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. and when it started, everybody

in the newsroom just stopped and we looked. why? because this was a big deal. this was a huge event in the history of the united states senate. and this is what senator reid said and everybody needs to know how it happened. he said i raise a point of order that the vote on the cloture under the rule 22 for all nominations other than for the supreme court of the united states is by majority vote. the vote on cloture, to shut off debate, he moved that under rule 22, he said under rule 22 that the vote on cloture, to

shut off debate, for all nominations other than supreme court, he thought that up, i suppose, is by majority vote. but look, this is what rule 22 says. a motion signed by 16 senators to bring to a close debate on any measure, motion, or other matter pending before the senate shall be decided by three-fifths of the senators duly sworn. so the majority leader of the united states senate knowing precisely what rule 22 said, stood right there and asked the chairman, the presiding officer, to pretend that this is not a rule of the senate and that only a majority vote is needed. that's what he said. and what did senator leahy say?

the -- this is what the transcript shows. senator leahy, he's the president pro tempore of the united states senate and he says this: under the rules, the point of order is not sustained. exactly right. senator reid's position that it ought to be decided by a majority vote couldn't be sustained because it's absolutely in violation of the rule of the senate. and senator leahy so ruled, as he was advised, i'm sure, by the parliamentarian, also selected by senator reid. there's no question about this. there's absolutely no question about it. but there's this little deal that on a matter where a parliamentarian rules on matters dealing with the rules of the

senate, somebody can ask that an -- and appeal the ruling of the senate and appeal to the whole senate to see -- to decide whether or not the parliamentarian is correct. so they used this corrective measure to allow the will of the senate to interpret rules of the senate, to break the rules of the senate. and so that's what they did, lemming like, my democratic colleagues, surely not understanding the gravity of what they did, one by juan walked up and voted -- one by one walked up and voted in support of senator reid and all but two of the democratic colleagues voted, over 50, a majority voted to say that the rules of the u.s. senate don't mean what they say and that we'll just ignore them.

i tell you something else they -- and so the net effect was that once that was ruled, then this -- the idea that a motion for judges would have to -- could -- cloture could be shut off, debate could be shut off with a simple majority and that became the rule of the senate in a way contrary to the rules of the senate which said that to change -- except to amend the senate rules in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds. to change that rule of the senate that says it takes 60 votes to shut off debate to a majority to shut off debate would take two-thirds. they just ignored that.

and the reason that's so important is every other rule, tradition, or standard of the senate is now at stake. very, very, very wise senator, carl levin from michigan, longtime democrat, chairman of the armed services committee on which i sit and i've watched him work for all the years i've been in the senate, and i've been very, very impressed. he and i don't agree on many of the substantive issues and how we approach spending and taxes and regulation, but he knows how to preside in a committee to give everybody a fair shake, and he said we shouldn't do this. he pleaded with his democratic colleagues not to vote in this fashion. he said that if you can change a rule in this fashion, if you can alter rules of the senate this way, there are no rules.

there is no power, no protection for the minority other than the simple power of the majority vote. there is nothing in this senate, if we follow this precedent that can't be changed by a simple appeal through the ruling of the chair and altering those rights that have always protected the minority. that's a very, very dangerous thing. it was played with and talked about by the republicans on one occasion when the entire ground rules of the senate for confirmation of judges was altered and we found ourselves with a stunning filibuster of ten of the first 12 nominees president bush submitted for the court of appeals but it was never executed. an agreement was reached to alter that. and indeed, when this tension rose at the beginning of this year, senator reid agreed to

changes in the process that gave the majority party and the president more power to expedite nominees and gave them more power over the minority. and he was able to secure that agreement in a way consistent with the heritage of the senate. and he said at that time he was not going to seek to change the rules of the senate again. so i just want to say this should not be looked at as a little matter. it's a very big matter, and i'm extraordinarily troubled by it. and that's part of what's happening now. so we're just not in a -- here. i want to mention one more thing on the chart i have that talks

about the caseload for the d.c. circuit. look at these numbers. this is the 11th circuit. 720 cases per judge, not 740 as i said earlier. and look at these caseloads per judge until you get down here to the d.c. circuit at 149 per judge. we didn't need to add three judges. the existing active judges, not counting the vacancies, just the active, eight active judges, only have 149 cases per judge. we don't need to add one new judge. and the president was determined to try to shove that through, and that he did, and got us into all this turmoil when the senate didn't agree. three-fifths of the senators not agreeing to move forward to final vote resulting in the lack

of confirmation of those judges. that's where we are. the fifth circuit in texas, out in -- 488 cases per judge, the ninth circuit in california, 472 cases per judge. the second circuit handling sophomore complex cases in america, manhattan in new york, 440 cases per judge. and you see the caseload averages around the country. the average is 384 cases per judge. that's about two and a half times the number of cases that the d.c. circuit has per cases. that's why the objections were made to the nominees. i said when this happened, most of these nominees, they would probably be confirmed, that the nominees would probably be

