penalty on the back of an e-7 retired enlisted person who is not rich, who served honorably under one set offer rules and who he's been now told, sorry. and i have to say this. when people see the government not keeping their promises, i think it's destructive to our system of government. and it's exactly the sort of thing we're seeing with obamacare. it's not being overly repetitive to remind my colleagues that the president of the united states, barack obama, repeatedly, over and over, promised the american people they could keep their insurance. for example in his speech at the american medical association on june 15, 2009, president obama stated "no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this

promise to the american people." another promise. "if you like your from, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. no one will take it away no matter what." the words of the leader of the free world, mr. president. and, of course, we know from story after story of real people who are being hurt by this law that time after time after time again, in thousands of homes across the united states of america that promise just as the promise made to the service men, that promise is being broken. if my friend from georgia will indulge me, let me give one example of a family of real

individuals, honest, hardworking americans who feel that another promise is being broken in the form of the so-called affordable health care. i got an email from a father from greenville, mississippi, who is concerned about his 27-year-old son. for the past six years his son was covered under a policy provided by humana. when the healthy 20-year-old first received coverage, the policy protected against major medical emergency and the cost was only $70 a month. the president told the american public if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. according to this father in greenville, mississippi, this policy is no longer available and the plan available for his son will now cost just under $350 per month as opposed to $70 a month.

a broken promise, mr. president. the healthy 27-year-old who works in the automotive industry has been working since he was 20, and he now questions whether he can afford to insure himself at all because the cost has quadrupled. his discretionary income will take a huge hit just as the discretionary income of these retired heroes will take a huge hit, and the higher premiums will cause uncertainty in his family. i know my friend from georgia may want to give some examples of some people in his home state who feel like once again in this instance also, a promise has been made, a very explicit promise, and in a very blatant way that promise turned out not to be the case at all.

the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: i thank the senator for giving me the opportunity to speak about this. first of all, it's been nearly four since the democrats in the senate and the house forced the passage of the president's signature law, the affordable care act or what's commonly innovator as obamacare. it's a title the president has embraced during the promising time and distanced himself from during the difficult times we're going through now. it's been kind of an interesting dynamic to watch. instead of working in a bipartisan fashion to enact a health care law that would bring more competition into the private insurance market through market-based solutions, president obama and the democrats structured a deal behind closed doors right across this hall that we're looking at here on the west side of the capitol, they structured that deal without any republican

input, giving the federal government more control over americans' health care decisions. you and i were here on the floor when we fought both tooth and nail to stop the passage of obamacare. on christmas eve, 2009, we came to the floor of the united states senate and voted against what i think is the worst piece of legislation that's passed in the united states congress in the 19 years, senator, you and i have been here. i've been saying for years that obamacare created more problems than it solved and with the passage of every single day now, unfortunately, that is being shown as the painful truth. although the white house has stood behind this terrible plaij some of my colleagues across the aisle have brought into question now the ability to -- of it to stand on its own two feet and who can blame them? i mean, this is -- has gotten

to be a major political issue, not just expensive but it's a political issue. the law continues to be marked by red flags, we've heard few of the democrats go as far as to say even that it is a train wreck. and they're exactly right. we've heard from the american people as well, they are rightfully upset that they have been repeatedly lied to and misled about this law by the president of the united states. the american people don't deserve a law filled with broken promises marked by disaster after disaster. the law is fundamentally broken and americans deserve better. you know, i notice yesterday in a hearing the secretary of h.h.s. reported nearly 365,000 individuals have selected plans from the state and federal marketplaces. a number that's far below the administration's goal. i think their goal, the senator may correct me, is 7 million by

tend of march. notice also that the state of oregon has spent $300 million setting up their exchange and as of this morning, there were 40 people, 40 citizens of oregon had signed up. the fact of the matter is, this law just is not working. it's becoming more and more expensive every day, and just as we talked about in 2009 when we were debating this bill, it's going to be the largest mandatory expenditure the united states taxpayer has ever seen. and you're right, i've got a whole book of anecdotes i want to mention some of. first of all, linda from douglasville wrote to me about her dropped coverage in which she said we lost our gold plan, all of our costs will go up next year considerably. it is harder and harder for us to totally and really retire.

