[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 175 (Wednesday, December 11, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8757-S8763]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF SUSAN P. WATTERS TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR
THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Susan P.
Watters, of Montana, to be United States District Judge for the
District of Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to the provisions of S. Con. Res. 15
of the 113th Congress, there will be now be up to 2 hours of
postcloture consideration of the nomination equally divided in the
usual form.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I yield back 1 hour of the majority's
time, what time would the next vote occur?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 9:15 p.m.
Mr. REID. I yield back 1 hour.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is yielded back.
The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, we are now on Calendar No. 349, Susan P.
Watters of Montana to be U.S. district judge for the District of
Montana. I note on the Executive Calendar this nomination came before
the Senate from the committee on September 19. It is my understanding
that this nominee was cleared by our side of the aisle and could have
been brought up on any Monday afternoon by a voice vote.
I think Members might be wondering and certainly people within the
sound of my voice tonight might be wondering why we are spending time
tonight in a protracted debate on three district court nominees--Landya
B. McCafferty of New Hampshire, Brian Morris or Montana, and now Susan
Watters of Montana to be confirmed--when there has never been a
district court judge in the history of our Republic prevented from
serving because of a filibuster.
To me, we have gotten to this point because of the heavyhanded
overreach of the majority in trampling on the rights of folks on our
side of the aisle. We find ourselves--temporarily, I hope--in the
minority. That has a way of changing from time to time. But it is the
sort of overreach that I am reminded of from 2009 when a supermajority
in both Houses rammed through ObamaCare and caused all of the grief
that we currently are facing and that real, live Americans are having
with the so-called Affordable Care Act.
It actually might be in one way beneficial that we are spending this
time on something that could have been done so quickly because it gives
us an opportunity to point out that we should be right now, at this
moment, working on the National Defense Authorization Act and also on
the budget--two matters that are pending that must be addressed by this
Senate before we can go home and take a day or two with our
constituents and loved ones for the Christmas holiday. But it gives me
an opportunity, as the budget comes over tonight from the House of
Representatives, to point out one of the most onerous provisions in the
budget, which has just passed with sweeping bipartisan support in the
House of Representatives.
I will stand before this body tonight and say that I cannot vote and
will not vote for this budget, and I hope that even yet Members of the
Congress and the American public will listen to the broken promise that
is contained in this budget that will be coming forward. We will
perhaps get back to the nomination in a moment.
We should note two things about this budget. It asks for an
additional contribution for pensions for Federal employees, but it does
not do it to current Federal employees. As you enter the Federal
service after the beginning of the year, you pay an additional amount
that is withheld from your paycheck for your pension. That is hard to
do, it is distasteful to do, but at least it is fair to the people who
join the Federal service under one set of rules.
On the other hand, the budget that comes over to us from the House of
Representatives and that I will oppose when it eventually does come up
for a vote hopefully next week does to retired servicemen what we were
persuaded not to do to Federal employees: It breaks a promise to
retired service people who have already served their time. This is what
it does. It says to every retired servicemember under the age of 62:
You are not going to get your COLA anymore. Each year until you get to
be 62, you are going to get your COLA, less 1 percent. I can tell you
[[Page S8758]]
that this is not a matter of nickels and dimes to the people who have
stepped forward, joined the military, volunteered for a career in the
military, done their 20, and now are going to be told, if this budget
passes next week: We are sorry. We are changing the rules way after the
game has begun.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter to me
from VADM Norb Ryan, U.S. Navy, Retired, president of the Military
Officers Association of America.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Dear Senator Wicker: On behalf of the over 380,000 members
of the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA), I am
writing to express our strong opposition to the proposal
within the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 which penalizes
future uniformed service retirees and current retirees under
the age of 62.
Even though the budget deal would help ease the harmful
effects of sequestration for two years for the Department of
Defense--something we support--doing so on the backs of
service members who serve our Nation for over 20 years is
just shameful.
Reducing working age retiree annual cost-of-living
adjustment by one percent until they reach the age of 62 is
simply a tax.
