we have to get all of this done. and that's why those individuals who say, well, you don't have to just adopt a bill that the four of you put together, even though it may be good, we want to have a lot of amendments. we want to go through that process. unfortunately, there is not time because if we did that, you'd have to go over to the house and they're out of session. they're already adjourned as of 11:00 friday morning. so we're out of time. and the only choice we have now is either to adopt this or not have a bill at all. so as frustrated as i am about the process, we have a commitment to provide our military men and women the support that they require and we have a bill that would do that. fanned we fail to pass the n -- and if we fail to pass the ndaa it would send a terrible signal to all of our troops over there. i've got a card here. some of these things that we would lose that i mentioned in that rather lengthy list may not happen until next year, may not

happen until the first part of the year. some of them wou -- some of them would take place many february, some in march. but what would happen -- this question was asked by one of our fine senators, senator fischer from nebraska. she said, now, what would happen right now at the he happened of thiend of thisyear, december 31? what provisions would we lose if we don't pass this bill? and the answer is there are several of them but i'll just highlight a few of them here. one would be the session bonus for new officers in critical skills, the incentive bonus for conversion to military occupation specialty to ease personnel shortages. those of us who've been in the military, that's called the moss's. the incentive bonuses for transfer between armed forces, someone who's transferred from one area to the other has the -- we have the obligation of paying those expenses or bonuses. we wouldn't be able to do it. aviation officer retention.

i mentioned a minute ago some of the -- what, one-third of the combat? one-third of the combat squadrons were just deactivated, they were grounded, and the pilots with them. i talked about that and how general welsh gave us good documentation. that endured for three months. but at the end of that three months, the ability o amount oft was saved by grounding that equipment was far offset by the amount to get people back up to the right qualifications. well, one of the things that would happen is the aviation office -- officer retention bonus -- that's to keep these guys in there -- it costs much less to retain a pilot than it does to retrain one and start from scratch. i know that. we have a couple of the ranges in my state of oklahoma, in vance air force base, where i will be tomorrow. these -- that's one of the largest centers that we have training pilots. but right now our problem is a

pilot shortage and one of the reasons is because what i just said, if they're grounding these airplanes, these guys finally say, well, if i can't fly, i'm getting out of here. and there have been a lot of them who have left. now, the only thing to hold some of them would be the existing aviation officer retention bon bonus. this gives a bonus for someone to re-up. if anyone has been in the services, they'll remember, as i do, from the u.s. army that when they're trying to get people, encourage people to re-up, recognizing it's a lot cheaper to -- to retain someone than it is to retrain them, we give them a bonus. we did that when i was in the service. well, that's a -- a bonus tha that -- that they would not get. and so i think with already a serious problem with the shortage of -- of -- of pilots, we have to do something about that. so that's -- and, by the way, that would stop december 31 abruptly. that means these guys that are making that decision, they may not even know this and they may

decide they're going to do it and then they find out they don't have a -- a retention bonus. the assignment paid for special duty pay. this would be for transfers. this would be something that you would not be able to do and the hardship would have to be borne by the military. health care professionals bonus. this is kind of important. if you go out to walter reed and you see the great job that's being done by the professionals, with the -- with our wounded warriors, it's just -- it just really does impress you to see what's going on. and i'm very, very excited that that's -- that that's a program that's been good. but these health care professionals operate on a bonus or special pay. that would stop the 31st of december. i know they're all committed, they'd stay as long as they could but some of them couldn't afford to do that. so that would -- this would stop on the 31st of january. reenlistment bonus for active

members, that would stop also. so i guess what i'm saying is, you know, we are going to have to do this -- this bill. it's absolutely necessary. and i'm not the only one that says that. if you look at general democrat sedempsey,talk about the deterig condition of our military right now, keeping in mind that through this president, starting 4 1/2 years ago, over this 10-year budget, he has taken $487 billion out of the milita military. $487 billion. now, if we have obama sequestration as it's designed now, that will be another half trillion. that's a total of a trillion dollars out. now, what did general dempsey, as the top military person in -- in -- in the military, he's chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, he said, i will tell you personally, if ever the force is so degraded and so unready and then we're asked to use it, it would be immoral to use the force unless it's well trained, well led, and well equipped.

admiral winnifeld, he's the second in charge, he's the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. he said, "there could be for the first time in my career" -- now, keep in mind this is an admiral -- "could be the first time in my career instances where we may be asked to respond to a crisis and would have to say we cannot." secretary hagel -- you know, i opposed his confirmation when he was in and i think -- actually i think he's improved so much more than i thought he would since that time. he's not afraid to talk about these things. he -- he said, "if these abrupt cuts remain" -- now, here he is, secretary of the -- he's the top person there -- he said, "if these abrupt cuts continue, we risk fielding a force that over the next few years is unprepared due to a lack of training, maintenance, and the latest equipment." that's america he's talking about. this is the secretary of defen

defense. another thing general dempsey had said -- in fact, i carry a card around with me because a lot of people don't really believe this. general dempsey at one time in february of this year, he told the senate armed services committee that we're putting our military on a path where the force is so degraded and so unready that it would be immoral to use the force. so these are the things that are going on right now. general odierno, who's the general of the army, he's the commander of the army, he said, "additionally, it's unlikely that the army would be able to defeat an adversary quickly and decisively should they be called upon to engage in a single sustained major combat operati operation. now, when you talk about a major combat operation, you're talking about one -- they used to call them the -- the combat

