have a tremendous amount of respect for a man who served here for many, many years with great distinction, admired by everybody. i got to know him a little bit. he had not passed when i came to the senate, a gentleman by the name of bob byrd. probably the finest historian of the united states senate, maybe ever. he would come to the floor and talk about the beautiful history of the senate and this institution and the sacred rights of every individual senator to come here to the floor and argue and make their point, offer an amendment. under our rules, the amendment doesn't even have to be germane. we get a vote on that. and, you know, this beautiful institution worked for over 200

years under this rule, under that philosophy. unbelievable. it worked through wars, it worked through the 1918 flu pandemic. it worked through a tax on our nation, 9/11 and pearl harbor. somehow, some way, great men and women came into this chamber and figured out a way to make this body work. until two weeks ago when by sheer political force, the majority pulled out a pandora's box, the nuclear option. now, i would ask, madam president, for my

colleague from nebraska to offer her thoughts on this, and as a new member, i look forward to watching you as the senior senator from nebraska. i'm not running again. what impact is this going to have? how do you implement the desires and wishes and dreams of nebraskans who elected you and sent you here under circumstances like this? and do you worry that what's going to happen is it won't just stop here, it will be supreme court appointments at some point, it will be legislative activity? i'd love to hear those thoughts. mrs. fischer: madam president, in -- in watching the united states senate before i arrived here and in studying the united states senate throughout history, the beauty of this body

has been the individual rights of every single senator. and with the change we've seen, i believe those rights now are diminished. which translates into the people who live in states that are represented by the minority will not be heard in this body. i have been surprised. i have been shocked. and i have been hurt by comments from the majority where i am referred to as an obstruction obstructionist. where my colleagues on this side of the aisle are referred to as

extremists, anarchists. i -- i don't really even know how to respond to that, senator johanns. because nothing could be further from the truth. how i view this body is one that should have an agenda. we should be having members on the floor, participating in debates on bills, following an agenda and taking votes. but we don't see that. instead, we see the two of us here and our friend and colleague, senator in the chair,

speaking to an empty chamber, speaking to tv cameras. that's not the way this place is supposed to operate. we're supposed to be doing the people's work. i don't know, senator johanns, what we're obstructing, because as a member of the armed services committee, we passed the national defense authorization act out of committee in may. we passed that out of committee in may. we could have wayne it up in june. we could have taken it up in july, september, october. and instead, we seem to be in this crisis management mode in one of the greatest bodies in the world.

that makes no sense. i'm ready to do the work, but until these bills appear on the agenda, how do we do the work? why do we wait until we have a few days left in the year to take on what i believe is our most sacred responsibility? the defense of this country, our national security, our military men and women, our veterans. the committee passed out a great bill in a bipartisan vote, and it's passed here in the senate for the last 50 or 51 years, but yet we are up against a term limit now that was manufactured. as i said, the bill came out in

may. why -- why wasn't it on the agenda? why can't we have amendments to it? very important amendments. i happen to have a good amendment, with senator claire mccaskill, democrat from missouri, and senator kelly ayotte, a republican from new hampshire, that we believe makes the provisions in our committee bill dealing with sexual assault even better, even stronger, that will protect victims. and we are not allowed to have that amendment. again, that's just -- that's just a foreign concept to me. as a senator, not being allowed to have an amendment on a bill that should have been brought up on the floor months ago, months ago. so we could have had a debate on this truly number-one priority

of our country, and instead we have crisis management. now, i don't know about you, senator johanns, but i don't respond well to crisis management. i like to have time to make wise decisions, to make measured decisions, to gather information, to represent our constituents, to represent the american people. the american people demand more. they demand us to be better. i can't even imagine what folks think when they know we're here speaking to an empty chamber. when we should be talking about the big issues of the day. when we should be talking about the national defense authorization act, when we should be talking about sexual assault in the military, when we should be talking about how are

we going to make sure that our military men and women have the resources that they need to keep them safe so that they can return to their families and so that they can return to their families whole. we should be talking about iran. we should be talking about benghazi. but we're not. because we are not allowed to have that legislation before us. so as a new senator here in the united states senate, i can tell you i am very frustrateed and i know -- frustrated, and i know when you are back in the state, you hear as i do that the people of nebraska are frustrated as

well. and i believe that they reflect the views of the people of this country. they expect more from us. they expect us to be better. they expect us to do our jobs. how can you do your job when you're not allowed to vote on legislation that addresses the truly pressing issues of our day? so i say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle yes, i'm frustrateed, i'm upset, i'm angry, that i am not able to represent the people of my state by taking a vote, by taking a vote on amendments that all of you feel are important as well. it's not just republicans

offering amendments that don't get heard. it's democrats as well. i would imagine you are so very frustrated. this has got to change. this has to change. i don't know how long it's been going on, but we can change this. we can change this by having an agenda that works, an agenda that brings bills up. by a leader who is going to have an open amendment process. so instead of -- instead of us coming down here and addressing a camera, we are able to debate each other and have our voices heard, have our voices heard because we're representing those voices back home. and they expect that.