Service members who retire at the 20 year point would feel
the full negative financial effects of the proposal by
reducing their retired pay by nearly 20 percent by the time
they reach age 62.
For example, an Army Sergeant First Class (E-7) retiring
this year with 20 years of service would see an average loss
of over $3,700 per year by the time he or she reaches age
62--a cumulative loss of nearly $83,000. For a Lieutenant
Colonel (O-5), the average annual loss would be over $6,200--
a cumulative loss of over $124,000.
This proposal also flies in the face of the principles that
guide the ongoing congressionally-mandated review of military
compensation and retirement.
Congress wisely removed the BRAC-like, ``fast-track'' rule
so that the appropriate committees would have adequate time
to assess impacts that any recommended changes to the
retirement system would have on retention and readiness.
In addition, the guiding principles to the Military
Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission (MCRMC)
include a grandfather clause to protect current retirees and
service members from any changes to their retirement which
this proposal blatantly disregards.
Currently serving members look at how they, their families,
retirees, and survivors have been treated when making career
choices. If Congress arbitrarily cuts the retirement benefit
for those who have served their country for over 20 years,
there could be an unintended impact on uniformed service
career retention, and ultimately, national security.
Sincerely,
VADM Norb Ryan, USN (Ret),
President,
Military Officers Association of America.
Mr. WICKER. Let me point out what the retired vice admiral says.
On behalf of the 380,000 members of the Military Officers
Association of America, I am writing to express our strong
opposition to the proposal within the Bipartisan Budget Act
of 2013 which penalizes future uniformed service retirees and
current retirees under the age of 62. Even though the budget
deal would help ease the harmful effects of sequestration for
2 years for the Department of Defense, something we support,
doing so on the backs of servicemembers who served our Nation
for over 20 years is just shameful.
I would interject at this point that I have to agree with that
statement.
The vice admiral goes on to say:
Reducing working age retiree annual cost of living
adjustment by 1 percent until they reach the age of 62 is
simply a tax. Servicemembers who retire at the 20-year point
would feel the full negative final effect of the proposal by
reducing their retired pay by nearly 20 percent by the time
they reach the age of 62.
This is the pertinent part of the letter I am having printed in the
Record, and my colleagues should hear me on this:
For example, an Army sergeant first class, E-7 retiring
this year with 20 years of service would see an average loss
of over $3,700 per year by the time he or she reaches age 62,
a cumulative loss of nearly $83,000.
That is what this bipartisan budget resolution does to the retired
military enlisted people who have volunteered to serve our country for
20 years and who joined under one set of rules--$83,000 lifetime taken
from this retired E-7.
For a lieutenant colonel, O-5, the average annual loss would be over
$6,200 annually, a cumulative loss of over $124,000.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Would the Senator yield?
Mr. WICKER. I will yield on this, absolutely, to my friend.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I know the Senator from Mississippi was on Active Duty
in the Air Force for several years and has stayed in contact with many
members of the military not just as a result of his service on the
Armed Services Committee but because he is very keenly interested in
the welfare of the men and women in our military.
If I am hearing the Senator from Mississippi correctly on this
particular issue, what he is saying is that an E-7 who served in Iraq,
served in Afghanistan, conceivably served multiple tours in Iraq and
Afghanistan, maybe even was awarded major meritorious recognition, is
now going to have the promise that was made to him about his retirement
reduced retroactively. Do I understand that correctly?
Mr. WICKER. The rules, if this budget passes and is signed into law
by President Obama, will be changed on this individual retroactively.
The result will be that, instead of the retirement pay he signed up for
and agreed to under the law when he did his duty, he will experience an
$83,000 loss, lifetime.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, again if I may inquire of the Senator,
you, as I say, have been very close to any number of military personnel
through the years you have served in this body as well as your service
in the Mississippi Legislature. Just by virtue of the fact of
practicing law in Tupelo, MS, what is the opinion of the Senator from
Mississippi as to the morale influence a provision such as this is
going to have on our men and women in the military, not just those who
are retired but Active-Duty military today?