operations where major contingencies on a regional basis. and so our policy since world war ii has been to be able to do this -- to defend america on two regional fronts. well, that's -- we've gone out the window on that now and we're not able to do that any more. senator hagel also said, "if sequester-level cuts persist" -- that's what we're talking about -- the second half trillion dollars that obama would be taking out of the military -- "if sequester-level cuts persist, we risk fielding a force that is unprepared." i can't imagine hearing that from our own secretary of defense but, sure enough, it's there. now, let me just show you, mr. president, the -- that why it is that our choices are down to only one choice. i have a map -- i don't have -- do you have a big one of this? okay. on this right here, if you look at december, it is now the 12th. yeah, it's the 12th. all right, the house leaves

on -- at 11:00 on friday morning. now, they're gone. they're gone for the rest of the year. so anything we do that has to go to the house, they won't be there. it can't be done. we go for one more week starting the 16th, that's this coming monday, and we go all the way through here, where we'll be in session. now, anything that we would do or pass or amend could not go back to the house and that means we'd go into december 31st without any kind of a defense authorization bill. so just on that basis, it's -- it's significant and it shows that we actually have to do it. now, the other thing is -- i think i mentioned this and i have a chart for this but i don't have it in front of me -- and that is to show that all over -- since 1970, our -- we've always had our defense authorization bill done before january. the only two exceptions to that was when they were vetoed by the president on two occasions and we had to override the veto. but nonetheless, that's why this -- this -- this month is the last chance that we've got

to do it. i would mention that there's such popular support for this around the country that you have extremes -- not really extremes but you have publications generally considered to be on the progressive or moderate side and some conservative. this is one where both the heritage foundation and "the washington post" say, let's pass the defense deal, it's got to pass. the heritage foundation has an excellent paper that, if there's time later on, i may make some quotes from that. but on on the -- from "the washington post," it says, "with the end of 2013 approaching, the congress has a year of rising above massive dysfunction and pass defense operations. the leader of the house and senate armed services committee have managed to fashion a bipartisan version." that's what we're talking about when i said the big four. so this is what we are talking about. they say, "it is a decent

compromise that the leaders of both chambers ought to embrace and bring to a vote in the coming days. a failure to do so would be a new political low for this congress. the ndaa" -- that's the defense authorization bill -- "has been passed 51 consecutive years, even when much of the rest of the government had to make due with temporary authority. but much more than political symbolism is at issue. though defense funding ultimately must be provided by appropriators, the authorization bill extends vital pentagon authorities and sanctions to new operations. if there's no bill and if it's not approved by january 1st, combat pay and bonuses for troops in afghanistan and elsewhere would be suspended, work on major weapons systems, including a new aircraft carri carrier, would be halted at considerable cost, the -- and support for the afghan army and

the disposal of syria's chemical weapons would be interrupted at a critical moment. the bill also contains important measures to combat and -- to combat sexual fines in the military. well, we talked about that but this now? being editorialized not by me on the floor of the senate but by the -- "the washington post." and they talk about guantanamo bay. said, in advance of the closure of guantanamo bay prison would take place -- or could take place in the absence of this legislation. though a proposal was favored by senator kirsten gillibrand from new york providing for the prosecution of sex crimes outside the military chain of command, it is not included and did not receive the senate vote. some three dozen other reforms in legislation would make the punishment of these crimes more likely while providing more protection for its victims.

let me just conclude on this editorial by reading the next to the last paragraph. it says, "other measures in the bill ought to attract broad bipartisan support. the effects on defense of the so-called sequester would be eased by transferring money to operations and training from less essential accounts, such as construction and staffing in office headquarters. the pentagon is still vulnerable to a $50 billion sequester cut in january unless a separate budget deal could be headed off. but passage of the authorization act would prevent the worst disruptions from being ongoing. so it goes on to say that this is over in the house right now and the house very likely is going to pass it over here to the senate, and they strongly support it. well, let's see what the -- we have letters here from -- from all the armed services to us and to the leader, senator harry reid, saying, you know, this

would -- this one is from martin dempsey, he's urging us to pass this thing. so it's not just me and a handful of senators. this is the military speaking. he's the top military personnel. he said, "i write to urge you to complete the national defense authorization act this year. the authorities contained therein are critical to 9 nation's defense and are urgently needed to ensure we all keep faith with the men and women, military and civilian, selflessly serving in our armed forces." he goes on to say, "this is the most significant concern that we have right now, that we may not be able to pass this bill." we have a letter from general welsh, and general welsh, if you remember, he's the chief of the air force. he's the one who was so upset with the fact that we grounded some of our combat squadrons. he says, "in fiscal year 2014, the ndaa contains critical authorities that enables us to

protect the american people while keeping promises to our active duty guard, reserve and civilian airmen. if this important legislation" -- this is what we're talking about here -- "is not enacted, i worry about significant impacts to the air force operations that could jeopardize the missions we are tasked to perform." and he goes on to say how important that is. it's a matter of life and death to -- to -- to manufacture the e airmen that are out there. we have the same thing from general amos of the marine corps who says that "our hardworking games in 29 palms and atlanta would be threatened in the next generation of the aircraft carrier. the u.s.s. gerald ford will stop. and passage of this authorization will prove to our airmen and sailors our unwavering support." that's what we're talking about because these guys are out there with the -- and i would repeat, i see my good friend from

arizona, senator mccain, on the floor, and i would say that i've been talking about the condition, the degraded positi position -- condition of our military right now and how much worse it's going to be if we're not able to do the -- this bill that i've outlined in some detail and hopefully it will be successful in doing that. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my friend from oklahoma. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: first of all, i'd like to thank the senator from oklahoma for his leadership and his dedication to getting this authorization bill passed, and i think that my friend from oklahoma would agree with me that there is no reason why we are where we are today. isn't it true that this bill was passed out of the -- out of the armed services committee in may, and here we are now in december,