we need to do this. maybe i'm naive, senator johanns, but i think -- i think we can do it. i think we can still come together and be able to work together. you know, sometimes you hear -- you hear the terms obstructionist, extremist, anarchists. you know, enough of that. it's not just republicans who are demanding their rights and who are exercising their rights. i know that we have democrat colleagues who have put holds on nominations. they're not obstructionists. they're not extremists. they're exercising their rights as members of the united states senate. they're exercising their rights to have questions tbr their

constituents answered. and i will defend their rights to put holds on nominations until they get those questions answered. we don't always hear about that, though. we don't hear that it's all of us in here who have that duty to make sure that we -- that we can have our constituents' concerns answered, so we can have a project back in our state that's being held up for one reason or another addressed. so we can bring forward a question from our governor in our state or our state legislature that an agency has not addressed in a timely manner where we as united states

senators can push a little harder to get an answer from a nominee or an agency. that's checks and balances. that's a balanced government. that's transparency. that's accountability. it's not allowing the executive branch to get everything they want. none of us get everything we want. senator johanns, you made the comment, you know, as governor, it's give and take. as a state senator, i can tell you i had to compromise on bills that i thought were great the way i had them drafted. but it's -- but you need to compromise with your colleagues, with the governor, with the president, in order to truly represent all the people in this country, because, senator

johanns, i'm sorry to say this country is polarized. this country's polarized, the united states senate is polarized, and if we can show some leadership in here, if we're going to be able to take on these hard issues, to make tough decisions, to make hard choices, then we're going to be able to be good examples to our country. we're going to have a brighter future. we're going to show some leadership that we are elected to make those hard choices for the american people so that we can go forward. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor so that my colleague has time to address issues before us. thank you. mr. johanns: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: thank you, mr. president. i thank my colleague for being with me for this colloquy. i appreciate it so much. the legislative experience that senator fischer brings to this body is very, very extensive. she was regarded as a leader in the nebraska unicameral and chaired an extremely important committee, and she would be too modest to point this out, but at a time when our road system needed funding, she figured out a way not only to identify funding not by raising taxes but by better efficiency and better management. and it was a significant amount of funding, and then build the coalitions necessary to actually get that passed and back home today that's getting rave reviews. i thank you for that because i drive on those roads. i know you do too. mr. president, my colleague mentioned the defense bill.

nothing could be a better example of what we're dealing with here. this bill came out of the armed services committee, which has a reputation for being one of the most bipartisan committees in the whole senate system. it's not about republicans and democrats on that committee for a whole host of reasons. one is there's just great leadership on that committee. and there's been great leadership in the past. but the focus is on the national defense of our united states and our allies. # now for 50-some years we've passed a defense appropriations bill. it's one of the things even when nothing else could get done, we got that done. and the hallmark of it is, it's a very open process. a bill comes out of committee --

this one came out in may -- and the amendment process starts, and we might go days working our way through that bill. and it's very normal. it is very much a part of the process, and at the end of it typically that bill is passed with very strong bipartisan support. what happened that you would get a bill in may that has bipartisan support in the committee, comes out of the committee, is ready for floor action that you couldn't get to that bill except right before the holidays? to me, mr. president, that's like sending a message, we all know who controls the floor. democrats control the floor. they're in the majority. the majority leader through the election by democrats controls the floor. and it feels to me like what we

are saying to our united states military is you're not important enough that we would give you two or three weeks in june or july, september, october to work through this huge package of spending. in fact, we're going to relegate you to the last hours before the christmas break. and then the majority leader is going to say -- and you folks in the minority, by the way, i'll pick your amendments. i think some of these amendments are pretty tough amendments for my people to vote on, so i'll pick the amendments. so what happened to the right of every individual senator to come to the floor of the united states senate and offer their idea on a piece of legislation? or for that matter, any other important issue facing our united states.

and it's like sending a message to the military from the democrat majority that, look, you're important enough to get a few hours before we break, and we all go back and we all enjoy a big ham dinner for christmas, and we open our presents while you're off fighting in afghanistan or wherever you've been ordered to serve. and i don't think that's right. there isn't any reason why this bill can't get done. it's been done for 50-some years. what's tough about that? there isn't any reason he why this bill can't get called up in the summer. there isn't any reason why we can't deal with this bill in june. it came out in may. there isn't any reason why we can't use these months leading up to now, the end of the year, to pass this bill. there are few guarantees in the

united states senate these days, but one guarantee i can make is if you allow this defense appropriations bill to go through the regular process, allow senators to offer their amendments, come to the floor, debate their amendments, pass those amendments or not pass those amendments, at the end of the day that bill will pass. instead what happened is the bill is put on the floor right before the holiday break. the majority leader says i'll decide whose amendments are going to get heard. i'll be the one picking the amendments. and we've got to get this done. and if you don't agree with the way i want to do things around here, then you're an obstructionist. you're an anarchist. well, wait a second, i should have a say about that bill. it spends billions and billions of dollars. i should be able to go home to