confirmed because if it hadn't been for the low caseload, that there was not a question, i suggested without going into detail, i suggested that the nominees were probably qualified and it would be unlikely that they would be filibustered because of lack of qualifications, although i was probably wrong in that, at least one of them, pillard's nomination, really is a -- represents a judge whose views on the law are so outside the mainstream that i don't believe having studied that record subsequent to those remarks that she should have been confirmed on the merits. but my basic view from the

beginning is i stated from the very beginning it's not a question of the merits of the nominees. the question was, do we need to spend a million dollars, $3 million a year for these three judges when we've got other circuits that need judges and they don't need them here. i would share with you what president obama was looking for in his nominee. ms. pillard went to yale and harvard, she also spent six years with american civil liberties union and the naacp legal defense fund. she's a longtime member of the very liberal activist american constitution society, that believes in activist judges and advocates for that. in recent years an activist conservative legal movement has -- and there she has been a professor at georgetown, she's written many controversial

articles and has a record exclusively devoted, it seems to me, to very -- a very extreme, progressive judicial philosophy that says judges do not need to be objective and are empowered to redefine the meaning of the words in the constitution to advance an agenda. and seems to be in harmony with president obama's openly stated view about what he looks for in judges, and that is a judge who is empathetic. who has empathy. what does that mean? empathy. what it means is, he wants a judge not committed to law. that's what it means. what is empathy? feelings? ideology? politics? that's what it sounds like to me. the american heritage of law is

based on objective criteria, the rule of law. judges take an oath to serve under the constitution of the united states and the laws of america. they are under them. they serve the law. they don't write the law, they don't amend the law, they don't change the law, they don't change the meaning of words in our laws or our constitution to meet some empathetic feeling they have, some political agenda they have, and the american people are on to it. they know this is happening too much, they do not like it, they want it to stop, and they don't want this kind of judge on the bench. but many of our great law schools, many of our judicial philosophers and writers think this is all great. they think we need this kind of thing, we need to advance the law. that's what they say. and the hero to them is the one who comes up with some gimmick

to reinterpret plain meanings of our constitution, to have it say what they want it to say at a given time, to help decide in the lawsuit they'd like to see helped to advance an agenda. it's really part of a post-modern approach to life, to law, and senator reid's nuclear option execution is also a post-modern power thing. i. the results, i.t. the ends, i.t. the ideology. i.t. the revolution -- it's the revolution. advance the cause. no rules apply. you say, jeff, you are too hard. you shouldn't say that. that's exactly what i have to say in my belief.

remember in 2001 when president bush got elected, the democrats -- there were virtually no filibusters. a few judges had problems, they were held up for a while. but there were no filibusters of judges. they met in retreat, laurence tribe, cass sunstein was there, according to "the new york times." they came out at the retreat. the retreat with a decision. the decision was to alter the ground rules of confirmations, and they immediately accepted the two nominees president bush had submitted that were democrats. one of them hadn't been confirmed under president clinton. he renominated them. they took those two and confirmed them. they blocked ten great judges, great nominees. the and this went on for over a year. there were votes after votes after votes, and they

steadfastly -- senator schumer, the leader -- blocked those judges from being voted on by a filibuster because there weren't 60 votes to shut off debate to effect cloture. and so this went on at a extraordinary time. and at some point the threat was that the nuclear option would be executed and a group of senators met and said, look, let's don't change the rules of the senate by breaking the rules of the senate. let's reach an agreement. and this is what they said: they said, you shouldn't filibuster judges anymore unless there are extraordinary circumstances to justify it. normally you should just vote "yes" o. "no or "no" for the ju.

and in most cases "yes" or "no" should be the vote. and serious filibusters of nominees should not occur, except for extraordinary circumstances. well, i thought that was okay. i didn't really think we should filibuster, period. but it seemed to be a reasonable compromise in a political body that would do the right thing for the confirmation process. and we've been operating urpd that since 2002, i guess it is what that agreement was reached. and i thought was pretty good actually. i was sort of proud the way that came out. and, therefore, president obama has had very few filibusters. but when this gang of 14 reached

their agreement and it sort of was adopted by the senate, there were ten judges being filibustered out of the first batch of judges president bush nominated. and what came out of it was five were confirmed and five failed. so on one day, five judges were defeated without, in my opinion, anything like a justifiable basis to defeat those judges. but that's the way it was. p we agreed to it. five judges were blocked and never got to serve. five more were confirmed. so when i see the crocodile -- and who orchestrated that? senator reid, he complained mightily would anybody even