and we are now contemplating bringing it to the floor of the senate. mr. inhofe: i would say that's true, but also over in the house, they did it the pay it should be done. they passed it out of committee, debated it, took it to the floor and passed it. ours was passed by a huge margin, we only had three or four votes against it, a bipartisan margin. that was way back in -- i think it was may -- the last of may, first of june, and it should have been done back then instead of waiting until a week before we're -- we're out of here. mr. mccain: so in all due respect, one has to wonder about the priorities of the -- of the group and the leader that set the agenda for the united states senate. one of the real advantages of being in the majority is you set the agenda. and so rather than take the bill to the floor, as we have for 51 years, 51 years, the congress of the united states has taken up

and passed the defense authorization bill. we are now here in december. the house of representatives going out tomorrow, out of session, and we are faced with a really unsavory parliament situation where we're having to maneuver in a way that a message message -- a -- quote -- message, from my friend from oklahoma is correct, a message that cannot be amended. otherwise, it would have to go back to the other body which is going out of session, which would then take us into january. i'd ask my -- my friend from oklahoma, isn't that where we are? and isn't that a commentary on the concern that my friends on the other side of the aisle, that the majority leader has, about the men and women who are serving in the military? and we will talk a little bit about what a failure to pass the defense authorization bill is. we are now in a situation which is a disservice, not only to the

men and women who are serving but to all of us, to every one of the 100 senators because every one of these senators would want to have an amendment to make this bill better that have -- that will impart to the rest of the body their knowledge, their expertise and their priorities. so what are we doing? we're asking members on this side of the aisle and the other side of the aisle to accept a piece of legislation without a single amendment to it. that, my friends, when we're talking about the defense of this nation, is absolutely outrageous. would my friend from oklahoma agree? mr. inhofe: it's right up here, it shows. the house on friday at 11:00, they're out of here, they are gone, they are adjourned. now, if something should happen that we were try to try to -- to try to amend something, they are not there. it can't be done. this is where we are now. we only have these five days that are left. now, a lot of people have said -- and i would ask my friend from arizona if he agrees

with this, because they say well, we can come back in january and do this because -- but then if you look at this. we come back on january 6. the c.r., the continuing resolution is here, and i can assure you from our past experience that's going to dominate the floor. they are certainly not going to have time to do it. so the only shot we have is up here. but also important, i read a list of things before my good friend came in that expire on december 31, and those are things that -- what's happening right now to all of our pilots, and you certainly know about that, that they bailed out. they are so upset with what's happened on the grounding of our squadrons, that now if we take away the re-enlistment senate -- stimulus, their incentive, then are we going to have any pilots left? mr. mccain: so we have established by the calendar and by what's happened since may that obviously that the

majority, the majority leader had a higher priority for whatever the hell it is we did rather than the defense of this nation, and that's a fact. and i would challenge anyone from the other side of the aisle or anyone to come and argue differently. it's outrageous. and now that we have established that, could i ask my friend what happens -- and i know you have gone through it. what happens to the men and women in our military if we do wait until january, if we do wait until march or don't act at all? for example, one of the best examples that i have seen is that right now a married sergeant in the united states military who is serving as a helicopter crew chief in afghanistan, beginning on january 1 -- please correct me, i ask my friend from oklahoma, if i'm wrong, beginning on january 1, will lose $890 a

month, is that correct? mr. inhofe: that's correct. mr. mccain: so we send people into combat, and while we dither around here and we're going to keep the men and women who are serving in harm's way from getting the benefits that they have earned and deserve and are theirs by law, but we're not going to act, at least until january, perhaps, and the list -- and i know the senator from oklahoma has gone on very long about completion of -- of ships, about health programs, about a number of other issues, but i'd like to focus on -- for a minute on one area with my friend from oklahoma. i think all my colleagues are aware and the american people are aware there is a serious issue in the united states military. it is a very serious issue and it is the issue of sexual assaults. it's the issue that the senator from oklahoma has spent untold hours in discussions and debate

and learning about this issue because it is a terrible thing that's going on in our military today. so the senator from -- under the leadership, the senator from oklahoma and the senator, distinguished chairman, senator levin, we have -- and the participation of every member of the committee under their leadership, we have come up with a way to -- at least to a significant degree address this problem in the military. now, there are still some controversial aspects of it that are not necessarily either side of the aisle but just a different viewpoint, but i would argue and i would ask my friend from oklahoma isn't it true that we have made significant improvements in the defense authorization bill on the issue of sexual assaults. these changes after hearings, after debate, after discussion were put into law, and they were

agreed as very, very necessary measures to try to bring this terrible situation of sexual assaults in the military under control. i would ask my colleague from oklahoma if this isn't, among many others, an issue that needs to be addressed. mr. inhofe: and it was -- i respond to my friend, it was addressed in the house bill and in the senate bill, but the senate bill didn't pass, so this is all that's left. specifically ten days ago when we were meeting and putting this together, the big four as they called it. it had 27 specific reforms in this area. to support victims and to encourage sexual assault reporting, and an additional nine enhancements to the military justice system. i mention that our good friend from south carolina probably is the expert in this area, and we consulted him along with a lot of the other people. both senator gillibrand and