nebraskans and say i gave my best effort with an amendment that i supported or sponsored or whatever. and at the end of the day i won or i lost. after all, that's what they elected me to do. so, mr. president, it's not just what happened with the nuclear option. it's the way this united states senate is being operated by those who are in the majority, democrats. never in the history of this institution has a leader filled the amendment tree, which is a fancy washington way of saying i'm taking away the amendments from the minority, more times far and away than any other majority leader. and when you do that, when you take away the right to amend,

you silence the minority. because we don't control what comes to the floor. we're not in the majority. we don't control when a bill is going to be heard. we're not in the majority. so the only thing we can do as a minority is offer an amendment and plead our case. now, senator fischer mentioned a perfect example of the point i'm trying to make here. she says that she and others, bipartisan, have an amendment on sexual assaults, which we know is a very serious problem. now some might find it surprising, but i want her amendment to go further. i don't think it goes far enough. i don't think she would mind me saying that. i signed on to senator gillibrand's amendment. i was one of the early ones to

sign on. it's a bipartisan amendment. it's got over 50 cosponsors. that's the amendment i want. i think this is an important issue. i see these young men and women come to my office. they are proud as proud can be. they've just signed up, or they want to go to the military academy. and it breaks my heart to think that they may be subjected to sexual assault in the military. i believe we can't be tough enough. i believe we can't work hard enough to create an atmosphere that is so inhospitable to the sexual offender that they would never think of being in the military. i want to go as far as we can go, and i want to argue that point. and i believe there will be nebraskans that would agree with

me or disagree with me. why shouldn't we -- the presiding officer: all postcloture time has expired. mr. johanns: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the nomination. mr. johanns: i ask for the jayce and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senators in the chamber wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 70 and the nays are 29. the nomination is confirmed. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of landya b. mccafferty of new hampshire to be united states district judge for the district of new hampshire, signed by 19 senators. the presiding officer: pursuant to rule 22, the chair now directs the clerk to call the roll to ascertain the presence of a quorum.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: a quorum is present. the question is -- a quorum is present. the question is is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of landya b. mccafferty of new hampshire to be united states district judge for the district of new hampshire shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: 58 -- on this vote the yeas are 58 and the nays are 40, and one senator present. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary. landya b. mccafferty of new hampshire to be united states district judge for the district of new hampshire. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: on behalf of the majority, i yield back 57 1/2 minutes. the presiding officer: pursuant to the provisions of senate resolution 15 of the

113th congress, there will now be up to two hours of postcloture consideration of the nomination equally divided in the usual form. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: as if in legislative, i ask unanimous consent that if the senate receives h.r. 3548 from the house of representatives the bill is identical as introduced, the bill will be considered as having been read three times pafpbd the motion to reconsider be -- and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the senator from new york. mr. schumer: mr. president, thank you. i want to thank my colleagues in the christmas spirit, despite these contentions times, for letting this bill move forward. let me just briefly explain. on christmas eve 2012, one year ago today, the 125 member west

webster volume tire fire association, a volunteer fire department outside rochester faced an unimaginable tragedy which he four -- when four of their members were wounded, two fatally when they responded to a fire but faced an ambush. while many families across our nation were waking up to christmas eve morning to finish preparing christmas dinner, shopping, wrapping presents or picking up family from the airport, four families in webster, new york, were confronting a heart wrenching tragedy. the call of a house on fire came into the west webster police department at 5:30 a.m. that morning, december 24, a cold snowy morning, still dark. but the everyday heroes from the west webster fire department courageously did what they volunteered to do on behalf of their neighbors and on behalf of their home towns. they left their homes and families to put out a fire. instead this routine call turned into a tragedy which shocked this community and people

throughout the country and even the world. what they didn't know was that the fire was intentionally set by the home's owner in order to lure these innocent firefighters into a senseless sniper ambush. the sniper was hiding behind a berm amid the chaos of the fire and began shooting at the responding firefighters. the firefighters were confuse at first hearing popping sounds. they thought it my be the fire. but lieutenant mike chipperini knew better and shouted to his fellow volunteer firefighters to take cover. but it was too late. firefighter hoffstatt err was shot in thter was shotin the sh. ted sardino was shot in the shoulder and five minutes later was shot in the leg. the 16-year volunteer lay there bleeding for an hour, enduring december cold while sustaining second-degree burns on his head. lieutenant chipperrini and

firefighter kachuka -- i'd ask unanimous consent that i be given an additional three minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you. lieutenant chipperrini and firefighter pachuka both died in the ambush. as news of this horrific, senseless christmas tragedy spread, well-meaning people from rochester, the finger lakes area, new york state, the nation and the world reached out to west webster volunteer fireman's association to offer their support and prayers, not realizing that collecting and distributing the funds to the families would jeopardize the association's tax-exempt status with the i.r.s., the association accepted donations from generous people all around the nation wanting to help the four families who suffered so on that day. they collected these donations for the victims and their families. they want give these donations to the victims and their families. it defies reason that they be unable to do so because of a technicality in the tax code. and just as we did after 9/11