think about endin filibusteringa judge. when the three judges that were nominated for an absolutely -- for absolutely unneeded seats on the d.c. circuit were blocked, you would have thought this was the first time in history anybody had ever been blocked from being a judge in this senate. and they went and changed the whole rules of the senate. it's just unbelievable to me that we're at this point. i believe truly that president obama's nominees were treated fairly. i believe they've been evaluated fairly and only a very few have been blocked. on one day senator reid filed cloture on 17 nominations. it was totally set up. and you know what he said it

was? he said that we were filibustering these. every time he filed cloture, he said a filibuster was occurring. well, none of these judges were blocked. all of these judges got confirmed. there was not even a vote on cloture for the 17. yet when he claimed there's some unprecedented number of filibusters in the senate, he's counting that. there's not been this. well -- so that's just part of the tension that we're involved with. and we remember brooding over all of this is the affordable care act, obamacare, and how that legislation was opposed by a substantial majority of americans, consistently, 2-1 -- virtually 2-1, consistently the

american people rejected obamacare. they told this congress mott to pass it. we did everything we could on the republican side to keep it from passing. we pleaded with our colleagues not to do this. but oh, no ... they had to pass it. president obama wanted and they were going to pass it and we would find out later what's in it. that was literally the gist of what happened. and senator scott brown from massachusetts, liberal massachusetts, home of ted kennedy who believed in government involvement in health care, he was elected on a promise in massachusetts to be the vote to kill it. there was a vacancy. senator kennedy's death created this vacancy. and he campaigned to kill and be the -- deny the democrats the

60th vote necessary. what did they do? they used the reconciliation budget process to pass this monumental policy change in america in a way that kept scott brown and the american people, through the electoral process, from ending this piece of legislation that put us in the position we're in today where you don't get to keep your doctor, you don't get to keep your health care, where people's deductibles are going through the roof, where the price of their insurance is going up, where people are not being hired, where two-thirds of the people who get a job this year in america only got a part-time job; clearly being driven by business interests and trying to avoid being caught up in the obligations of the affordable care act. but they insisted -- and senator

reid has used every parliamentary maneuver possible to block any votes that would actually fix this bill, alter it in any way. so i -- i just got to say, we're at a point where we've got to wonder about is democracy happening in the senate? so you go back home. people get elected to the united states senate. they campaign, they say they want to go up there, and they want to change obamacare. have we had a single vote this year to change obamacare? no, because senator reid knows how to fill the tree and block any votes and keep it from hasmght we're nohappening. we're not voting on it. the house has repeatedly passed all kinds of legislation, extent to the senate, supposedly to cause us to respond to it, review the legislation, have votes, is hav have amendments ae

what kind of response we'd have to fixing the problems with obamacare. what happened? senator reid obstructs that process. he does not allow these votes to occur. they might as well have thrown their legislation down the well. the house -- what good is the senate bill to the senate if it never gets brought up on the most important issue facing our country today, health care? we can't even have a debate on it or vote about it? is this the great senate that robert byrd referred to? and what about the defense bill? the defense bill is over here now. spends over $500 billion, abouts half of the discretionary spending of any -- of the united states couldn't that w -- of the

united states congress that we spend. what are we told? we're told the senate is too busy. we can't bring up the defense bill and have an amendment. no more amendments. the two little amendments that were held -- that were voted on in an entire week are all you're going to get. no more amendments will be accepted. we're going to pass the bill as it is or vote "no" on it. why? why? because senator reid knows that there are some very important issues involved in the defense bill, and they're controversial, and people have different views about them, and some people on his side of the aisle don't want to vote on those bills because they have to stand up before their constituents and before america and before the world and actually cast a vote and be

accountable for their tenure in the united states senate. and so members of this side, like senator tom coburn, he's got ideas to fix the defense department, to save money. and senator reid won't give him a vote on it. and he objects, and senator reid says, senator coburn, you're obstructing. you're one of those republican obstructionists. you don't get a vote, senator coburn. i decide who votes here. i filled the tree. i know how to fill the tree. i'm the majority leader, and you get a vote, you have to ask me. and i'm not giving you anymore votes. i've had enough of you guys. that's kind of the way it's been. that's the way it's been with obamacare. that's the way it's been with the defense vote. the very idea that the national security is at stake and we have

a $500 billion defense bill -- and i'm on the armed services committee. we tried to work together. we basically had an almost unanimous vote on it. last year we had a unanimous vote on the defense bill. but there are still matters that we carry to the floor with a full understanding there would be debate is on votes on those -- debates and votes on those. they're not being allowed to vote on those. this is unusual, colleagues. this has never happened in the history of the senate. they've studied and found that in the last 28 years previous to senator reid, the tactic of filling the tree to limit debate was done 40 times. since senator reid has been majority leader, he's done it 77