senator mccaskill had amendments, and we have bits out of each one of those amendments that they had. at least they are both better off than they were before. but without this, we got nothing, no changes at all. so we have made great progress in this bill in the sexual assault as well as i mentioned gitmo, too, which is a very controversial issue. mr. mccain: would the senator agree that even though there is a significant difference between senator gillibrand and senator mccaskill, they were in agreement with the many provisions that you just pointed out which, whether we address their disagreements or not, they would both agree that these are very important measures that they both agree on, that the entire committee agreed on in addressing this issue of sexual assaults in the military. mr. inhofe: that's exactly right. as you point out, they were apart on a lot of issues, but what we did was take those areas

that will improve the situation and adopt them, and they are in this bill, a part of this bill, and so the whole issue of sexual harassment will not be addressed at all in the absence of this -- this legislation. that's two of the really significant provisions that are here. certainly, that's one of them. i mentioned a minute ago that the other one -- and i know that we have had differences of opinion between us on the whole gitmo thing, yet we have a provision in there now that i think satisfies us both until we all have time to sit down and work these things out. the bottom line is this. we have got things where it costs huge amounts of money. if you just take the c.b.n. 78, even though they would have to stop construction after we have already spent $12 billion, after 75% done. that cost would be tremendous, even though we all know they will go back and reinstate it. this wouldn't be just millions. it would be hundreds of millions

of dollars. that's what's going to happen if we don't pass this bill. mr. mccain: you know, i know that long ago, both the senator from oklahoma and i served in the military, but we -- which is not too relevant anymore, but both of us keep track of the military, we will visit our military installations, we spend time with the men and women who are serving both here and overseas that we are in communication with them. it's part of our privileges as their representative whether they happen to be in our home state or serving overseas in harm's way. and when you talk to these young people, and they are the bravest of the brave and we all know the best of america, they don't understand. i would say to my colleague, they don't understand, they don't understand why when they are serving in combat and they are entitled to some additional pay because of being in danger

that that won't happen. they don't understand that the bonuses special duty incentive pay will lapse. they don't understand why that should happen. they don't understand why we're not addressing the issue of sexual assaults in the military, many of them are deeply concerned about that. it also, by the way, would add -- i think my friend from oklahoma will agree that this issue impacts on recruiting of the most highly qualified young americans. and so here we are on december december 13, and we have still not done -- completed our duty, our obligation to the men and women who are serving. they rely on us. they rely on us to take care of them. they rely on us to provide them with the weapons and the

capabilities and the pay and benefits and taking care of their families. they rely on us. and it seems -- i am getting feedback from them that they are now beginning to believe that we don't really care that much. and frankly, i can't argue with that, because why are we here in december? why are we here in december? the fiscal year ended on october 1. they said why is it that -- that you and congress can't act to provide us with the tools that we need to carry out our mission of defending the nation? and frankly, i don't have a very good answer, and maybe the senator from oklahoma does. mr. inhofe: you're fully aware, because no one has spent more time over there in these areas of hostility than my good friend from arizona. when you talk to these guys and you sit in the mess hall with them, one of the things -- and

we know this is true because we both have had experience in the military -- they're talking about their careers. right now, our retention is probably as good as it's ever been. what's going to happen to our retention if all of a sudden we renege on the re-enlistment bonuses that they all depend upon, they all talk to each other, and about the time that stops on december 31, i have a great fear over what's going to happen to our retention rate. so in what i had talked about in the very beginning about what's happened in the military in the last four and a half years, i read all the statements from our commanders, from demsey, actually even the secretary of defense talking about how when a crisis it is and it's that much more of a crisis, they all said more of a crisis if we don't pass this. this isn't going to help us like it should. we should be in much better shape than this even if we pass this, but we have to pass this or all those things we talked about that are going to be

affecting our troops directly are going to take place. mr. mccain: could i finally again say to my friend i thank him for his leadership. i thank him for his willingness to really short circuit what should have been a two- or three-week exercise where every member of the national would have had -- member of the senate would have had the opportunity to propose amendments, to debate those amendments. my colleague just mentioned the issue of the detainees which is still something that deserves great scrutiny by this body. the issue of surveillance is clearly one that needs debate and discussion on the floor of the senate. there are so many issues that we are not discussing in the slightest because we are now entrapped by a process which doesn't allow us to pass a single amendment to this absolutely vital piece of legislation. i want to thank my friend from

oklahoma for understanding that even though we are placed in this incredibly, incredibly unsavory situation where we're not able, every member of the senate that chooses to and we, as the senator from oklahoma knows well, that when we consider the defense authorization bill, there are literally hundreds of amendments that we consider because of the interest and the commitment that all of our colleagues have. we're not going to be able to do that this time. we're not going to be able to do that, but it seems to me too that at least we ought to get the bill passed so that we can get our defense department and the men and women who are serving in it in the kind of condition that they deserve. i thank my friend from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i thank my friend from arizona for coming down and showing the, what a traumatic situation we have right now. and i hope two things come from

this. first of all, we go ahead and pass this ndaa bill and then make sure next year this doesn't happen again in the same way it has happened. mr. president, let me make one request here. i was going to spend some time on some things that have been happening in my state of oklahoma insofar as the obamacare is concerned. i have testimonials i'd like to submit at this point in the record. so i'd ask that as unanimous consent. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: with that, i will yield the floor. mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, as we consider some of the nominees, nominations that are before us, we're reminded that one of the reasons that we have all these problems around the country associated with obamacare and all the constituents are being impacted in such a negative way by higher premiums, higher deductibles, higher taxes, fewer jobs is