and again after a similar fire -- tragedy -- department tragedy in california, it's our obligation to make sure the west webster volunteer firemen association can now distribute to these families the contributions their neighbors and unknown countless generous others wanted them to have with the passage of this -- with the passage of this motion, that will happen. i want to thank my colleagues, particularly on the other side of the aisle. i know these are contentious times, and this was done in truly in the christmas spirit and i thank them. and one brief -- we just nominated to the supreme court, we just confirmed the first woman to serve on the federal bench in the western district of new york, elizabeth wolford. she's going to be a great judge. miss wolford is right out of central casting for the role of a federal judge. not only will the legal

community of western new york be well served by her ascension on the bench, the entire community will benefit from her leadership, wisdom and judgment. it's an honor to have nominated the now-confirmed elizabeth wolford, first woman to represent the western district of new york on a very distinguished bench. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: mr. president, i want to talk a little bit about where we are right now. i mean, we're moving toward confirming a number of individuals with the majority deciding that the majority can do that by themselves. apparently they had the right to change the rules which i guess means there really are no rules if the majority can change the rules any day they want to. but, you know, what we're seeing now with the health care implementation is what happens, frankly, when one side decides i don't want to make any effort

necessary to get even one other person from the other side to agree with me on moving forward with something as big as the health care legislation. that should have been an example to us but apparently the example was the example that, hey, the majority can do whatever the majority wants to do. let me just share for a few minutes some of the things i'm hearing in our office from people who are contacting us to tell us the problems they're having that they didn't anticipate. this is a letter from pam from chesterfield, missouri. she says, "my husband and i have always played by the rules and carried insurance. i had no idea that we were going to have to change plans and go to the exchange but our provider apparently doesn't want to have individual plans any longer because it's too costly to figure out the complexities that would apply to individual plans oil. and then pam says, "at least for now, my husband and i are not getting health insurance and i guess we have to hope for the

best. what a mess," she says. "so much for playing by the rules. i never expected the two of us to be uninsured" but now she thinks that's what's likely to happen. jennifer, a college student from st. louis, said that she initially supported the affordable care act. she works part time at a home goods store where she had what she thought were great health benefits, at least the health benefits she wanted, and where she could work as many hours as she wanted. but she says because of the health care plan, her employers reduced the maximum number of hours she could work to 24 hours. so sh she said, "my name is jennifer. i'm a hardworking student from st. louis, missouri, and i have -- and i'd like to share my emerging problems. at first i was supportive of the idea of the patient protection and affordable health care act. insurance for everyone," jennifer says, "that sounds so appealing. but now that it's affected my life in a negative way, i'm not so sure i can be supportive

anymore. i have worked at my employer for almost three years while going to school. it's been an excellent place to work until now, and now not only do i not have the health care benefits that i had before but i'm not able to work as much as i was able to work before." carla and her husband, farmers from oreck, missouri. they farm full time. neither of them is employed off the farm. they have two sons, one just graduated from college who just went to work, another is a junior in college. they have one full-time employee on the farm. her family provides their own insurance. in order for them to have insurance, they've had a health savings account through humana. their deductible's been $10,000. they've still paid almost a little over $500 a month, $6,057 a year, for their family insurance. but she tells me beginning january 1, 2014, their

deductible goes to $12,600, their premium goes to $11,422, an 89% increase in a family that provides their own insurance. and, by the way, they provide insurance with dollars that they earn, that they pay taxes on. so you can add another premium to that and find out how this family that had done all they could to have insurance for their family, now has a -- an 89% insurance and a deductible that they hope they never use but if they do, it's a big problem if they use that deductible. the deductible was -- what was it going to be? over $12,000 a year. if you're a family and you're paying $11,000 for your premiums and then if you have health care needs, you pay another $12,000 before your insurance helps you, that's $23,000 a year before

your insurance benefits you in any way for a family that had insurance coverage that until right now they thought was working for them and doing all they could to have it. katherine from springfield, missouri, says tha that a few ws ago she was informed she was going to lose her health coverage because of the president's health care plan. she's been concerned that she might not be able to sign up because the web site wasn't working. whether the insurance costs more or not wasn't as big a concern to her as having insurance. but she says this in her letter to me. she says, "the nightmare that is obamacare is going to affect us in a major way and the stress of what is coming is affecting ma many, many people. not only are we losing health insurance plans we liked, possibly the doctors we trust, but the new coverage is not as good and it costs us more. this is a" to paraphrase the vice president, "a big deal," she says.

ken, here's his letter to me. "dear senator blunt: i'm writing to inform you with my recent experience with health insurance and the a.c.a. my wife and i make a decent income but are far from wealthy. on september the 30th, i received a notice that due to the a.c.a., my employer-sponsored health insurance plan would no longer be available. yesterday, after worrying about this since september 30th, apparently, yesterday," he continues in his letter, "i discovered that my employer was able to renegotiate an early renewal and our monthly premium will only increase by 12.5%. however --" by the way, 12.5%, pretty good increase by any books except the ones that compare what's happening right now. "however," he ton continues to , "i've been made aware that next year my plan premiums will increase by a minimum of 39%." so it increased 12.35% this year. they've already notified this family that their increase will be a minimum of 39% next year.