my husband who is 71 still has to work part time to pay for our rising costs. linda from hampton, georgia, also writes, in 1997 i retired from motorola, inc after having a career there almost 30 years. one of my benefits as a retiree was secondary -- a secondary insurance plan after medicare that provided coverage for medical and prescriptions. my monthly premium for that coverage was $127 a month. effective january 1, 2013, motorola withdrew their insurance coverage for retirees and said under obamacare they simply coon after -- could not afford it. i could go on and on. i know the senator from mississippi has anecdotes he'd like to mention and i'll engage in some others on my side shortly. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: i thank my colleague from go gea. let me mention -- georgia.

let me mention a husband and wife in mississippi. they are small business people. as the chair is well aware, that's how we create jobs in the united states of america. we love it when a big manufacturing plant moves in but it's the small businesses flout this great land that create the bulk of the jobs and we appreciate it. obamacare has hit the small businesses so hard, and hurt their ability to create jobs. this particular small business couple in hearn and dough -- hernando, mississippi, tell me the private insurance plan they have offered their employees in the past, it will not be grandfathered and the new plan they are forced to offer their employees will have a 7% premium increase in 2014, that's real money, and a 66% premium increase in 2015, according to

their insurance agent. perhaps they believed the president when he said if you like your plan, you can you get to keep your plan, period. perhaps they believed members of the majority party. like the distinguished majority leader from nevada who said it not only means making sure you can keep your family's doctor or keep your health care plan if you like it, but also that you can afford to do it. perhaps they believed that. but instead, a 7% premium increase, hardly affordable at that and then a 66% premium increase, which is really a blow. their small group plan that they offered to their eight employees currently costs $491 per month per employee. and by 2015 the plan will cost this small business couple over

$800 per month per employee. these are real stories. these are real facts. it's going from $491 a month per employee to $800 per employee. i wonder how many jobs they'll be adding to that small business. and this plan doesn't include dental or vision. they pride themselves, this small business couple, on providing their employees quality affordable health care, that they supplement but with the frequent changes the president is making to the law they are uncertainty -- uncertain whether they will be able to cover the enormous cost. as small business owners, it's impossible for them to expand. they will not be able to hire additional employees with the uncertainty of the future. let me mention one other example and then perhaps senator chambliss can have a moment to speak on some georgians.

the next example is a family of four who live in corinth, mississippi, in the northeast corner of our state. the full-time employed parents who currently do not have health care spent a month and a half trying to sign up for coverage for themselves and their two children. the least expensive plan they could eventually find after spending countless hours trying to navigate the web site will cost them just under $800 billion per month -- $800 per month. with two crowdfunding request children to care for this cost is an almost impossible burden on this family of four. it may be, senator chambliss, you have other examples that are similar to these. mr. chambliss: mr. president, democrats --. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: and i quote, affordable quality health insurance coverage, the title

of the law even centers on the word "affordable." but i'm not sure how anybody can possibly argue that obamacare is affordable when the letters i'm receiving from constituents over and over, every single day, time and again, reference a significant increase in their total health care cost, and virtually 100% of the letters that we are getting indicate that not only are the monthly premiums going up, but the deductible is going up, their co-pays are going up and it's simply going to be more out-of-pocket expense than either actively working individuals or retired individuals ever thought they would have to pay for health care. tara from columbus writes to happen what is happening to her children. she writes i carry insurance for my two adult children because they cannot afford it on their own and let's remember, barack

obama covers children -- obamacare covers children up to 26 years of age. being one who has always had medical insurance and knowing the value if something bad happens, i have also made sure that they both had some type of coverage when they became adults. the sad part is i have gotten a letter on both and now their insurance will be canceled because i as their parent can no longer afford to pay it for either one of them. we received a letter which shows where their old policy covers everything and i mean everything, but because of obamacare's requirements to carry everything in a new policy will cost us twice as much each month. with me being unemployed and my husband the only one working, we have no choice but to drop their coverage. winell from roswell, georgia, wrote my private coverage was superb but now my insurance premiums are going from $319 a month to $769 a month and not

only that, my co-pay is increasing from $5 to $20 for my primary care visits and $5 to $50 for specialist visits. i will be responsible for $500 per day out-of-pocket cost if i am hospitalized before my hospital costs were included and i will also have to pay for any tests before all my tests were included. parntsly, subsidies do not apply to me. loretta from canton, georgia, writes, "i received a letter from my insurance company dated september 25, 2013. i have until november 15 to choose to remain with my current coverage until december of 2014, the end of next year. my rate increased by 16%. according to the letter, the affordable care act premium will increase by 139%.