Mr. WICKER. I can only imagine that it is a severe blow to morale.
Also, it has to make people who are willing to step forward and risk
their lives, be separated for months and years from their loved ones,
it has to make them wonder, what else is being promised to me that is
going to be taken away?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. The Senator also mentioned the reduction in Federal
retirement pay--and we have to figure out ways to save money. We all
know and understand that. There is a change in the pension for Federal
retirees, but it is all prospective going forward.
Mr. WICKER. Right. We do not do anything to any other Federal
employee retroactively, only the military in this budget. I cannot
imagine how the public could think that is fair.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I am very sympathetic, even though I never served on
Active-Duty in the military as you did. But this is very strange. It is
very difficult to understand why we would penalize the men and women
who have worn or do wear the uniform of the United States versus a very
similar provision for the men and women who serve the Government of the
United States in a very honorable way, but we are treating them very
differently, it seems like almost discriminatorily.
Mr. WICKER. I will tell you who else believes it is discriminatory. I
have a list of members of the military coalitions listed in a letter to
the Honorable Harry Reid and the Honorable Mitch McConnell dated
December 11, 2013. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Military Coalition
Alexandria, VA, December 11, 2013.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Majority and Minority Leaders: The Military Coalition
(TMC), a consortium of uniformed services and veterans
associations representing more than 5.5 million current and
former servicemembers and their families and survivors,
appreciates the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 which helps to
ease the harmful effects of sequestration on the defense
budget; however, we wish to express our grave concern and
strong objection to the proposal within the Act that
specifically seeks to penalize current and future military
members who have served our nation for over twenty years.
The 1 percent annual reduction to uniformed service retired
pay Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) will have a devastating
financial impact for those who retire at the 20 year point by
reducing retired pay by nearly 20 percent at age 62.
While portrayed as a minor change, a 20 percent reduction
in retired pay and survivor benefit values is a massive cut
in military career benefits and an egregious breach of faith.
The Coalition believes that service in uniform is unlike
any other occupation. Roughly one percent of the nation's
population is
[[Page S8759]]
currently serving and shouldering 100 percent of the
responsibility for our wartime and national security
requirements. The benefits connected with this service have
been earned through 20 or more years of arduous military
service.
Ending the harmful effects of sequestration is a top
priority for our nation's security and military readiness,
but to tax the very men and women who have sacrificed and
served more than others is simply a foul.
Congress mandated the Military Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Commission (MCRMC) in the FY 2013 National
Defense Authorization Act and wisely removed the
``BRAClike'', fast-tracking rule so that the appropriate
committees would have adequate time to assess any
recommendations that could significantly impact retention and
readiness. Moreover, any changes that the MCRMC recommends
will grandfather the existing force and retirees to keep
promises that have been made by our nation's leadership.
This radical proposal basically kills the grandfather-
concern addressed by both Congress and the Administration and
actually eliminates the appropriate review process failing to
consider longterm readiness and retention outcomes in order
to meet an arbitrary deadline so that Congress can go home
for the holidays.
The Secretary of Defense succinctly warned on July 31, ``It
is the responsibility of our nation's leadership to work
together to replace the mindless and irresponsible policy of
sequestration. It is unworthy of the service and sacrifice of
our nation's men and women in uniform and their families.''
The Military Coalition shares the Secretary's concerns.
Currently serving members look at how they, their families,
retirees, and survivors are being treated when making career
decisions. If Congress arbitrarily cuts the retirement
benefit for those who have served their country for over 20
years, there could be a lasting adverse impact on uniformed
service career retention, and ultimately, national security.
Sincerely,
The Military Coalition.