"and my deductible," according to him, "will double. so i guess," reading his letter further, "so i guess i'll not be able to keep my insurance and my costs will not decrease, as the president said they would." carol from republic, missouri, says her monthly premiums have gone from $600 to $800 a month and the part-time jobs that each -- that she and her husband both had at the local community college have actually gone down because they're not able to teach as much as they were able to teach before because the community college has decided they can't let any of their part-time faculty work more than 30 hours. so their income went down, their expenses went up. both cases because of the president's decisions on health care and the legislative decisions on health care. both cases because we know this

has had impact at the workplace. part-time workers, people holding their work force down so they wouldn't be covered, holding their worker hours down so they wouldn't have to pay the penalty if they didn't offer insurance or offer the insurance for the first time at levels they hadn't had before. now we're also seeing not only did the hours of work go down but the cost of health insurance goes up. surely we can come up with a better plan than that, mr. president. christian from st. peter's, missouri, just learned that his wife's employer will start excluding him from their family coverage and that he now has to receive insurance in some different way. looks like he's going to be able to do that with his employer for $1,300 more per year. that's -- this is actually the best story i've told so far. only $1,300 that this family used to have to spend for something else. they're now spending for health

care. but he says this. he said, "i'm not sure who obamacare benefits but it sure isn't my family." that's just an example of some of the things, mr. president, we're hearing. last weekend i -- i noticed that one of the architects of the president's health care bill, dr. zeke emanuel, said on fox news to chris wallace, he said, "well what the president really should have said" -- this is his exact quote, "if you want to pay more for your insurance company that covers your doctor, you can do that." well, i don't know what dr. emanuel's looking at and you may be able to find your doctor for more money. but in our state, there's some of the health care providers that aren't on the exchange. in new hampshire, i read the other day more than half of the hospitals in new hampshire aren't on the exchange. so if your doctor happened to work for more than half of the hospitals in new hampshire, there is no amount of money you can pay on the exchange and keep your doctor because your doctor's no longer available through the way that you're told

by the health care act that you can get insurance as an individual. the president's promise that my plan, he said, "begins by covering every american. if you already like your health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this part is the amount of money you will spend on premiums and that will be less." i think we're going to quickly see not only are people losing insurance, but for most people, the premiums are not going to be less and the deductibles are going to be higher, not lower. this is going to be a story that is going to affect american families like nothing the federal government has done in a long time, maybe nothing the federal government's done ever. if you really want to impact the lives of families, impact their health care. somebody told me one time that when everybody in your family is well, you've got lots of problems. when somebody in your family is sick, you've got one problem.

we are dealing here with the one focusing problem for american families -- their access to health care that they can afford with decisions they like. and i would yield back. the presiding officer: pursuant to the order of february 29, 1960, the hour of 12:00 noon having arrived, the senate having been in continuous session since yesterday, the senate will suspend for a prayer by the senate chaplain, chaplain black. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, who gives us so much more than we deserve, when the days are dreary and the long nights weary, we are still

indebted to you for your generous mercies. may your blessings provide our lawmakers with the willingness to see and do your will. living by the principles of your sacred revelation, may they do nothing to cause them shame. give them respect for diverse viewpoints. open their hearts to your love, their minds to your truth and their wills to your service. we pray in your gracious name. amen.

the presiding officer: the nor from north dakota. mr. hoeven: thank you, mr. president. i rise to really continue the discourse that my esteemed colleague, the senator from missouri, was engaged in here on the senate floor just a minute ago, talking about the importance -- the importance of bipartisanship as we work to craft policy for this country, policy that all americans can support and policy that truly moves our country forward, so whether we're considering nominations or whether we're considering legislation, we need to find ways to come together and come up with solutions that the american people support across the board, in a bipartisan way. and so as we consider these nominations, we have to consider

the fact that now the senate will be approving these nominations with essentially one-party vote, 51 votes. right now, the democrat party has the majority in the senate so that they can put judges on the bench, make other -- confirm other nominations without any republican support whatsoever. and of course under that approach, at some point the reverse may very well be true, that nominees may be confirmed whether it's judicial nominees or other types of appointments with only republican votes if the republicans are in the majority without any democrat votes. why does that matter? well, why it matters is because, again, i go back to my earlier statement that in crafting policies, crafting laws and making appointments, nominations to the bench, we need to do it in a way where we garner broad