because of the overreach of government. and this is a very perfect opportunity for us to discuss the fact that overreaching government, in this case government that's literally taken over one-sixth of our economy, is causing great harm to the american people and that there is a much better way, much better approach. most of us here advocated that when this was debated and of course at the time we didn't have the votes. this was passed on a party-line partisan way and as a consequence of that we're seeing now the results and the impacts on the american people, all of which are very harmful to their own economic circumstances. i have a personal example. a lot of e-mails and letters coming into my office of the adverse impacts of obamacare, this comes from a female constituent of mine in wilmont south dakota. she writes my husband and i have four small children and purchase our own health care. my hundreds runs his -- my husband runs his own business

and i stay at home. we have always purchased a plan with a large deductible so we could afford a reasonable premium. today we received a letter from our health insurance provider letting us now next month our premium will be jumping 232%, over $500 more a month and we barely use our health insurance. she goes on to say we live in an 1,800 square foot house and have been trying to find something bigger. this jump in our premium will prevent us tpr-bg able to a -- from being able to afford any kind of house payment. obamacare is holding them back from the futures for which they have carefully budgeted. this is just another example of the impact, the harmful economic impact that obamacare is having on countless americans. this is one example from my state of south dakota. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i realize

senate democrats want to deflect attention from the impact of obamacare on our constituents. that's one of the reasons we're having these nominee votes. but our constituents have a right to be heard. so i'd like to share some thoughts from a constituent of mine in owensborough, cheryl russell. we got a letter from our insurance company saying our current policy will not meet the affordable care act, which means it will go away. according to our insurance company, we'll have to take pediatric, dental and vision insurance even though we don't have kids. they said it was because of obamacare. she goes on. another plan will cost us over $150 more a month plus our deductible goes up to $5,700. please keep taking a stand against obamacare. not only are we going to lose our insurance but when we go to a different policy we have to pay more. we're 58 and 56 years old.

we'll have to work the rest of our lives just to pay for our insurance. this isn't fair and it isn't right. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: mr. president i want to share letters i got just today. i was talking today of this situation when what happens when one side thinks they can do whatever they want to do and the consequences from this. this letter is from paul in the missouri boot hill. he said upon hearing the changes coming january 1 i decided to investigate the stories i heard. i learned in 2014 my family's premium will go from $597 a month with two $5,000 deductibles to $1,119 a month with two $4,300 deductibles.

he went on to say my cheapest option is $1,085 a month with a $12,700 deductible. not only, paul, says was this unaffordable. it would be pointless to have insurance. certainly i agree with that if your deductible is $12,700 a month and you're paying another, over $1,000 every month to get insurance, what is that? it's certainly not affordable health care. here's a letter from tom in st. louis who said my company's a great company to work for, but unfortunately, our health insurance policy went from $490 a month to $690 a month. that's $200 that i can't put toward my kids' education. that's a lot of money for a working guy to come up with every month. my coworkers are struggling with this increase also. i'll look into all the options available and hope we do not have doctor changes. we are familiar with the plan we had and we liked it. mr. president, just a third one

from sheri in holt summit, missouri, where sheri says she had a preexisting condition. she was in the high-risk pool but she says i saw the price, the co-pays and deductibles of what i could get now and i just can't afford it. so it looks like i'll suffer on and have even less money while having a policy i won't be able to afford to use. we're getting those letters every hour of every day, mr. president, and i think it's not what the american people thought they were going to get. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you, mr. president. there's more wrong with the affordable care act than just the web site not working. in fact, the web site is just a symptom of bigger problems. and like my colleagues, i want to share with you the problems that iowans have with the affordable care act. so i come to the floor today to

share one, just one of hundreds of e-mails, letters and phone calls from my constituents in iowa expressing sticker shock about the affordable care act. a working mother in decora, iowa, who lost her employer-sponsored coverage for her family because of rising costs, wrote to me and said the following -- quote -- "comparable plans do not seem to exist on the health care exchange. the closest we can come and still see our own doctors cost almost $1,050 per month. this represents a 247% increase in the cost over our prior employer-provided plan and with much higher deductibles. my husband is a self-employed small business owner. we covered our family of four on my group health plan, which

includes a 21-year-old adult daughter in college who is not a legal tax dependent. if we receive any subsidy, it will be insignificant in relation to a total jump in our out-of-pocket costs related to the so-called affordable care act. the general public seems to believe that anyone who does not qualify for a premium subsidy can easily afford a premium increase no matter how outrageous. yet, an increase of almost 250% in our personal cost of providing an inferior policy for a family which represents an increase in costs of roughly 20% of our gross income can only be described as an absolute disaster. end of quote of the working mother from dekora, iowa. mr. president, i think this e-mail from a real person who is

really living this train wreck of a health care law speaks for itself. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: part of our job as members of the united states senate is to help people who have problems. this has been a very difficult time for many, many americans and difficult for me as somebody who wants to be able to help people with a problem. and as my colleagues have indicated, the letters, the phone calls, the conversations, the e-mails continue to come. the one i'd like to highlight to my colleagues today is from a person who describes herself as a 62-year-old female retired teacher from wichita, and she says she considers herself a middle-class american. she indicates in her letter that her current health policy expires at the end of this year, less than a month away. here's what she says in her letter then. when i inquired why, i was told

the policy no longer meets the guidelines under obamacare. yet in the previous two years my premiums have increased 25% and 28% respectively to which the answer from my insurer was it helps pay for obamacare. now i can't even have that plan any longer, the one she's indicating that she helped pay for. it had a $500 deductible, a $1,500 max out of pocket expense per year and $300 prime minister per month -- $300 premium per month. after online chats i was able to see numbers from health care costs for the obamacare marketplace only to learn that the premium is one and a half times what i currently pay and the deductible is four and a half times higher. a plan from my current insurance was double the premium. i will not qualify for tax credits as my projected income for 2014 places this