my former plan did not include maternity. i am 60 years old. i do not need maternity coverage. my new plan will include maternity, and my old plan was great for preventive care. i paid nothing for i am munizations, including tetanus and flu shots. i paid a $30 co-pay for a doctor visit. my prescriptions have been very reasonable. the new plan requires a network of doctors and hospitals. the premiums were between 150% and 200% above what i am paying now. i did not enroll but have received numerous e-mails reminding me that i need to enroll. so far i'm hoping that i can keep my premium at the 16% increase for at least the next year, until the end of 2014. otherwise i will not have health insurance. i cannot afford the new premium.

kevin from ros well wrote, "we are a family of four. we have and want a catastrophic-only high-deductible health plan with low monthly premiums and full coverage once we hit our deductible. we like our plan. very typical of a lot of families who were propped by the president, if you like your plan, you can keep it. "we were paying $500 a month until july of this year. i had a bladder cancer in november of 2012, which was successfully removed, and i require no follow-up treatment, just biannual execups checkups. our premium did go up to $560 a month in july. on november 1, i got the letter telling us that our premium was now going to $902 a month, a 60% increase.

after three separate calls, i got the information that the $902-a-month change was option b, which is an obamacare-compliant plan which covers abortion, birth control, and maternity care. since we could not have children, we a dopted two kids, so that coverage is i 100% completely unnecessary for my wife and me. option a, we came to find out was the option to keep our plan with an increase to $617 a month. this plan will be canceled on december 31, 2014, at which point we will be forced to get an obamacare-compliant plan, costing much more and covering things that we will never, ever need." now, i'm sure the senator from mississippi has received dozens and dozens and dozens of these letters, just like we have in my

office. and knowing that the state of mississippi has a lot of rural areas, just like my state does -- in fact i live in a rural area -- there's also a huge discrepancy created by obamacare between insurance premiums in rural america versus insurance premiums in more urban areas. many of these premiums and deductibles are so high that is it defeats the purpose of having health insurance. and this really does get close to home to me because i truly lave in a rural part of our state. in two of the regions designated by obamacare of southwest georgia, there is only one insurer -- one insurance company that's offering coverage, and the premiums in that corner of our state are much higher than in the rest of our state. it's the poorest part of our state. in region one, which includes

albany, georgia, the least expensive silver plan for a 21-year-old healthy georgian is $360 a month. that's the highest rate in the state. in region 15, which is also in that part of our state, the same plan is $330 a month. you have to remember, these are people who are paying zero today because they aren't covered. they're either going to have to pay a fine, or they're going to have to take this coverage. in metro atlanta, the cheapest silver plan for a 21-year-old is $179.20 a month, matching the rate in regions in northeast as well as northwest georgia, which are more populated. that's half the rate of an individual in southwest georgia, where the income -- average median income is the lowest of any part of our state. so needless to say, house households in rural house west

georgia do not have the same income as those in the northwest and northeast part of the state, but yet they're being stuck with the highest premiums. and i could go on and on about these anecdotes and about the serious economic consequences that obamacare is going to cause on individuals in my state, but i want to turn back over to the senator from mississippi for some additional comments. mr. wicker: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: indeed, this does hit rural america much harder, but it hits all americans hard. i would ask the gentleman, if we could speak as if in a colloquy, mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: i didn't hear any debate during 2009. there were extensive hours that i stood on the other side and listened to the other side propose this.