support across the country. more than 300 million people's lives are affected dramatically by all of these things, by who those appointments are, the offices they hold, what they do, by who those judicial nominees are, by what they do. the laws we pass. so if we're going to impact everybody in the nation with these laws, with these appointments, we have got to make sure that there is input consideration by, if you will, from both sides of the aisle. that's how we get to the kinds of policies and we get the kinds of nominees and we get the kinds of judges and justices that truly will have the support of people across this great country, and i believe that's what we need to truly build the kind of future that we want for ourselves and for our posterity. as we talked about nominees, we

consider also implementation of the affordable care act. there is a huge topic of discussion in our country right now and it is going to continue to be a huge topic of discussion. you're talking about 1/5 to 1/6 of our economy engaged in health care, so this is something that touches every single american in their daily lives in a big, big way. and so it's so important that we get it right. as was the case with my esteemed colleague from the state of missouri. he was presenting anecdotes, presenting stories, real stories, real-life stories of people who are impacted by the affordable care act, and how they're impacted. it's very important we do that because we need to know how people's lives are affected by

the affordable care act and what we can do to make sure that they are -- that they have the best health care possible. and so by way, i think, of hopefully building bipartisan support to get the kind of health care reform we truly need, i'm going to present some of these real-life cases just as my colleague from missouri just did, and i'm going to start with one that talks about the marriage penalty created by obamacare, the affordable care act. and this is from someone in grand forks, north dakota, who writes in about the marriage penalty created by the affordable care act. this citizen rights, my husband and i met with a primary health insurance carrier in north dakota, and we're told that our current coverage under the guidelines of the affordable care act will cost us at least another $400 more a month, and

our deductible will increase from $2,000 to $12,000, and because we're married, we cannot choose individual plans, which would be a lower deductible. in essence, we're being penalized, being punished for being married. we are looking at paying more than $1,500 per month in health care because we're only 61 years old and not eligible for medicare for another four years. that's $18,000 a year for health care. we were told that part of the problem is the provisions -- is the provisions in the law require us to choose a plan that has maternity benefits. how does this make sense for seniors to be forced to buy coverage that does not apply to them? we agree that benefits shouldn't be denied to people, but it is not fair to be forced to buy coverage that does not apply. let's delve a little deeper into

exactly what this individual is writing about. what is this -- the marriage penalty that is, in fact, created by obamacare? let's talk about that. the obamacare tax subsidies actually create a marriage penalty. they create a disincentive for individuals who are cohabiting to become legally married. from the standpoint of marriage, the subsidies represent a hidden tax on marriage whereby married couples purchasing their coverage on the exchanges will be subsidizing similarly situated but cohabiting single adults who earn the same or more income, or more income. in 2011, the house oversight and reform committee held a hearing on the topic of obamacare's penalty against marriage, but since then little has been devoted to this topic in the

house or the senate. so how does it work? how does it work? well, it works through the requirement of household income when calculating the obamacare tax subsidy. for those persons not eligible for medicare earning up to 400% of the federal poverty level, the law entitles them to a tax subsidy in the reform of a refundable credit so long as they purchased their coverage on the obamacare exchanges. to calculate income, however, the law requires the reporting of household income rather than individual income. household income includes the income at any family residing in the household such as a spouse but not that of a cohabiting, unmarried partner. so when a person shops on the exchange web site for a plan, he or she must first provide the financial information and identity of all family members in the household, even if none

of those persons intend to purchase their insurance on the exchange, because that information is required to calculate subsidy eligibility. subsidy eligibility is then calculated using a complicated formula involving household income in relation to the poverty line, family size and the price of plans offered through a state's marketplace. the value of the subsidy awarded to an eligible person adjusted on a sliding scale in proportion to household income up to 400%, up to 400% of the poverty -- federal poverty level. above 400% of the federal poverty level, no tax credit, right? the marriage penalty results when a spouse's income causes an otherwise eligible individual to no longer be eligible for the subsidy and could cost the married couple and their

household in excess of $10,000 a year in lost subsidies versus two individuals who are cohabiting but not married. so let's go through an example. according to the kaiser family foundation, help to the kaiser family foundation's health reform subsidy calculator, a 62-year-old individual in a high cost area who earns $46,000 a year, which is equivalent to 400% of the federal poverty level, would be entitled to $7,836 in a government tax credit. $7,836 in a government tax credit. however, if the same individual earns an additional $22 or $46,000, $22 a year, just over $46,000 a year, which is 100% of the federal poverty level, they lose the entire credit, they

lose the entire $7,836 credit. similarly, any married couple that earns more than $62,000, 400% of the federal poverty level for a family of two, earns too much to qualify for a subsidy, but that same couple, if unmarried and cohabiting, could earn up to 45,960 each or $91,000, 91,920 total, and they are still eligible for subsidies in a high-cost area like new york state, for example. so the limit for a married couple is just over $62,000, okay? so for a married couple, you can earn up to $62,040, okay, before you lose the credit, but it's almost $30,000 higher for two people living together who