Mr. WICKER. I simply say, in answer to the distinguished Senator from
Georgia, here are the groups who are expressing outrage, dismay, and
strong opposition to this provision:
The Air Force Sergeants Association; Air Force Women Officers
Associated; AMVETS; AMSUS; Association of the United States Navy; Chief
Warrant Officer and Warrant Officer Association, U.S. Coast Guard;
Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public Health Service,
Inc.; Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States;
Fleet Reserve Association; Gold Star Wives; Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans
of America; Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America; Marine
Corps League; Marine Corps Reserve Association; Military Officers
Association of America; Military Order of the Purple Heart; National
Association for Uniformed Services; National Guard Association of the
United States; National Military Family Association; Naval Enlisted
Reserve Association; Society of Medical Consultants to the Armed
Forces; the Military Chaplains Association of the United States of
America; the Retired Enlisted Association; United States Army Warrant
Officers Association; United States Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers
Association; Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States; and Vietnam
Veterans of America.
This distinguished list of organizations consisting of members and
former members of the U.S. military have registered their opposition.
I can only hope at this point that Members of the Senate will listen.
This is a so-called savings of $6 billion out of an $80 billion
package.
Surely we could find $6 billion without putting an $80,000 penalty on
the back of an E-7 retired enlisted person who is not rich, who served
honorably under one set of rules and who has been now told sorry.
I have to say when people see the government not keeping its
promises, I think it is destructive to our system of government. It is
exactly the sort of thing we are seeing with ObamaCare. It is 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 that they could keep their insurance.
For example, in a speech at the American Medical Association on June
15, 2009, President Obama stated:
That means that no matter how we reform health care, we
will keep this promise to the American people: If you like
your doctor, 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.
These are the words of the leader of the free world. 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 servicemen, is being broken.
If the Senator 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 received an email from a father in Greenville, MS, who is concerned
about his 27-year-old son. For the past 6 years his son was covered
under a policy provided by Humana. When the healthy 20-year-old first
received coverage, the policy protected against a 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'll be able to keep your health care plan.''
According to this father in Greenville, MS, 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. The healthy
27-year-old who works in the automotive industry has been working since
he was 20. He now questions whether he can afford to insure himself at
all because his cost has quadrupled. His discretionary income will now
taken a huge hit--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. Once again, in this instance, a promise has
been made, a very explicit promise. 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 from Mississippi for giving me an
opportunity to speak for a minute. I wish to get to some anecdotes, but
first it has been nearly 4 years since the Democrats in the Senate and
the House forced the passage of the President's signature law, the
Affordable Care Act or what is commonly known as ObamaCare.
It is a title the President has embraced during the promising times
and distanced himself from during the very difficult times we are going
through now. It has 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 across this hall that we are
looking at 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.
The Senator from Mississippi and I were here on the floor, and we
both fought tooth and nail to stop the passage of ObamaCare.
On Christmas Eve, 2009, we came to the floor of the Senate and voted
against what I think is the worst piece of legislation that has passed
in the Congress in the 19 years the Senator and I have been in
Congress. I have been saying for years that ObamaCare caused more
problems than it solved, and with the passage of every single day, that
is being shown as the painful truth.
Although the White House has stood behind this terrible piece of
legislation, some of my colleagues across the aisle have brought into
question now the ability of it to stand on its own two feet.
Who can blame them. This has become a major political issue, not only
expensive, but it is a political issue. The law continues to be marked
by red flags. We have heard a few of the Democrats go as far to say
even that it is a train wreck, and they are exactly right.
We have 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
[[Page S8760]]
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.
I noticed yesterday, in a hearing, the Secretary of HHS reported that
nearly 365,000 individuals have selected plans from the State and
Federal marketplaces, a number that is far below the administration's
goal. I think their goal--and the Senator may correct me--is 7 million
by the end of March.
I notice also that the State of Oregon has spent $300 million setting
up their exchange. As of this morning there were 40 people, 40 citizens
of Oregon had signed up. The fact is that this law is not working. It
is becoming more and more expensive every day. As we talked about in
2009, when we were debating this bill, it is going to be the largest
mandatory expenditure that the U.S. taxpayer has ever seen.
The Senator is correct. I have a whole book of anecdotes and I wish
to mention some.
First, Linda of Douglasville wrote to me about her dropped coverage.
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 really
retire!
My husband, who is 71, still has to work part time to pay
for our rising costs.