times. it's every time, really. he is in complete control of the amendment process in the senate. we had a democratic colleague that said, well, he thought that he had to ask -- he had to get approval of the republican leader, senator mcconnell, before he could get his vote up. why? well, senator reid says -- republicans file 20 amendments. senator reid says you can only have three. and so he -- he starts with senator mcconnell. senator mcconnell say, that's not enough, senator reid. well, you can get five. but i want to approve them. and i suppose senator mcconnell may say, well, how many are you going to have? and do i -- i want to know what they are before i reach an

agreement wuvmen with you. so i suspect it may be true that we've got democratic senators having to ask the minority leader of the u.s. senate for approval to get their amendment up. that is not the way this should operate. it has never operated that way. we are -- our history is open and free debate, unlimited debate, in which the great issues of our time can be discussed here and actually voted on, and our constituents back home if they don't like the way we are voting can vote us out of office and send somebody else up here. so politics is driving this. there's no other reason. and the contention is that there wasn't enough time to vote on the defense bill, but the defense bill was on the floor an

entire week. we could have had ten votes a day, 15 votes a day, easy, on the defense bill. senator inhofe, the ranking republican on the armed services committee, told senator reid that he had limited the number of amendments that senators on our side had to 25, and we could do those -- could have been done easily in a week. but what was also true is senator inhofe noted that most -- a lot of those votes would never occur actually because somehow the person would realize they didn't have the votes to pass or that the manager of the bill would agree to some of the amendments per some other thing would happen so very unlikely that many votes would be cast but that's what we've done in the past. we've had two and three weeks of time spent on the defense bill, and we've had multiple

amendments, 30, 40, 50 amendments. and that's just ended. so here we are at a time when the country has a crisis on its hands, the american people are suffering by massive -- a massive takeover of health care that was rammed through this body against their will, and they still remain steadfastly opposed to it, and those of us who share those same concerns and want to change and alter this bill that's damaging our economy, that's damaging health care, that's hammering the middle class, we can't even get votes on it because we have a leader who's dictating how things are done here. this has got to end. it's just got to end. it cannot continue and i don't

see how any member of this body can go back home if you're a democrat and say i couldn't get an amendment up, why, well, senator mcconnell wouldn't let me. and i go back home to my state, others go back home to their state and senator toomey goes back to pennsylvania, says i offered all these amendments to improve obamacare, and his constituent says, well, did you vote on it? no. why not? senator reid wouldn't let me. now, where did this become part of the history of our ciewnt? is -- our country? is this what we teach our children in grade school, the way democracy is supposed to work? no. and it's got to end. mr. president, i appreciate the opportunity to share these remarks tonight. we are at a point in our history that this senate has got to stand up, reverse the trends

that have been going on, and to ensure that we operate in an open way, that people have to vote and vote and vote, and they can be held accountable for the people who sent us here and when we make people mad they have every right to vote us out of office. we don't have any right to come here and hide under our desk, not to expose ourselves, not to let people know how we really feel and how we really have been moving the country. so i think the tea party has rightly -- rightly has concerns about that kind of thing and i hope that we can make progress to improve this situation, it's essential for our country. i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, i rise as we consider the nomination of deborah lee -- deborah lee james as secretary of the air force but i want to

touch on some of the points that were made by the gentleman, the senator from alabama and i want to state how much i appreciate his leadership, especially as the ranking member of the budget committee, his consistent leadership in fighting for fiscal discipline and putting our country back on a sustainable fiscal path, his commitment to an open amendment process, the opportunity to have vigorous debate in the senate so that this body can work its will and, of course, his work on the armed services committee, i appreciate all that and appreciate him being here tonight. i do think it's important that we have a discussion about how we got here, mr. president. a discussion about the circumstances that have led to this completely unprecedented moment in the entire history of the republic. we have never found ourselves in a circumstance where a majority party has decided that they alone should have sole say in who shall be appointed to the executive branch and who shall

have the lifetime appointments to our federal bench. i am one who believes that this will very likely have very detrimental effects because when one party can ram through their choice without having to give any regard whatsoever to what the other party thinks, then what do we get? well, we get legislation like obamacare and we have extremes in the nominations who will eventually be confirmed. any president comes under pressure from the extremes within his or her party to put the most extreme people in positions of power. and the senate has played a vital role in moderating that extreme, that tendency, that pressure, because it's always been the case, virtually always, that neither party has 60 votes. very seldom has it been the case that a party has had over 60

votes so it has always been necessary, usually, almost always been necessary that there be some broad bipartisan consensus on the people who will populate power posts as regulators and lifetime appointments to the bench. that's no longer the case now. there is no such check and i fear the consequences will be detriment a.m. extreme nfl the regulatory agencies, volatility as we move from one administration to the other and have these swings and the most disturb thing of all is the real danger that one of the sources, the greatest sources of pride that americans can have in their federal government which has been an independent, nonpartisan judiciary, that that very judiciary becomes a partisan, becomes a creature of the political and becomes captured by the political branches of government. that's the danger. and that's why i think it's important that we consider how