aren't married. they can earn $91,920. for an unmarried cohabitating couple. so if you have two people living together, they each get the individual exemption, which is more than $45,000, so they can earn $91,000-plus together, they still get the married, but for a married couple, just over $60,000, $62,000 is the limit. so you can earn $30,000 more if you're living together and still get the credit than you can if you're married. that's the marriage penalty. so why would we design a health care program that discourages or penalizes marriage? further, according to the congressional budget office, the tax subsidies are projected to be the biggest deficit-increasing component of obamacare, and c.b.o. estimates

that they will add $100 billion to the deficit by 2018 and grow even more thereafter. by 2019, c.b.o. estimates that about 19 million people will be receiving the subsidies to purchase their insurance through the exchange. like i say, i was -- i became aware of this problem when i was contacted by a north dakota couple. i read that -- that short vignette, and we looked into it and it's, in fact, true. and this is just -- this is just one of the many problems created by obamacare or the affordable care act, which is why republicans have said look, we need to replace this with a comprehensive, step-by-step, market-based approach that truly is focused on competition and choice, that empowers

individuals, empowers people across this great nation to choose their own health care insurance and their own health care plan. and we could absolutely do that, and that's why i'm here on the floor, others are here on the floor, continuing to talk about americans in their everyday lives and the challenges that they face because of obamacare. and i've got more of these stories from north dakotans, people in my state who are facing real challenges because of obamacare. and because so often you hear wait a minute, if you don't like the affordable care act, what's your solution? we continue to put solutions forward, solutions like expanded health savings accounts which combined with high deductible policies create tremendous incentive for young people to purchase health care. like more competition across state lines that could help give citizens more choice and reduce

costs. things like tort reform that can help bring down costs, reforming medicare to create the right incentives, giving states more control over medicaid. and the list goes on. and waoepl -- we will continue to advocate for real solutions that empower americans to create their own health care insurance and their own health care provider. let me read some more reports from north dakotans who talk about the challenges that they're facing because of the obamacare, the affordable care act. this one, this individual is from hankenson. and writes, i am writing about the health care mess obamacare is creating. i'm a retired teacher running a day care with my wife. hence, i'm self-employed. i buy my own health care through

medica. under the obamacare rules my monthly premium is going from $205 a month to over $500 a month. i'm 58 years old, not on any medications and have no illnesses. because of this forced health care, i am supposed to pay a 60% increase in health care coverage. and if i drop my health care coverage, the government will hunt me down and find me. please stop this obamacare boondoggle. from harvey, north dakota, disgruntled who has to pay for maternity care. quote, the affordable care act is an excellent skpapl pell of an -- example of an oxymoron. since it was passed my insurance rates escalated an additional $4,000 per year. not the $2,500 reduction that president obama speculated. i've yet to anyone whose health care costs declined.

yes, i just received my cancellation notice from bluecross blue shield. thank you very much. i was happy with my bluecross blue shield plan. i had a low deductible, prescription and hospital coverage; everything that i needed. now as a grandfather i will be paying for maternity, pediatric, dentistry, contraception, drug, alcohol recovery, et cetera. the government has bloated my policy with useless fluff so my premiums will support others' subsidized policies. the president said, quote, if you like your health care plan, you can keep it. period. end quote. the truth is if you can't afford health insurance, you can afford obamacare if someone else pays the premium for you. also all these years i pay taxes on things that i possess or purchase.

please explain why i have to pay a tax if i choose not to purchase obamacare. from fargo, north dakota, retired couple faced with canceling their own wellness center membership to pay for obamacare. this individual writes, quote, last week bluecross bluecross of north dakota sent my wife and i a letter stating the health insurance we carry is no longer acceptable or allowable under the new health care law. it was a health insurance package that we had selected after retiring from the field of education two weeks ago -- excuse me. two years ago. it was a great package for us since we are both in good health. it offers us lower premiums, a higher deductible, which we wanted and more than adequate coverage for us. now we have to look at other more expensive health care packages which we do not want, some of which will include

wellness, some of which will include wellness center coverage. we go to a wellness center here in fargo, pay for it ourselves and it costs us considerably less than any of the new packages included. so if i have this right, the following needs to take place for us. one, we can no longer keep our present insurance that we wanted to begin with. two, we can select another package that will cost us at the very least an additional $1,800 in premiums per year. remember, this is being paid for out of our retirement check. three, the plans include a wellness center option which we currently have at our own expense at a cost of $600 a year. so based on the law's requirements, it will cost us another $1,200 if we discount our current $600 wellness cost over and above what we now pay.

all of this for insurance we don't want. there's an old saying from our neck of the woods. if you want something screwed up, give it to the government. sorry, but this new law makes that old saying prophetic. from batno, north dakota, a couple faced cancer treatment and tripling costs with obamacare. here's my story on obamacare. i have a bluecross blue shield policy that i had for many years. this individual writes in 2008 my wife was diagnosed with a very aggressive breast cancer. we did all the treatments, the surgeries, et cetera. the insurance paid all but the deductible and the coinsurance just as it was supposed to. we had no problems. our deductible has been $500 with an 80-20 co-pay up to an out-of-pocket maximum of $5,000.

