[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18613-18619]
[From the U.S. 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.

[[Page 18614]]

  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 
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

[[Page 18615]]

     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 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.

[[Page 18616]]

  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 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

[[Page 18617]]

     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 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

[[Page 18618]]

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.
  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

[[Page 18619]]

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 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.

                          ____________________