i didn't hear any debate explaining that in situations like in georgia, folks in the metropolitan area would pay half the premium that folks down in rural southwest georgia would pay. that was -- that was never something that the majority party in proposing this so-called affordable act said, now we're going to have to live with this. just want you to know that. it is a total surprise and one of the myriad unintended consequences of this unfortunate law. did you hear any warning about that to the american people, senator? mr. chambliss: the senator is impact right. obviously we've both spent a lot of time on the floor debating this. as we talked about, we were here voting on i didn't sa christmas9 against this bill when it passed, with 60 democratic

votes. no republican in the united states house of representatives vetted for the bill. no republican in the senate voted for the bill. it passed with all democratic votes. if the senator will recall, that famous quote by the then-speaker of the house, speaker nancy pelosi, what we have to do is pass this bill and then we'll figure out tbheas it. well, guess what? what we are just talking about here is just one of the myriad of consequences that the american people are now finding out is in that bill. and they have every right in the world to chastise everybody that voted to that bill that didn't read it, because these are the real out-of-pocket consequences to hardworking, tax-paying americans that were never talked about on the floor of this senate or the floor of the house. mr. wicker: the senator from georgia has, i think, very effectively gone chapter and verse on what this law is doing

to families in georgia, to small businesses in georgia, to potential job creators in georgia, and all across the united states of america. you know, it is not just families and small businesses. also it's local governments. now, the senator from georgia and i came here after the 1994 elections on a promise, among other things, that we would fight against unintended consequences -- against unfunded mandates on local governments. what we're finding out about obamacare is that it is absolutely an unfunded mandate on, for example, small towns that make up -- and small counties that make up the bulk of the population in my state of

mississippi. let me just give a couple of answers of what it's doing to municipal government. a city employee in abetsville, mississippi, told me he recently attended a meeting of city workers and their health care provider. they were told their premiums will rise over 9% because of the president's health care law. this will be an increased some of $55,000 to $60,000 that the city will have to cover to provide health care coverage for their employees. now, presumably they don't have a printing press in the back of city hall. they have to put an extra tax on the people of batesville, mississippi, to cover the additional unfunded mandate that the affordable care act puts on the city of batesville. i could go mention -- and will also mention -- other end of the state on the gulf coast, the city of ocean springs, mississippi, reported it will

see a premium increase for their little budget of $47,000 to provide health care under the new improved obamacare. that is 13% increase because of the president's health care law. the city currently covers 100% of the employee premiums. the mayor of ocean springs, who i know happens to be a democrat, said, and i quote, "we're going to have to find $47,000 from somewhere, presumably it will come from the taxpayers of ocean springs, mississippi, an" and or small towns and rural counties around the state of mississippi. you know, mr. president, we're all human. i've made many mistakes during my life, and some of the misstalks multiple sclerosis ste

made have been -- and some of the mistakes i've made have been in the capacity as a legislate tear. i've served in the house and senate for some 19 years, along with my good friend from georgia. i would hope that when i have seen mistakes that i have made legislatively, i've been willing to go back and revisit those decisions and say, we're all human. we didn't get it right this time. and we ought to fix it. and that is the -- that is one of the real disturbing things to me about this obamacare law, because we see the rollout was disastrous, we see that the effect on towns, counties, families and businesses is disastrous, and at the end of the day, we're still going to have over 30 million americans

uninsured. the same amount that we were targeting for coverage supposedly but with the passage of obamacare. i would just hope that colleagues from both parties at this point would see where this has led us and agree, ther thera reason congress meets every year. we can alleviate the problems that have arisen. we can correct the mistakes that have been made, and i appreciate people like our colleague from montana, senator max baucus, who at least said the law's implementation he saw was going to be a huge train wreck, noting small businesses have no idea what to do, what to expect. i aleast appreciate that sort of candor from one of the architect of the act. and it would seem to me, that that being the case, it is incumbent on people who feel

that way, tha to say that we neo revisit this we need to pull out this root and branch and replace it with something that cellulose the cost of health care expenditures and uses market forces and exerks which we use in every -- every -- aspect of our society, except for health insurance. i appreciate our colleague from west virginia, senator jay rockefeller. he's hay retiring at the end of this cofnlg he said the health care law was beyond comprehension. i think we'd get over 60% of americans agreeing with a this. ththe law is beyond exeengs bey. i appreciate that sort of candor as compared to the position that as far as i can tell is still held by the majority leader, the

gentleman who controls the flow of legislation on the floor of the senate and who would have to be involved in bringing a corrective bill to the floor. our majority leader said this earlier this year: "this legislation is working." "and it will be working better once we get the web site up." boy, how nonprophetic that was. people are benefiting. and then i love this quote -- we may hear it again. obamacare is wonderful for america, said the majority leader of the united states senate, senator harry reid of nevada. obamacare is wonderful for america. get over it, unquote. and i would just hope that -- that i would be willing if i had made such an egregious mistake