Linda, from Hampton, GA, also writes:
In 1997 I retired from Motorola, Inc. after having a career
there for almost 30 years. One of my benefits was a retiree
secondary insurance plan, after Medicare, that provided
coverage for medical and prescriptions; my monthly premium
for that coverage was $127.
Effective January 1, 2013 Motorola withdrew their insurance
coverage for retirees.
Under ObamaCare they simply could not afford it. I could go on and
on. I know the Senator from Mississippi has some other anecdotes that
he would like to mention, and I will engage on some others on my side
shortly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. I thank my colleague from Georgia. Let me mention a
husband and wife in Hernando, MS. They are small businesspeople. As the
Chair is aware, that is how we create jobs in the United States of
America. We love it when a big manufacturing plant moves in, but it is
the small businesses throughout 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 Hernando, MS, tell me their
private insurance plan that they have offered their employees in the
past will not be grandfathered and the new plan they are forced to
offer their employees will have a 7-percent premium increase in 2014--
that is real money--and a 66-percent premium increase in 2015,
according to their insurance agent.
Perhaps they believed the President when he said: ``If you like your
health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan,
period.''
Perhaps they believed Members of the majority party, such as 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-percent premium increase
is hardly affordable at that and then a 66-percent premium increase,
which is a blow. Their small group plan they offered to their eight
employees currently costs $491 per month per employee. 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 is going from $491
per month per employee to $800 per month per employee. I wonder how
many jobs they will be adding to that small business. 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 help supplement.
But with the frequent changes the President is making to the law, they
are uncertain whether they will be able to cover the enormous cost.
As small business owners, it is 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 living in Corinth, MS, in the
northeast corner of our State. They are full-time employed parents who
currently do not have health care. They 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. For a working family in Mississippi with two young children
to care for, this cost is an almost impossible burden on this family of
four.
It may be that the Senator from Georgia has examples similar to
these.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. The American people want affordable health insurance.
The title of the law even centers on the word ``affordable.'' I am not
sure how anybody could possibly argue that ObamaCare is affordable when
the letters I am receiving from constituents over and over every single
day, time and again, reference a significant increase in their total
health care costs. Virtually 100 percent of the letters we are getting
indicate that not only are the monthly premiums going up, but the
deductible is going up, their copays are going up, and it is 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.
Terra from Columbus writes to explain what is happening to her
children.
I carry medical insurance for my two adult children because
they cannot afford it on their own.
Let us remember, ObamaCare covers children up to 26 years of age.
Being one that has always had medical insurance and knowing
the value of it 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 them either. 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, 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.
Wynell, from Roswell, GA, 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 copay 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). And apparently, subsidies do not apply to me.
Loretta, from Canton, GA, writes:
I received a letter from my insurance company dated
September 25, 2013. I had until November 15 to choose to
remain with my current coverage until December 2014. My rate
increased by 16 percent. According to the letter, the
Affordable Care Act premium will increase by 139 percent. My
former plan did not include maternity. I'm 60 years old. I
don't need maternity. My new plan will include maternity. My
old plan was great for preventive care. I paid nothing for
immunizations including tetanus and flu shots. I paid a $30
copay 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 percent and 200
percent above what I'm paying now. I did not enroll but have
received numerous e-mails reminding me to enroll. So far, I'm
hoping I can keep my premium at the 16 percent increase for
2014. Otherwise, I will not have health insurance. I can't
afford the new premium.
Kevin, from Roswell, GA, 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.
This is very typical of a lot of families who were promised 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
bladder cancer in November of 2012 which was successfully
removed and I require no follow up treatment, just biannual
checkups, so I expected an increase in my premium this year.
In fact, our premium did go up to $560 a month in July. On
November 1, I got the letter telling us our premium was now
going to $902 a month, a 60 percent increase. After three
separate calls, I got the
[[Page S8761]]
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 adopted two kids, so that coverage is 100
percent completely unnecessary for us. ``Option A'' we came
to find out a few weeks later, 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 we will never, ever need.
