have a conversation and pay a 20-percent copay, instead of having the opportunity to do what many of us have been doing for the last decade- plus--pay a $15 or $20 or $25 or $30 copay when you go see your doctor--he has to first satisfy a deductible of not $15,000 but now a $25,000 deductible. This is higher than $15,000. This is wrong. It is not right.

Mr. Hucks' family is an example of how it is not just premiums that are

rising but deductibles are going through the roof. This is painful for a family who should be planning for college but instead is planning to spend more money on their health care because the Affordable Care Act is so unaffordable.

The New York Times recently quoted someone faced with this problem as saying the deductibles were so high--$4,000 to $6,000 a year--that it very much defeats the purpose of having insurance. I wonder why we say that. Well, think about it for a minute or two. Think about a family who has a $4,000 deductible. What does that mean to the average family, where Americans are spending over 100 percent of their income? What that means to the average family is they have to figure out how to pay $4,000 for visiting their doctors, getting their x rays, and having everything done at the doctor's office, getting their blood work done, before they can satisfy that $4,000 deductible and their health insurance plan starts paying. Under ObamaCare, one would think that number would go down, but it doesn't. It goes up. As a matter of fact, it goes up quickly in the first year of ObamaCare. It goes from an average out-of-pocket expense of $63.50 to over $12,000--not $4,000, not $5,000, not $6,000 but over $12,000 in out-of-pocket expenses.

So I am looking forward to the day we have a serious conversation about a free market solution that would reduce the cost of health insurance and at the exact same time create greater access for the average person in America to afford a free market health insurance policy. That is where we need to go. That is where the conversation should be. Instead of having that conversation, we are having a conversation about deductibles jumping $5,000, out-of-pocket expenses going up significantly. And I should have said that when you combine the out-of-pocket expenses and the deductibles, the out-of-pocket total for a year is the $12,000. The average deductible is a little over $5,000.

We are talking about a significant taking from the average American family--taking their money out of their pockets in the form of deductibles, taking money out of their pockets in the form of copays. And God forbid they actually go outside of the network. In many of these plans, we are talking about zero coverage out of network for ambulatory care. A family would bear 100 percent of the cost. So don't travel to the wrong place with the wrong plan at the wrong time. You will find yourself stuck without benefits because, unfortunately, the ACA isn't affordable for most Americans. I find that sad.

We think we are having a conversation about nominees here today, and we think we are having a conversation about nominees because President Obama has somehow, some way been treated differently than President Bush and other folks. But the facts are simply inconsistent with the reality of the alternate universe that has been created by the left.