to say, we need to come back and revisit this issue for the benefit of american families, for the benefit of small businesses who want to create jobs, for the benefit of small cities who have -- who are having to increase their taxes and do without other services to cover this unfunded mandate. so i -- i publicly implore my colleagues at this moment, mr. president, to agree that this didn't work. i never thought it was work but some people did, but it hasn't worked. and i think it has -- i going it's the reason we have elections every two years. but i would hope that even before the 2014 elections that republicans and democrats could come together and say, we got this wrong and we need to fix it

and we need to do it for the right reasons, we need to do it for the future of this country and for american families. mr. chambliss: the senator from mississippi mentioned the way this came about and -- and the comments of the majority leader that i can't really believe that he believes. it's just hard for me to believe that he thinks this is working. he -- he is -- he is not a fool. but, you know, i'm also -- i also have been listening to the debate, you and i talked about how we did earlier, leading up to the vote, leading up to christmas eve 2009, and i've been listening to the debate last night and today by some of our colleagues, and i thought our colleague from nebraska, senator johanns, made a very profound statement. we're fortunate to serve, in my

opinion, in the greatest legislative body in the world. you and i spent a number of years in the house and that is a great institution also. they're -- they're both unusual from a constitutional and legislative standpoint. but you have certain rights in the united states senate in the minority that you don't have in the house, and the american people know and understand what's happened here and that is that the democrats in the senate two weeks ago broke the rules of the senate to change the rules of the senate and they did so in a very arbitrary way, almost a meanspirited way, that basically ignored the arguments of the minority. and the minority in the senate has always had rights up until this rule change a couple of weeks ago. and the senator from nebraska said today that when we were

debating on this floor during the -- the late fall leading up to the vote in december of 2009 that because the democrats had 60 votes, that they looked to the minority on our side of the aisle and they said, we don't care what you say. his direct quote was, "sit down and shut up." and he felt a very eerie feeling taking place two weeks ago during the debate on this floor where the democrats broke the rule to change the rule, and they looked on this side of the aisle and said, we don't care what the parliamentarian says, we don't care what the rules of the senate have been for decades and decades and decades, we're going to change those rules and you'veall can sit down and shut

up. i thought -- and you'veall can sit down and shut up. i thought what senator johanns was pretty significant and he was right on track. i want to share one other concern i have on this bill which i'm sure my friend from mississippi has heard also and that has to do with the safety of personal information relative on this new health care system. obamacare opens the door to fraud and identity theft like we've never seen in a public -- a public program. when individuals visit the exchange and apply for health insurance coverage, they have to provide sensitive personal data such as social security numbers, income and tax return information. this information is then stored in a federal data service hub. the property security safeguards for that federal data hub and other components of the web site have not been put in place.

despite repeated warnings about this, the administration insisted on moving forward in the roll-out of -- moving forward. if the roll-out of healthcare.gov is an indication of what is to follow, then i agree with americans who have serious reservations about the security of their personal information when applying for health insurance coverage through the exchanges. the presiding officer and i ar are -- sit on the intelligence committee together and we hear daily during our briefings about cyber attacks taking place against the federal government in the united states, against private entities in the united states as well as against individuals inside the united states. i can only imagine, with all the problems that we've seen with the getting up and simply having this web site of healthcare.gov running, that some 15-year-old

sitting in his garage somewhere in america or maybe sitting in beijing or tehran looking to have some fun could hack into the -- the computer system and retrieve all the personal information of any individual that they wanted to, including their social security number. a senator: or more than have fun, engage in real mischief and real harm to american citizens, senator. mr. chambliss: you're exactly right. and obviously we know what that would lead to. those hackers that are attacking america today are getting proprietary information as well as financial renumeration unfortunately in too many instances. and to open your book, open yo your -- your personal information book to the federal government is something that rightfully in my mind has the