Now, I am sure the Senator from Mississippi has received dozens and
dozens of these letters, just as we have in my office. Knowing the
State of Mississippi has a lot of rural areas, as my State does--in
fact, I live in a rural area--there is 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 it defeats the purpose of having health insurance.
This really does hit close to home for me because I truly live in a
rural part of our State. In two of the regions in Southwest Georgia
designated by ObamaCare, there is only one insurer--one insurance
company--that is offering coverage, and the premiums in that corner of
our State are much higher than in the rest of our State. It is the
poorest part of our State.
In region one, which includes Albany, GA, the least expensive silver
plan for a 21-year-old healthy Georgian is $360 a month. That is 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 are either going to have to pay a
fine or they are going to have to take that 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 is half the rate of
an individual in southwest Georgia where the average median income is
the lowest of any part of our state.
So needless to say, households in rural southwest Georgia often do
not have the same income as those in the northwest and northeast part
of the State, yet they are being stuck with the highest premiums.
I could go on and on about these anecdotes and about the serious
economic consequences ObamaCare is going to cause for individuals in my
State, but I want to turn it back over to the Senator from Mississippi
for some additional comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, indeed, this does hit rural America much
harder, but it hits all Americans hard.
I would ask unanimous consent if the Senator from Georgia and I may
speak as if in a colloquy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WICKER. I didn't hear any debate during 2009, in the extensive
hours I stood on the floor and listened to the other side propose this,
explaining that in situations as in Georgia, folks in the metropolitan
area would pay half the premium that folks down in rural southwest
Georgia would pay. That was never something the majority party, in
proposing this so-called affordable act, said: Now, we are going to
have to live with this, we just want you to know that.
This is a total surprise, and one of the myriad unintended
consequences of this unfortunate law. Did my colleague hear any warning
about that to the American people?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. The Senator is exactly right. Obviously, we both spent
an awful lot of time on the floor of the Senate debating this. As we
talked about, we were here voting on Christmas Eve of 2009 against this
bill when it passed with 60 Democratic votes. No Republican in the
Senate voted for the bill. No Republican in the House of
Representatives 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, she said: What we have to do is pass
this bill and then we will figure out what is in it.
Well, guess what. What we are talking about here is just one of the
myriad of consequences the American people are now finding out is in
that bill, and they have every right in the world to chastise everybody
who voted for that bill who didn't read it, because these are the real
out-of-pocket consequences to hard-working, taxpaying Americans that
were never talked about on the floor of this Senate or the floor of the
House.
Mr. WICKER. My friend and colleague has very effectively gone chapter
and verse into 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. But it is not just families and
small businesses, it is also local governments.
The Senator from Georgia and I came here after the 1994 elections on
a promise, among other things, that we would fight against unfunded
mandates on local governments. What we are finding out about ObamaCare
is that it is absolutely an unfunded mandate on, for example, small
towns and small counties that make up the bulk of the population in my
State of Mississippi.
Let me just give a couple of examples of what it is doing to
municipal governments. A city employee in Batesville, MS, tells me he
recently attended a meeting of city workers and their health care
provider. They were told their premiums will rise over 9 percent
because of the President's health care law. This will be an increased
cost of $55,000 to $60,000 that the city will have to cover to provide
health care coverage for their employees.
Presumably, they do not have a printing press in the back of city
hall, so they are going to have to put an extra tax on the people of
Batesville, MS, to cover the additional unfunded mandate the Affordable
Care Act puts on the city of Batesville.
I could also mention, and will also mention, at the other end of the
State on the gulf coast the city of Ocean Springs, MS, reported it will
see a premium increase for their little budget of $47,000 to provide
health care under the new improved ObamaCare. This is a 13 percent
increase because of the President's health care law. The city currently
covers 100 percent of the employee premiums. The mayor of Ocean
Springs, who I know happens to be a Democrat, said:
We're going to have to find $47,000 from somewhere.
Presumably, it will come from the taxpayers of Ocean Springs, MS, and
other small towns and rural counties around the State of Mississippi.