now my wife's cancer has reoccurred and we are starting all over. on the affordable care act policy, to keep my premium close to what we have had, our deductibles will be $4,000 each, and our out-of-pocket maximum will be $12,500 per year. by the way, the premium will be over $1,200 per month, an increase of over 140%. that is not affordable care. so which policy is more substandard? retired couple from fargo, north dakota, writes upon visiting with my bluecross blue shield rep, he informed me that our present affordable plans -- we currently have two single plans one for each of us -- will no longer exist under the affordable care act. we'll have to switch over to blue direct which does not allow

single plans but family plans only. this will force us to pay $1,200 per month or $14,400 per year compared to our present cost of $6,000 per year. let me repeat that. this will force us to pay $1,200 per month or $14,400 per year compared to our present cost of $6,000 per year. what sense does that make? why do i want to give up a plan that is one i selected for us and is very affordable and change it over for one that will cost us another $8,400 per year? i can definitely see where this is heading. it will send both my wife and i back to the workforce to be able to pay for a health insurance policy we do not want. so why can't i keep my health insurance policy that i already have? i like it. i want to keep it. but uncle sam says no.

why? i understand the need to take care of those who don't have insurance and can't get insurance for medical reasons, but why take away from millions of us that do have insurance and want to keep it? and you've seen that in the numbers; right? i believe that secretary of health and human services kathleen sebelius testified in front of the house either yesterday or the day before and indicated that there is something like 360-some thousand signups for obamacare. but the statistics are in the range of four million to five million as far as the number of policies that have been canceled, have been reported as canceled so far since obamacare came into effect. and so these stories -- these are the real stories behind those statistics. these are the real-life stories

of people who have been impacted behind those statistics. from bismarck, north dakota, a young working family have seen their costs skyrocketing. i'm a young pharmacist in bismarck graduated from north dakota university in 2011. i have the job i always wanted although it is with a small pharmacy and so my employer cannot afford health insurance for the seven employees who went there so my family did the responsible thing. qualified medically back when you had to, and bought what i thought was the pefrbt health insurance plan -- the perfect health insurance plan. for the whole family it was this easy: high deductible, no coverage except preventive until we paid $2,500 per person or $5,000 per family. my premium started out at an amazing $666 a month in 2011 and went up a few dollars in 2012

and increased by 12% in 2013 to $7 -- excuse me to $762.30 a month. still quite affordable. this year we had our third child . prepremiums started out at $666. now that premium is at $762. still quite affordable. this year we had our third child along with experiencing some health issues with one of our other children. my wife obviously met her $2,# 500 maximum and ended up needing surgery and nearly died from complications and spent a couple nights in the hospital. my insurance meant like it was meant to. that meant that $7,000 hospital bill was paid 100%. as of now, we've only paid

$4,100 in out-of-pocket costs. i think that's pretty darned good coverage for that premium. my policy doesn't qualify for the new affordable care act regulation, and so it will end at the end of april according to bluecross blueshield. fine, whatever. but what really upsets me is that my current coverage which assumes a lot of responsibility on myself, falls into the gold category on the obamacare exchange based on the maximum out-of-pocket limits. we're a young generally healthy family. i don't need to save nickels and dimes throughout the year to cover co-pays and whatnot. i need a responsible limit that i know i'm not going to spend over. period. on the exchange if i match my same premium, then i end up with a maximum out-of-pocket limit of

$12,700. $12,700. how affordable is that? if i want a similar plan -- if i want a plan similar to the plan i have now, then i have to spend over $900 a month, or $150 a month more. that's $2,000 per year more for coverage i do not like of the this is very frustrating. please fix this mess. from cancel, north dakota, this is from a family that is unable to afford the rising premiums. i just got an insurance letter that said my family's monthly premium was going from $385 to $840 per month. let me read again. i got an insurance letter that said my family's monthly premium is going from $385 to $840 per

month. i cannot afford that and keep the heat on this winter. that represents over half of my take-home pay. i'm now thinking i'll have to get divorced just to be able to keep my health insurance for our three children and my wife. keep the government shut down forever if this is how you want to treat the hardworking class. self-employed family, business owners that see their costs going up. my husband and i have three children's ages 4, 2 and 7 months old. because we're self-employed we carry our own health insurance. last week we received notice our premiums will be increasing by 43%. 43% due to the affordable care act. we will also be losing the freedom to meet our individual needs. we are very healthy nonsmokers

and our children have yet to see a physician for anything more than a well child checkup. our health history is flawless. our previous premiums were anything but cheap, making this 43% premium increase unbelievable to us and unaffordable. from argosville, north dakota, self-embroiled having their policy -- self-employed having their policy canceled. about a year ago my husband left his job and started his own computer software company. contrary to what we've been led to believe we found a family policy for about $480 a month, about and this past year, 2013, it was moderately increased to about $520 per month, which we thought was a reasonable increase. we were very happy wit