american people upset and is a provision in this health care plan that certainly is not popular and is something, again, that, you know, as nancy pelosi said, let's pass it, then we'll read it and we'll figure it out. well, here we go again. it's another provision in there that nobody knew anything about. we had no debate, as the senator from mississippi referred to earlier about another issue on the floor of this house -- floor of the senate regarding having to provide personal information. mr. wicker: well, if i can -- if i can underscore that, there is no question americans, because of -- of the snowden matter, because of other breaches of confidentiality and security, americans are more and more concerned about this. i note that our colleague from maryland, senator mikulski, said

about obamacare that it is causing fear, doubt, and a crisis of confidence. and i have to feel that some of the -- of the lack of confidence that the american people have are the very real concerns about security. it -- it's no wonder that a pew survey released this week shows 54% of americans disapprove of the health care law and only 41% are in favor of it, and yet my friend mentioned the former speaker of the house, the current minority leader in the house of representatives, who just this year said the implementation of this law is fabulous. fabulous. compared it to the declaration of independence's guarantee of

life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. according to the former speaker, this is what this is all about. i -- i think americans more and more -- i think americans, more and more members of this body are concluding that this law isn't fabulous, contrary to what the former speaker said, that obamacare is not wonderful for america, contrary to what the current majority leader of the senate said. and i would hope that we could even yet revisit this. i think we only have about five minutes to go, mr. president. if i could comment one brief moment about the breaking of the rules to change the rules that occurred. one would have thought that hardly any nominations were getting through. to hear our friends on the other side of the aisle justify the

reason for changing years and years of precedent and for going back on an agreement that we made midyear, an agreement that we made back in january and a gang of 14 agreement that was made by some of the most distinguished people ever to have served in the united states senate. as a matter of fact, the facts are these. hundreds of executive nominations on this executive calendar have been approved with the slightest blip by this senate, republicans and democrats. only four. only four nominees were felt to involve such extraordinary circumstances that we were determined to prevent those individuals from taking office for very good reasons, we thought, by the use of the 60-vote rule. only four out of hundreds this year, and yet that was given as

an excuse to the american people to break the rules to change the rules. it was a sad day. it's the kind of overreach we're seeing this week which gets us back to the matter at hand and it's the kind of very unfortunate overreach that has visited so many pain and hardship on the american people in -- in regard to their health care and their insurance coverage. mr. chambliss: if the senator will let me, i want to close my comments with two additional anecdotes that really strike at what middle america is all about and what suffering and economic pain middle america is going through right now as a result of obamacare. two cases. one, michael from dunwitty, georgia, wrote go and said, "i had a really great policy for $277 a month. the premiums were paid by my flex plan from my employer with

the excess my employer paid to my flex plan each month kept my balance increasing and i now have $35,000 accrued. my provider canceled that plan and my flex now offers a lesser plan. the premiums went to $550 a month. i actually joined amac and used their service to find a plan from a different provider. i must now pay the premiums out of my own pocket as president obama won't allow me to use my own money from my flex plan to pay these premiums." -- in all caps -- "how is this legal. i thought it was my money. apparently it's only my money if i buonly if i buy what obamacare says i should buy. i had to choose a plan with a $5 deductible to make my premiums affordable." and lastly, mary from powder springs, writes, "i'm an

educator with the cobb county school s. as a reactionary measure to obamacare, they gave employees only one option for insurance this year. my premiums were going to be $1,800 per year higher. my deductible was going to be $2,000 higher. and the percentage of what i -- what was covered went down. we decided to go with my husband's company plan but we are seriously concerned about what will happen to that coverage next year when the employer mandate goes into effect." now, michael and mary are two average, ordinary americans that we ought to care about in this body and yet we are throwing under the bus with obamacare. so, mr. president, as we move forward over the next year, i'm in hopes that we can continue to

engage on this because these problems are going to get more frequent and they're going to get more disastrous from a financial and a lack of coverage standpoint and there's going to be an opportunity for this body to come together, to look at really changing the -- the obamacare plan that passed in 2009 and let's come together on a plan that's meaningful, that truly does provide affordable and meaningful health care coverage for all americans. and i thank the chair. the presiding officer: all time has expired. the question is on the watters nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 77, the noes are 19. p the nomination is confirmed. the presiding officer: 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, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on nomination of deborah lee james of virginia to be secretary of the air force signed by 1 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: is quorum is prevents. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of deborah lee james of virginia to be secretary of

the air force shall be brought it a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk will continue to call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: had any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 58, the nays 39. the motion is approved. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of defense, deborah lee james of virginia to be secretary of the air force. the presiding officer: pursuant to the provisions of s. res. 15 of the 113th congress, there will now be up to eight hours of postcloture consideration of the nomination, equally divided in the usual form.