We are all human. I have made many mistakes during my life, and some
of the mistakes I have made have been in my capacity as a legislator. I
served in the State senate for 7 years. I have been in the U.S. House
and Senate for some 19, along with my good friend from Georgia. I would
hope that when I have seen mistakes that I have made legislatively I
have been willing to go back and revisit those decisions and say: We
are all human. We didn't get it right this time, and we ought to fix
it.
That is one of the real disturbing things to me about this ObamaCare
law. We see that 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 are still going to have over 30 million Americans
uninsured--the same amount we were targeting for coverage, supposedly,
with the passage of ObamaCare. I would hope colleagues from both
parties at this point would see where this has led us and agree there
is a reason Congress meets every year. We can alleviate the problems
that have arisen. We can correct the mistakes that have been made.
I appreciate people such as our colleague from Montana, Senator Max
Baucus, who at least said the law's implementation, he thought, was
going to be a huge train wreck, noting that small businesses have no
idea what to do, what to expect. I appreciate that sort of candor from
one of the architects of the act.
It would seem to me, that being the case, it is incumbent on people
who feel that way to say that we need to revisit this. We need to pull
this law out root and branch and replace it with something that cuts
the cost of insurance, that slows the growth rate of health care
expenditures and uses market forces and competition, which we use in
every aspect of our society except for health insurance.
[[Page S8762]]
I appreciate our colleague from West Virginia, Senator Jay
Rockefeller. He is retiring at the end of this Congress, but he said
the health care law was beyond comprehension.
I think we would get over 60 percent of Americans agreeing with that.
The law is beyond comprehension and the most complex piece of
legislation ever passed by the Congress.
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 Senator
who controls the flow of legislation on the floor of the Senate and who
would have to be involved in bringing a corrected 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.
And I love this quote: ``ObamaCare is wonderful for America,'' said
the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, Harry Reid of Nevada.
``ObamaCare is wonderful for America. Get over it.''
I would hope 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 that
want to create jobs, for the benefit of small cities that having to
increase their taxes and do without other services to cover this
unfunded mandate.
So I publicly implore my colleagues at this moment to agree that this
didn't work. I never thought it would work, but some people did. But it
hasn't worked. I guess it is the reason we have elections every 2
years. But I would hope that, even before the 2014 elections,
Republicans and Democrats could come together and say: We got this
wrong. 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 the comments of the majority leader that I can't believe
he really believes. It is hard for me to believe he thinks this is
working. He is not a fool.
I also listened to the debate, as we talked about earlier, on the
floor leading up to the vote on Christmas Eve 2009. I listened to the
debate last night and today by some of our colleagues. I thought our
colleague from Nebraska, Senator Johanns, made a very profound
statement.
We are fortunate to serve, in my opinion, in the greatest legislative
body in the world. The Senator and I spent a number of years in the
House, and that is a great institution also. They are both unusual from
a constitutional legislative standpoint. But in the Senate there are
certain rights of the minority that you don't have in the House.
The American people know and understand what has happened here; that
is, 2 weeks ago the Democrats in the Senate broke the rules of the
Senate to change the rules of the Senate, and they did so in a very
arbitrary and almost mean-spirited way that basically ignored the
arguments of the minority. The minority in the Senate has always had
rights--up until this rule change a couple weeks ago.
The Senator from Nebraska said today that when we were debating on
this floor during the late fall leading up to the vote in December
2009, that because the Democrats had 60 votes, 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 the Senator
felt a very eerie feeling taking place 2 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. We are going to change those rules, and
you all can sit down and shut up.
I thought what Senator Johanns said was pretty significant, and he
was right on track.
I will mention one other major concern I have with this bill that I
am sure my friend from Mississippi has also heard, and that has to do
with the safety of personal information relative to this new health
care system. ObamaCare opens the door to fraud and identity theft like
we have never seen in 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 and income and
tax return information. This information is then stored in a Federal
data service hub. The proper 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.
If the rollout 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 sit on the Intelligence Committee
together, and we hear during our daily briefings about cyber attacks
taking place against the U.S. Federal Government, against private
entities in the United States, as well as against individuals inside
the United States.