middle-class retired american over the threshold of any kind of subsidy. i'm sad that my well-laid plans for retirement now will redirect my earnings to pay for health care, much of which i will never use. at 62 and having had a hysterectomy, pretphaeulgts care is not an -- prenatal care is not an issue i will face nor will i need female disorder treatment as those parts are gone but i will have no discount for not needing those coverages. so i am paying a higher premium. i'm very frustrated with these changes. in the middle class that will be hit the worst -- this is still my constituent talking. it is the middle class that will be hit the worst by this mandate and i fear many will opt for a government fine because now they truly won't be able to afford the cost of health care. one more question directed to me, how will folks who can't even make the premium payment ever be able to pay the

outrageous deductible? honestly, $6,500 out-of-pocket expense per person per year? that is her question. that is what she's saying, that's crazy. who will be able to pay that and who will end up paying it? it is not a solution for the middle-class americans. mr. president, surely we can develop a policy, a program of caring for americans without doing damage to people who already had insurance. i yield. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: i'm pleased to take the floor today and join my colleagues in opening the mailbag. all of us have received a lot of male and e-mails and faxes and texts from individuals who are being harmed by this law. for example, steve from peoria, arizona, looking at a premium for his policy through his employer. it's going to go up in response to obamacare nearly 20%. in addition, his employer told him to brace for more impacts

like raising prices. all customers are going to get this. and falling salaries for new hires as well. leeanne from eager, arizona, is facing what she calls sky-high rates now thanks to obamacare. if this isn't bad enough, it looks like she and her husband will have to put off buying their parents out of their business, their family business t. looks like leeanne's parents will have to keep working for awhile. christian from flagstaff, a young husband and father who has a young boy, says he might see his premiums actually decrease marginally. however, thanks to obamacare and thanks to changes his employer is making in response to obamacare, he's looking at higher co-pays, higher deductible and a decrease in the level of coverage. he's looking at -- quote -- "a large increase in my responsible portion of my medical bills." obamacare is far from ideal for those in the workplace, those looking to retire, and for new

families. with story after story after story like these, we clearly see that the affordable care act is a misnomer. i yield back. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to speak on behalf of nearly 7,000 nebraskans who have contacted my office with concerns about obamacare. the sticker shock has hit nebraskans hard. a woman from my state writes, "this is the first time i have ever written my senators. we just received our insurance letter telling us that they no longer would have our health insurance policy and the closest policy under the a.c.a. would up our monthly premium from $590.14 to $932.24 for our family of six. how is that affordable?

a stitch went from holdridge writes, "i cannot believe the letter i got from blue cross today. it informs me that i have to switch my coverage and my new selected plan will cost me $1,116.74 per month. that is a $571.58-per-month increase than what i have now. that's almost double my mortgage payment. also, why am i forced to carry coverage that i don't need or want? at 58, my wife and i are no longer going to have any more kids. i don't believe i'm going to qualify for any government subsidies. our planned budget includes our current health care policy. there is no way we can afford the suggested new policies."

this law, mr. president, is anything but affordable. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, i join my colleagues who have -- as one who has received tweets and hits on the web site, e-mails, phone calls, ringing the phone off the hook, written letters, responses that i hear as i talk to people back in indiana. these aren't republicans, democrats, liberals, conservatives -- they're all of the above. and they're not writing to say, stand with the republican party, stand with this, stand with that. they're writing to say, wait a minute, wait a minute. the president promised that we would not have an increase in our premiums. he promised that if -- if we liked our doctor, we could keep our doctor. he promised that this would be

affordable. well, you know, tell that to deborah from logansport who said that her increases in premium strain an already strained budget, and i think that speaks for millions of americans, tens of millions of americans. a lot of hoosiers, that's for sure. doug, a small business owner from bloomington, told me that he expects his company health insurance to increase over 30% next year. and he said -- and i quote -- "this will preclude me from providing wage raises to our employees and will make hiring additional employees much less attractive, if not impossible." the president promised a lot. the worse thing you can do to your constituents, people you represent, people who put their trust in you is overpromise and underperform. this could be the biggest gap between overpromising and underperforming of anything any president has said in history of the united states. and he punctuated his statements with "period." meaning, take it to the bank, count on it, trust me, your

premiums won't increase. it's sad. it's sad but it can be correct corrected. we can work. we can repeal this thing now. we can work together in a bipartisan basis. we can fashion a reasonable, affordable solution to providing americans who are uninsured with insurance, to creating the kinds of products through an open market system, a competitive system that will deal with this problem. we don't have to keep swallowing this so-called affordable care act. it just simply won't go down. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officerthe preside senator from wisconsin. mr. johnson: mr. president, last night i read a number of e-mails we received -- of the hundreds we've received from constituents in wisconsin specifically talking about the problems they've had in losing their coverage and -- and certainly finding this law not being affordable. they used words like "scared,"