if no one yields time, time will be equally charged.

mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, skilled thiiwould ask that the l

be dispensed with. the presiding officer: we are not in a quorum call. the senator is recognized. mr. sessions: mr. president, we're definitely proceeding in an unusual manner at this point in time in the history of the united states senate. we're moving under regular order. nominations are being processed in regular order. votes are being held. a debate is being shut off by the appropriate procedures, but it's unusual from what we've been doing all yeerd and wha --n doing all yeerd and what we've been doing historic clism the question is how did we get to this point? what has happened in the senate that's caused the difficulties we now have? and i believe it's becoming clear to our colleagues that actions that have been taking place in recent days have altered the very nature of the

senate, have eroded the collegiality that make this body work on daily base circumstance the kind of actions in which people unanimously agreed to allow things happen different from the regular order, that allowed proceedings to be proceeded up and go faster and move afford, and it's been done on a regular basis. but we've had a conflict, an alteration in the rules of the senate that is so serious that it impacts the very nature of this institution, causing great concern. we've got a lot of new members to the senate, and they haven't seen how the senate operated just in the, what, 16, 17 years i've been here. and i've seen the great change, and it's a concern to me, and it's even different from that, more classical than that before i came here. and it's not healthy. it's not good. and it can't be allowed to just

happen without any discussion, without any full understanding of how the majority leader of the united states senate has accrued to himself powers never before allowed to be held by the majority leader of the senate. it has altered the very nature of the debate here and the processes that involve our constitutional responsibility. so i believe we need to talk about it. i believe we need to understand it and somehow we need to alter what has happened. the united states senate -- senator robert bid byrd when i e loved the senate. senator robbed byrd said there are two great senates, the u.s. senate and the roman snavment he gave us all members a lecture on

the rules of the senate. he wrote a book on the rules of the senate. and we have rules for quite a number of years. standing rule of the senate is rule 22. it is a clear, simple, directive passed by two-thirds of the members of the senate, duly chosen and sworn. this is what rule 22 says. it is not confusing. it's very clear. it was adopted by two-thirds of the senate. a it says this: "a motion signed by 16 senators." that is to initiate something, to shut off debate, you have to have 16 senators file a motion. so a motion filed by ^16 senators to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, or other matter pending before the senate -- any measure,

motion, or other matter pending before the senate. that includes nominations. "... shall be decided by three-fifths of the senators dolely chosen and sworn, except on a measure or motion to amend the senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting ..." crystal clear. the rules of the senate had are to be decided by two-thirds and to bring to a close debate upon any measure, motion, or matter pending before the senate requires three-fifths -- 60 votes out of our 100. that's the rule of the senate. that has guided us from -- for generations. the and it has worked well. and i'm going to talk a little

bit about it. i could go in even greater detail, to say that the process has been working very well, and the senators on the republican side have treated very well the nominees of president obama, far better than were the nominations of president bush when i came here in 2000, when i was here in 2000. his nominees were hammered, filibustered for the first time in history, led by some of the same people that now with great outrage attack those who have blocked and filibustered a few of the obama nominees, just a few. so it's really almost unbelievable to me that we're at this point of the rule processes of the united states senate.

so how did it happen? precisely what happened? i think the american people need to know. so senator reid apparently irritated that he was not being able to have confirmed three judges to the district of columbia circuit bench decided that he was going to change the rules. senator schumer said, we were going to get these nominees confirmed once way or the other. now, i'm a ranking republican on the budget committee. this country is spending money it does not have on things it does not need on an absolute regular basis. we are wasting taxpayers' money. and so the action of the president and the senate majority to bill three seats on the district of columbia court of appeals was scrutinized.