we got here and why we got here. it's particularly extraordinary when you consider the statements of some of the leaders on the other side of the aisle, the democratic leaders who for years were passionately opposed to doing exactly what they did last month. the majority leader himself just a short time ago, he said and i will quote, senator reid said quite -- quote -- "the right to extend the debate is never more important than when one party controls congress and the white house. in knees cases a filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government" -- end quote. senator schumer, the senior senator from new york, he put it this way, -- and i quote -- "he said the checks and balances which have been at the core of this republic will be evaporated by the nuclear option. the checks and balances say that if you get 51% of the vote, you

don't get your pay 100% of the time." that was senator schumer. and senator reid. there are many other quotes on the record in which they vigorously opposed the notion of deputying the minority any say in the confirmation process when it was discussed but never implemented some years ago. so why would they have such a 180-degree reversal? why would their opinion and that of the vast majority of my democratic colleagues, why would it have changed to the point where they would actually take this absolutely unprecedented step? well, senator reid gave an explanation on the day that he inflicted these changes on this body and i'll quote from senator reid's explanation. what he said was -- quote -- "there has been unbelievable, unprecedented obstruction. for the first time in the history of our republic, republicans have routinely used

the filibuster to prevent president obama from appointing his executive team or confirming judges." that's what senator reid said. so it's been about republicans obstructing the president from appointing his executive team and confirming judges. let's just consider the case of judges, to start with. let's take a look at this chart. because since president obama has been president, some very simple, very easily verifiable facts that we can look at. the president has sent nominees for the senate to consider since he became president, the senate has confirmed 215 of those nominees. but the senate has blocked two of his nominees. these are verifiable facts,

they're not in dispute, these are the numbers. in total, the president has sent us the names of 217 candidates for judgeships. 215 were confirmed. and are sitting judges. two were blocked. now, there's another category of nominees, and that's the executive branch nominees, the various agencies and regulatory bodies which are subject to senatorial confirmation. the president has sent us a total of 1,494 nonjudicial executive branch nominees. the senate has confirmed 1,492, and the senate has blocked two. so in total, the math's not that complicated, the total is that the president has nominated and sent to the united states

senate for our consideration a total of 1,707 -- 1,711 altogether and the nas senate has confirmed 1,707. the senate has blocked four. so if you do the math, that's a confirmation rate of 99.8%. so of all the nominees that the president has sent to this body to be confirmed, we haven't actually confirmed every one. we've only confirmed 99.8% of them. of the 1,711, we've blocked four. now, mr. president, i would suggest that the power of advice and consent, the constitution says advice and consent, it doesn't just say advice. if it just said advice, then that would clearly imply that the president could ignore the advice if he chose. but it doesn't just say just

advice, it says advice and consent. well, the power to consent clearly and obviously implies that under some circumstances that consent would be withheld. if not, there's no meaning to this at all. so i would suggest, mr. president, that it is patently absurd to suggest a 99.8% confirmation rate is a pattern of obstruction as we've been accused of. so that can't be the real reason. obviously. obviously, this kind of record of almost universally approving presidential nominees can't possible apply be the real reason that we had that unprecedented power grab and rules change. so what was the real purpose? what was the real motivation behind this very dramatic development? i'm here to tell you i think

it's very clear what the real vote vaition was. the motivation was to pack the d.c. circuit court of appeals so that a partisan group of judges would validate an agenda that this administration and many of our friends on the other side of the aisle want to impose. that's an outrageous thing to say in 10 ways. 30 some people might say that's quite an accusation. what would be my basis for saying a thing like that? well, it would be the fact that senator reid and senator schumer told us that that was their reason. they've said so. i'll get to their quote but let me explain why this has been done. see the fact is elections have consequences. the president of the united states was elected, the republicans have been enormously denver renge, defer reference -- defer -- defer revenue shal. but in 2012 the spire house of representatives was on the ballot and and the american

people chose to reelect a republican majority in the house of representatives. those elections have consequences as well. one of the consequences of those elections, the set of leaksz that plowed a republican majority in the house and left many republicans in the senate, one of the consequences is that the president's -- the more liberal aspects of the president's agenda cannot pass in congress. they're not supported by a majority of the american people, not supported by majorities in congress. things li -- things like cap-and-trade and card check and the war on coal, recess appointments -- these things don't have support. they don't have broad support and i don't think in either body, certainly not enough in the house of representatives, to pass. so what is the president to do if he can't get his legislation passed, but he nevertheless wants to pursue an agenda? well, one way a president could do this, especially one that is

not interested in working with the minority party -- and obamacare i is the clear example that this president is not interested in working with the republicans. that was jammed through without any input from the republicans in the house or the senate. there was not a broad consensus. it is not surprising that a very short time later there's a big majority of american people that don't support this bill because it was never designed with enough input and enough buy-in to have that broad consensus. so if a president is not interested in working with the minority party and he can't get his legislation through because there aren't enough members of his party in congress, the alternative is to try to impose it through the regulatory, through the agencies, through the regulators, through the executive branch, which has become enormous, and enormously powerful. now, there's only one big hurdle