"begging for help," feeling they were just collateral damage in this scheme that simply is not protecting patients or offering affordable care. they just can't fathom that this is actually happening to them because they knew it wasn't supposed to. well, today i rise to read an e-mail received from steve walrath from beloit. steve writes, "i'm 54 years old, in good health and no prior conditions. i just received my health insurance renewal bill. i used to have affordable and user-friendly health care that cost about $290 a month with no co-pay. according to my renewal letter from dean health care, my choices are now $854 a month with a 10% co-pay up to $1,315 a month with a zero percent

co-pay. let me put that in perspective. he was paying $299 a month with no co-pay. so if he wants a similar plan, he will now experience a 440% increase, up to $1,315. if he wants to pay a 10% co-pay, it will be a 285% increase. this wasn't supposed to happen. this is not what president obama promised the american people, the citizens of wisconsin. steve goes on to write, "where's the promise of reduced insurance rates under the affordable care act? what choices do you want me to make after january 1st? disejts car1st?dental care or h? an occasional night out or health care? helping my kids get settled into homeownership or health care? what choice do you want me to make? this increase is over 300%.

it is a betrayal of the laws you passed and promises you made. 'can't be denied coverage' doesn't mean we can afford it, not when it's more than my mortgage payment. which of the above choices do you want notice mak me to make r january 1st?" that's just a sad fact. the patient protection and affordable care act is not protecting patients, it is not providing affordable care. it is not about choice. it is about coercion. and i'm asking the president of the united states, i'm asking our democratic colleagues here in the senate and in the house to work with republicans to start limiting the damage, to start repairing the harm that is being caused to citizens of wisconsin and america. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. lee: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, in utah i have a program that i call my mobile office. it's a way for many of my constituents, many of whom live some distance from my two offices in the state, to meet with members of my staff in order to discuss various concerns they have with the federal government, concerns that arise from their interaction with any of various federal programs and agencies. it allows us to help these constituents and it provides vital information that i can use to better represent them back here in washington. at one meeting in davis county, a man attended who wanted to tell us about his experience with obamacare. he owns two small food stores and a 7-eleven. he's also an emigrant, having

come to the united states just 12 years ago to seek a better life for himself and for his family. he gives back to his community. he contributes to his economy and provides jobs for people who live in his town. but now obamacare's threatening all of that. his insurance premiums for his family are going to be rising by $200 a month. this cost will destabilize his personal finances and it -- they may well force him to make cutbacks or to led some of his employees go. these are the real human costs of obamacare. it's not what the president promised and it's turning out to be an absolute, unmitigated disaster for families all across this country. mr. president, it's time to start over and develop a health care system that works for everyone. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: mr. president, the affordable care act promised accessibility, affordability and choice. as we've heard from the stories told here tonight, it delivers on none of the above. and i join senator lee, senator johnson and the others to call on congress to come together, let's fix this flawed program before it's too late and before we destroy health care in the united states of america. i get constant communication from my state of the problems that are there. this one i want to read to you by beth hatfield demonstrates the fear, the confusion, and the lack of accessibility that the care plan has at this time. i've tried many times over the past few weeks to purchase a healthealth insurance plan for f on the health care web site. i finally was able to complete an application but have not been able to choose a plan yet. twice i asked questions in the live chat room option but they would not answer. they told me to make a long-distance call to the help desk. i did but i couldn't get an answer there either. i was disappointed to find out

that in order to compare plans, you had to first enroll. what other shopping experience do you have to sign up before you actually shop? now, i saw on the news that my personal information may be compromised from the web site. this makes me angry, especially since it seems that they knew all long this problem existed. is anyone going to be able to do anything about protecting my information? i need health insurance. i'm not working. my cobra policy is expensive and runs out soon. i need someone to help me and i need them to help me now. thank you for the opportunities to be heard. and i yield back. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i just found out that politifact, which is a group that takes a look at what politicians say each year, just came out with what they are describing as "the lie of the year." politifact -- "the lie of the

year." and it is no other than that of president barack obama. "if you like your plan, you can keep it." called by politifact, "the lie of the year." so it's not surprising that those of us around the country are getting letters, e-mails, calls from folks at home who are finding out they can't keep it. they've listened to the president, they believe the president, who has now been listed as his statement being the lie of the year. but i have a letter from cody, wyoming, from a man who said, "just got a quote from my insurance agent on an obamacare insurance. from $860 that i currently spend per month for my family of four to $2,400 per month." he said, "all with the low deductible of $10,000 per person, per year. i'm not sure what planet they think i live on, but there's no way i can spend more than

one-half of my monthly income on insurance. for the first time in my adult life, i will soon be without insurance. what does it matter if my two 18-year-old children can stay on an insurance plan if i can't afford to keep one? if i can't afford to keep one, the kids don't have it either. also, all the air time to preexisting conditions that the president talks about, the air time of preexisting conditions are meaningless if i can't afford to keep a plan." he goes on, "i feel greatly blessed to have the good-paying job that i have. it puts me above the pay level that would allow me to get any subsidies. by the way, he said, with the system in place this year, i wouldn't have needed subsidies because what he was paying was something he could afford. he said i have never needed them in the past and would like to continue to never get a handout from my government." this is what i hear -- expect to hear from the people of wyoming, not looking for a handout from

the government, taking care of themselves, rugged individuals. instead, what he has gotten instead of a presidential promise that turns out to be the lie of the year, he sees an increase from $860 a month to $2,400 a month. this man goes on, he said -- "i employ 35 people with my company. when we first opened about a year and a half ago, we were talking about getting some sort of coverage." he said -- "it became very clear that we will not be able to do this and have stopped any and all plans to provide this health care coverage in the future. we also know for sure that we cannot afford to ever employ more than 50 people so we can continue to grow, but there is an upper limit on how many people we will hire." so here's an individual, has a business, hired 35 people. not going to provide insurance because the costs are so high. the broken promise by the president. and men saying i'm never going

to grow bigger than 50. the business may be there, the opportunities may be there, wanting to put people back to work, but no, there is a cap at 50. why? because of the health care law forced down the throats of the american people, voted along party lines by democrats in the house and in the senate, and here we are hurting the economy and hurting people's health. he goes on, he said simple economics. obamacare is a job killer in wyoming. obamacare is a job killer, not just in wyoming, mr. president, but all across the country. he said it has never been easy to be in business. this is a part of the fun of being successful. it is discouraging when our federal government limits the american dream for everyone. he said i'm thankful for your efforts, but from my chair here in cody, wyoming, it is already too late. mr. president, you know, there is a failed web site, but that's just the tip of the iceberg.