I can only imagine, with all the problems we have seen with 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
Beijing or Teheran--looking to have some fun could hack into the
computer system and retrieve all the personal information of any
individual they wanted to, including their Social Security number.
Mr. WICKER. Or more than have fun; engage in real mischief and real
harm to American citizens.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. The Senator is exactly right. And we obviously know
what that would lead to. Those hackers attacking America today are
getting proprietary information as well as financial remuneration,
unfortunately, in too many instances. And to open your personal
information book to the Federal Government is something that
rightfully, in my mind, has the American people upset, and it is a
provision in this health care plan that certainly is not popular. As
Nancy Pelosi said, let's pass it, and then we will read it and figure
it out. But here we go again. It is another provision in there nobody
knew anything about. We had no debate, as the Senator from Mississippi
referred to earlier about another issue of the floor of the
Senate, regarding having to provide personal information.
Mr. WICKER. If I can underscore that, there is no question that
because of the Snowden matter and because of other breaches of
confidentiality and security, Americans are more and more concerned
about this issue.
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 lack of confidence the American
people have is the very real concern about security.
It is no wonder that a Pew survey released this week shows that 54
percent of Americans disapprove of the health care law and only 41
percent are in favor of it. Yet my friend mentioned the former Speaker,
the current minority leader in the House of Representatives, who just
this year said: The implementation of this law is fabulous. Fabulous.
She compared it to the Declaration of Independence guarantee of life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. According to the former Speaker,
this is what this is all about.
I think Americans 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. I hope that we could even yet
revisit this.
I think we only have about 5 minutes to go. If I may comment for 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 we made midyear, an agreement we made back in January, and
a Gang of 14 agreement made by some of the most distinguished people
ever to have served in the Senate--as a matter of fact, the facts are
these: Hundreds of
[[Page S8763]]
executive nominations on this Executive Calendar have been approved
with the slightest blip by this Senate, Republicans and Democrats. 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. 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 is the kind of overreach we are seeing this
week, which gets us back to the matter at hand and is the kind of very
unfortunate overreach that has visited so much pain and hardship on the
American people in regard to their health care and their health
insurance coverage.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I will 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.
Michael from Dunwoody, GA, wrote in and said:
I had a really great policy for $277 a month. The premiums
were paid by my Flexplan from my employer and the excess my
employer paid to my flex each month kept my balance
increasing. I now have about $35,000 accrued.
My provider cancelled 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.
HOW IS THIS LEGAL?
I thought it was my money; apparently it's only my money if
I buy what Obamacare says I can buy. I had to choose a plan
with a $5,000 deductible to make my premiums affordable.
Lastly, Mary from Powder Springs writes:
I am an educator with the Cobb County School System. As a
reactionary measure to Obamacare, the State Board of
Community Health gave state employees only one company option
for our health 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 was covered went down. We decided to go with my
husband's company plan, but wonder what will happen to that
coverage next year when the employer mandate goes into
effect.
Michael and Mary are two average, ordinary Americans we ought to care
about in this body. Yet we are throwing them under the bus with
ObamaCare.
So as we move forward over the next year, I am in hopes we can
continue to engage on this because these problems are going to get more
frequent and they are going to get more disastrous from a financial and
a lack of coverage standpoint. There is going to be an opportunity for
this body to come together to look at really changing the ObamaCare
plan that passed in 2009. Let's come together on a plan that is
meaningful, that truly does provide affordable and meaningful health
care coverage for all Americans.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). All time has expired.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of Susan P. Watters, of Montana, to be United States District Judge for
the District of Montana?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez) is necessarily absent.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 77, nays 19, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 268 Ex.]
YEAS--77
Ayotte
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cruz
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Isakson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--19
Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Cornyn
Crapo
Enzi
Fischer
Hoeven
Johanns
McCain
McConnell
Paul
Risch
Roberts
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Vitter
NOT VOTING--4
Graham
Inhofe
Kirk
Menendez
The nomination was confirmed.
____________________