for a president who tries to go down this road. and that hurdle is that eventually people who are the victims of an overreaching group of regulators and administrators and agency heads, they have recourse. if they think that a given regulator is acting unfairly or illegally or unconstitutionally, they can go to court and, in fact, people do that. and guess what court ends up hearing the appeals and making what is very typically the final decisions, as a practical matter, regarding federal regulations? , why i.twhy, it's the d.c. cirt of appeals. and in fact the d.c. circuit court has scwenly bee generallyn upholding the laws. i believe that the evidence is very clear that it is a capable, competent, nonpartisan group of

talented judges who make decisions as they see fit. they call balls and strikes as refer owes oughreferees ought t. i'm sure i didn't agree with all of theming, but they did block an illegal overreach by the e.p.a. and consistent with the laws regulating the e.p.a. they didn't believe that the president had the right to decide when congress was in recess and make appointments that suited him when we were not able to deny consent. that was the d.c. circuit court's decision. and this -- and several others -- was completely unacceptable to some of my democratic friends, unacceptable that an independent, nonpartisan court might reach decisions that are inconsistent with the liberal agenda. now, how do we know that this was unacceptable? well, we've got some quotes. just one second on that chart. the senior senator from new

york, senator schumer, discussed this. he was speaking to a group of supporters -- it's on the record darned he complained that the d.c. circuit "overturned the apse ability to regulate existing coal plants. he explained that the s.e.c. can't pass rules unless they do a cost-benefit analysis. he complaininged that they struck down utah administration's illegal recess appointments to the nlrb and told a group of supporters -- and here's the quote -- "that democracy will -- quote -- "fill up the d.c. circuit one way or another." that was a quote. it's pretty stra strait forward. it's pretty can divmentd we don't like the decisions coming out of this court, so we'll pack the court with hemowho agree with our ideology -- with people who agree with our ideology. senator schumer wasn't the only

one to make this case. senator reid had this to say of the d.c. circuit. and i quote. "they're the ones that said the president can't have recess appointments. they've done a lot of bad things, so we're focusing very intently on the d.c. circuit. we need at least one more. there's three vacancies. we need at least one more, and that will switch the majority." put that up. this is senator reid on the d.c. circuit. "we need at least one more" -- obviously referring to judges. "we need at least one more and that will switch the majority." i think it's pretty clear what was going on here. so now fast-afford to a few weeks ago -- so now, fast-afford

to a few weeks ago, putting people who would agree with senator schumer and senator reid on the d.c. circuit and render the decisions they wanted. the obstacle was that republicans weren't interested in going along with a scheme for ideological purposes. but it's probably better to have judges who are not there to try advance a political agenda but believe that they are job is to apply the lawyer, as written, and make sure that it's consistent with the constitution. as opposed to pursuing a political agenda. so despite the fact that republicans had to that point confirmed 99.8% of all the president's nominees, that was going a little bit too far to simply blatantly pack the d.c. circuit court. and we said no to the three nominees who were people they were intending to pack that court. whanand when we did, senator re, after publicly promising he was not going to change the rules this way, just this past summer,

nevertheless, did exactly that. and despite the fact that senate rules are very clerks to changee very clear, to change the rules requires a voigh vote of 67 sen, senator reid changed the rules with a mere 51 votes. he broke the rules so he could change the rules so that the democratic majority can now steam roll through and rubber stamp all of the president's nominees, including those necessary to pack the court so that they can pursue the agenda that they want to pursue. again, this is not my speculation. these are the quotes from the man who helped to organize this effort. it is, frankly, very reminiscent in a lost ways of obamacare. -- in a lot of ways of obamacare. steamrolled through congress, one party, no input from the other party -- the minority party -- and a complete disaster. and by the way, the other big

similarity is the broken promises. senator reid, clearly, unambiguously, unequivocally, unconditionally made the promise that he wasn't going to change ther rules and then he did. and then when have we been hearing about obamacare? one broken promise after another. mr. president, what i'm going to do for the remainder of the time that i consume this evening is remind all of us of some of the promises that were made and then i'm just going to read a small sample of the e-mails tha that e been coming into my office from pennsylvanians who have learned firsthand, the painful way just how untrue these promises were. the first one is maybe the first famous of the promises. this is the president's repeated promise, echoed about by many

others, and i will quote, "if you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan." i don't know how many times the president said it. but what's particularly maddening, we know that everybody who said it always knew that this was not true. it was not true because the design of the bill forbid people from keeping health insurance plans in many cases, not no all cases but many cases, and the the authors of the bill and the supporters of the bill and the people who voted for the bill knew fully well that one of the purposes of the bill was to establish government-approved standards for all insurance plans and if your plan did not meet those standards, you were going to lose your plan. so this is -- this is what some folks have written to us about this promise, that if you like your health plan, you can keep