web sites can be fixed. but what can't be fixed are the destruction that this health care law is doing to the health of america, in terms of canceled policies. we now have over five million policies that have been canceled across the country. five people people getting letters saying we're sorry, your policy is canceled. why? well, maybe they didn't include insurance that the president deemed good enough for them. i got a letter from a lady in new castle, wyoming, a rancher. i actually talked to her at our farm bureau meeting in wyoming. she said yeah, i lost my insurance, got the letter because the president didn't deem my policy good enough because it didn't include maternity coverage. she said -- and she knows me, she knows i am a doctor. she said doc, i have had a hysterectomy, i don't need maternity coverage. she knows whether she needs maternity coverage. the president of the united states doesn't have a clue. but yet, he's the one that determines what kind of coverage

that she needs because it's the president who has decided that he will be the one to decide what the american people need, not them. she knew what worked for her, what worked for her family, what they could afford, what the right deductible was. absolute levels of anger and anxiety across my state and it's reflected in the letters that i continue to get. front-page story of "the wall street journal" yesterday talked about the amount of deductibles. the deductibles in the bronze policy, the cheapest policies on average is over $5,000 per person. so for a husband and wife, it's over $10,000 deductible before they even get to the insurance. and yet they have to buy expensive insurance with these huge deductibles to comply with the mandate, the individual mandate that the president and the democrats have forced on the american people, that you either buy it or pay, whether you want to call it a fee, a fine, a

charge. call it what you will, a tack. it's right there so you have the fact that costs are too high and of course the deductibles end. i'm going to continue to come back. i will be back on the floor later this evening with more letters, mr. president, but i appreciate your attention, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: all postcloture time has expired. a senator: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the question now occurs on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: vote:

the presiding officer: anyone wish to vote or to change their vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 57. the nays are 41. 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 brian morris of montana to be united states district judge for the district of montana signed by 19 senators. the presiding officer: pursuant to rule 12, 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, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of brian morris of montana to be united states district judge for the district

of montana 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: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their votes? hearing none, the motion is agreed to. 57 ayes, 40 nays. pursuant to the provisions of senate resolution 15 of the 113th congress, there will now up to two hours of postcloture consideration of the nominating equally divided in the usual form. the majority leader. mr. reid: it's my understanding there is two hours equally divided, is that right? the presiding officer: the leader is correct. mr. reid: i yield back 59 minutes. the presiding officer: the time is yielded back. the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, i have a unanimous consent request that has been cleared on both sides. this is to pass h.r. 3547 as

amended, a bill to extend government liability, subject to appropriation for certain third-party claims arising from commercial space launches. the bill supports the competitiveness of the united states space industry. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: a unanimous consent request. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered. mr. nelson: okay. mr. president, then i will just say a couple of words about what we just passed. okay. i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed immediately to the consideration of h.r. 3547, which is at the desk as if in legislative session. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 3547, an act to extend the application of certain space launch liability

provisions through 2014. the presiding officer: is there an objection to proceeding? seeing and hearing none. the senator will proceed. mr. nelson: mr. president, i ask further that the nelson amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be agreed to, the title amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: okay. mr. president, what we have just passed is the indemnification -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. nelson: well, thank you for the passing of the indemnification bill on commercial space launches. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: mr. president --

the presiding officer: would the senator yield for a moment? the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: the judiciary, brian morris of montana to be united states district judge. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i and my colleagues stand here today holding the floor this defense of fair and free debate and the long-standing traditions of the senate that promote consensus. we're here today working on nominations because the majority leader has determined that that is the agenda for today, but there are important issues that we need to move to -- the defense reauthorization bill, the water resources development bill, the farm bill, the budget and other vitally important legislation. we need to move to these bills and we need to deal with them in a bipartisan way, and instead we continue to work on nominees,

and we're working on nominees really without the discussion and the debate and the consideration and most importantly without that bipartisan consensus, which has always been a hallmark of the united states senate. and because of the unilateral change in the long-standing rules of the senate, that consensus is no longer required for advise and consent. a simple partisan majority will do. and so i have used time today to talk about the need for bipartisanship. bipartisanship in nominations, but also bipartisanship in the important legislation that we need to address for the good of our country. legislation like the right kind of health care reform. and i have provided real-life stories from the citizens of my state about the impact that the affordable care act, obamacare, is having on them and their

lives, and why we need to replace it with market-based reforms. a step-by-step comprehensive approach that fosters choice and competition, and we have put forward proposals to do just that. i've also used time today to talk about other issues that we need to advance on a bipartisan basis, for example the farm bill. we need a five year farm bill. we're operating under an extension that expires at the end of the year. we need to get a farm bill in place, and a farm bill is a great example of how we do things on a bipartisan basis not only in the senate, but also in the house. and so i want to talk about another subject that's vitally important to our country, to our economy, to job creation, to national security that also needs to be advanced and needs to be advanced in a bipartisan way, and that's energy.