and, in my opinion, i believe it's incontestable that these positions did not need to be filled. they just didn't. they don't have enough work on that court to need these judges. theage of caseload -- the average caseload per judge on the d.c. circuit was 149 per judge. 149. well, what does that mean? is that a lot or not a lot? it's not a lot. it's the lowest number, by far, of any circuit in america, and the caseload has been steadily declining. i have been chairman in the judiciary committee of the court subcommittee that deals with these issues. senator grassley was before i became. i have been ranking member and now rank member on that committee, the court subcommittee. we've been watching the d.c.

circuit. the cases continue to decline. so with eight judges now active on that court, they're now down to 149 cases per judge. well, is that a lot? how about my circuit, the 11th circuit court of appeals that sits in atlanta, georgia? florida, alabama, and georgia -- how many cases do they have per judge? hold your hat. 740. that's how many my court handles per judge. and they say they don't need more judges. in fact, they prefer not to have the court get so large that they can't be a coherent court and be able to have consistency in the law, and that's been their position for many years. more than 20 years. they don't want more judges. and, actually, we know that the judges on the d.c. circuit have said they don't need more

judges. we know they took off last summer and they take off long summers, unlike any other court of appeals, from may 16 to september 16. they didn't hold court from may 16 to september 16. the next-lowest circuit in america is -- has almost twice as many cases per judge as the d.c. circuit. and i know how frugal the presiding officer, as governor of maine, didn't -- part of that yankee frugality that they're famous for, knew how to manage his money when he was governor. and it cost $1 million a year, we're told, to maintain a federal judgeship. that's a lot of money.

so we're adding three judges to the d.c. court of appeals that absolutely are not needed. absolutely are not needed. and this senate refused to confirm them. we voted not to confirm these judges and blocked moving to a final vote, and they lacked the three-fifths vote to confirm those judges. senator schumer said, we're going to get them done one way or the other. we don't worry about principle. we don't worry about law. we don't worry about the heritage of the senate. we don't worry about whether we need those judges or not. we're going to put them in anyway. well, i didn't pay much attention to that. i didn't think he was serious about that. i got to tell you. i thought that we could

perfectly -- our democratic colleagues would really understand that we've confirmed almost all the president's nominees -- only two or three prior to that had been -- failed out of the whole six years he's been in office. president bush lost five on one day, good nominees, for no other reasoning than they have a classical view of restraint on the part of a judge. so i didn't think that -- and we don't need these judges. as a matter of fact, senator grassley and i actually offered and passed legislation that moved one of the d.c. circuits to the ninth circuit court of appeals in california. a liberal circuit, but we -- but that circuit wanted more judges and appeared to need more judges to handle the caseload, and we moved one. and we've got legislation to move others. to someplace in america where

it's needed because we're going to have to fill and add some judgeships around the country. because unlike the d.c. circuit, some of the areas in our country are adding cases and needing judges and are short of judges. so good management simply says, you take them from where you don't need them and you move them to places where you do need them, and you serve the taxpayers' interests of america, and you protect the money they send to us. and we have a holy charge to protect every single dollar extracted from every american. and former speaker, democratic leader in the house, nancy pelosi said, we've cut all we can cut. we can't find anymore waste in our gast. there's nothing left to cut. well, there are places left to cut. these three judges on the d.c. circuit are just one of thousands -- tens of thousands of places we could save money in

america, that we're spending, that we don't need to be spending, that do not help america, do not make us stronger and do not benefit the rule of law. so how did it happen? what happened that so upset the senate? senator reid, the majority leader, is one of 100. let me say that, puts his britches on one leg at a tievment he does not get to dictate this snavment he gets to stand right there, and because his presiding officer is selected by senator reid, he is the jocialtion the presiding mae presiding officer will always recognize him first. it is done when republicans have the majority. it is done when the democrats have the majority. so he asked for recognition and got it. and this is how he changed the rules of the senate that require

a three-fifths vote to shut off debate. and to change the rules of the senate, remember, it's supposed to take a two-thirds vote, 67 votes. he said to the presiding officer at that point, president pro tempore of the senate, senator patrick leahy, chairman of the judiciary committee, a man who's most experienced in all of these matters -- and it is what senator reid said. it makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck. i talked to a reporter, experienced, well-known reporter the other day, and he was talking about it. he said he -- he didn't ask for confidentiality. he'd probably use my name. but anyway, he said i didn't think he was going to do it.