your health plan. this was just two days ago, a gentleman from lancaster county, pennsylvania, wrote, "as my congressional representative, you need to know how obamacare is hurtin hurting life. i work for a small construction company. my coste for health care reform was already over $11,000 a year. we received notification that our 308s wa policy was being ca. our company looked for the best rates they could find for comparable coverage which did comply. they chose a new insurance company. we just recently were given the costs for next year. the cost to cover myself and my femme will be over $17,500 per year. a 59% increase. even with that, the deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums are higher. this is not affordable care. this would eat up a major part of my income. i attempted to log on to the healthcare.gov web site several times but always get kicked out. i do not hold up much hope that

i'll get any better rates because i do not qualify for a credit. we were already struggling to live on my takehome pay. we cannot afford to have it reduced by over d 6,500. we m.i.a. may are to drop -- we may have to drop health care coverage for myself and myself and pay the penalty. i suspect this will result in a the love people losing their health care. close quote. this time from a gentleman from couple imperland county, pennsylvania. "my wife barb and i have have been trying to get signed up. all income and health info and private snftion information is on the unsecured web site and the application is accepted but we've not been able to get on to pick the plan or get our price so nobody has been paid. thus our canceled insurance ends on december 31 and we look to be out. a big mistake by the folks that voted for this. i've had cancer a couple of times. my wife has had cancer. and we both see our doctors when

needed. this a.c.a. will ruin many families if we can't get on to on insurance plan. close quote. so these folks are not only losing the insurance that they had. but they haven't been able to get an alternative plan. a woman from lebanon county, pennsylvania, last week. she sent me this e-mail. "we had our health care discontinued and after an appeal were able to get it reinstated but only for this year. currently we have a health care savings plan with a deductible of $3,000 a year. in the new plan, our deductible would increase to $12,000, and our premiums would increase to $9,000 a year. how is a middle-class, married family supposed to pay for that? this is absolutely ridiculous and this is our situation. i hope every government worker has to purchase their plan through this plan. "quags a gentleman from delaware county, september sent me this last week. "i'm 66 and i am on medicare.

my wife mary ann is 63. her insurance company canceled her long-standing policy due to the requirements of the affordable care act. her new policy cost $350 more per month. we're on a strict budget. we're the hardworking middle class. who stand for us?" a small business owner from cumberland county, pennsylvania. december 3, "i'm a small business owner with three employees looking for health insurance. my old policy is being canceled and i was offered a replacement policy which is 68% higher than the old policy with higher dfnlts i went through the healthcare.gov site and was quoted an individual policy for my family which is 74% higher with higher dfnlt deductibles. when do i see affordable health care for my family? i have been self-employed for 1 years and have paid for my insurance all these years myself. i'm looking at $26,000 out of

pocket with deductibles this year. please help." another progra promise that we - these were real people who are demonstrating hon trudemonstrate pro many that you could keep the health insurance plan that you had. there was another promise we heard frequently. and that promise was if you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor, period. the president added that flourish at the end be, the period, just to emphasize. these are the president's word. "if you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor, period." this was also something that everybody who had anything to do with this bill knew was going to be untrue. insurance plans differ. some cover certain doctors. others cover other doctors, and since some plans were certainly going to be canceled, inevitably, some people were

going to lose the plans that covered their doctor. this was no great mystery. and it was not some unintended, unforeseeable consequence. it was part of the design of the bill. and yet people were told, if you like your doctor, you are you'll be able to keep your doctor. well, i got this email from a woman from west more land county. she says i've been self-employed for 13 years and have never been without health insurance. three years ago i was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. having an expensive freemedz was not a problem -- preementdz for me -- preemed preexisting condition was not a problem for me. my medication cost $4,000 per month. i received notice several weeks ago they were now going to cancel my plan and were doing some so as of january 1 and i had to sign up for new coverage through the health insurance exchange. well, my staff reached out to this woman to see if we could help. turns out where she lived and

given her circumstances there were two options available to her, two different plans. one plan covered her doctors. the other plan covered the medicine that she needed to treat her multiple sclerosis. neither plan would do both. what kind of choice is that that this woman is going to have to make? i had another email that arrived last week. i finally got to where i could compare plans on the government web site only to find that my insurance premiums would go from $512 per month for a plan with a $500 billion deductible, $200 out-of-pocket plan to 799 with a $500 billion -- $500. none of these plans include my current doctor whom i want to desperately keep. obamacare is such a disaster. please stand firm and continue to work toward repealing it. and finally there is one more

promise, false promise that i'm going to examples of responses i've gotten. that's the promise that premiums for a family would decrease by $2,500 per year. in fact, the data that i've seen suggests that on average premiums in the individual market have been increasing. but consider the case of some of the people who have reached out to my office from pennsylvania. here's a small business owner from carbon county, pennsylvania, last week sent me this email. i've had an h.s.a. eye high deductible plan for several years for my employees. i've paid 100% of the premiums and contributed 50% of the deductible every year that they paid the other 50%. i just received notice that my insurance premiums are going up 100%. what can be done tony force the president's statements we can keep our current plans? there's no way i can pay this

new premium. my employees loved the coverage they had and i hate we can no longer provide this benefit. here's an email from a father of two from bucks county, pennsylvania. i received notice last week that my health care will more than triple. currently i'm paying $265 a month for me and my two young sons. my monthly premium will go up to $836 a month. the president promised you can keep your plan and families will save $2,500 per year. i can keep my plan, i just can't afford it. i do qualify for subsidies. 80 bucks a month. i got this email from a man from mercer county, pennsylvania, two days ago. i just became another obamacare victim. because my employer's health plan costs are going up almost 100%, i'll have $400 less in my pocket month. at 58 i'll have to cut back on

how much money i can put into my local economy. obamacare needs to be scrapped. here's an email from a man from crawford county, pennsylvania. i'm a small business owner and i speak with many vendors in my field. one of said vendors said his costs would increase to $9 an hour on insurance alone. another said he feared i would not be able to stay in business because of the insurance costs. my own situation is just as dire. currently i personally pay about $1,500 a month for insurance and under obamacare i've seen my costs go up by $375. on top of that, my wife, who is an insurance agent, fears she will be losing her coverage next fall due to the law. here's an email i got from a father from lucerne county. please keep fighting the disaster happening to thousands of working men and women losing their health care along with some of us retired folks.

our son is one of them and the alternative is unthinkable. his plan costs doubled to $300 billion a month but -- $300 a month but the deductible is $4,500. how can anyone say it's affordable on top of the statement no one political will lose their plan or doctor if they're satisfied with them? your fight his hard but our prayers are with you. here's an email i got from a small business owner from cumberland county, pennsylvania. he writes i'm a small business owner in the carlisle area. we've been in business for 30 years. i offered insurance to the full-time employees for many years, and if it weren't for the rising costs of health care i could hire another employee because we could use the help but with the anticipated increases i won't be able to. i've been told by our insurance carrier that we can expect up to 50% increases. finally, mr. president, the small business owner from

chester county, pennsylvania, he wrote last week, we just got our insurance coverage options for my small business. previous rate was $470 per month with zero dollar deductible, a good plan. new plan is $692 per month with a $2,000 deductible, a bad plan. okay, i cannot keep my plan, to get close to the one i need to pay more and incur a ridiculous deductible. this is not free market. i don't like the government telling me what's best for me. i have several oldser employees and their rates are over $1,000 per month. i cannot afford to pay for their insurance and they cannot afford to either. i'm forced to drop the plan or remove them from employment. this is out of control. so, mr. president, this is just a tiny sample of the emails i've gotten. i'm one senator from one state. the fact is the vast majority of

people who have experienced these problems they don't ever send an email to their senator. so we've got this tiny little sliver of the thousands and hundreds of thousands, actually millions of americans who are suffering from the direct consequences and by argue the intended consequences of this bill, unable to keep their insurance plan, unable to keep their doctors, not experiencing savings but rather experiencing increases in costs. these are just a few of the terrible cons scwens -- consequences of obamacare. there are many others i could scwiet scieft but i was focusing on broken promises tonight. there are too many to list. but i want to stress stress also that these are symptoms of a completely and impossibly flawed bill. the real underlying problem of obamacare is something that

frederick hyatt wonders about, the fatal conceit, the idea that a small group of really smart people can know more than the combined accumulated knowledge and wisdom dispersed across an entire population. it's an absurd notion but yet it is at the heart of all kinds of big-government plans, socialism everywhere, and it's clearly at the heart of obamacare. the idea is that these man erins are so -- mandarins are so smart, they should be able to force their will on everyone else. it's really extraordinarily insulting premise that this is based on, but it is. the premise is that individual men and women across america, they are certainly not qualified, not smart enough to know what's good for them. they're certainly not -- shouldn't be free to decide what kind of health plan they want to buy for their family. the trade-offs that you make when buy something like a health

insurance plan, like how important is a higher deductible versus lower freedoms or the importance of having maternity coverage or the importance that someone might attach to a particular doctor, all of those judgments which are so personal are taken away from individuals in obamacare. that's not for americans to decide. you will take the plan that is available to you and approved by the government, period. and, by the way, you're breaking the law if you don't and you'll be assessed a fine. this is outrageous. this is not the society that we've always been. but it's really just the most recent and egregious example of this warning that hyatt gave us, this arrogance of big government. mr. president, i would argue that it is an offensive affront to the freedom of the american people and it is predictably and

sensationally a failure. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: