Floor Statements

Mr. President, I just listened to the majority leader complaining about what we are doing this week. He is the one in charge of the schedule. He has spent a week here on nonessential nominations, none of which are emergencies, all of which could be handled later. It was his choice to spend the week on nominations that are not emergencies as opposed to doing things like passing a DOD authorization bill or things like taking up a budget resolution or things like doing a farm bill. So the majority leader has a choice as to what we are going to spend time on. He has chosen to spend this week on 10 nominations.

Yesterday I talked about the left's ``ends justify the means'' quest for power and the lengths to which they are willing to go to satisfy it. The Obama administration and its allies have done just about everything to get what they want one way or the other, even fundamentally altering the contours of our democracy when they could not get their way by playing by the rules.

We saw the culmination of that with the majority leader's power grab in the Senate last month. The real world consequences of that power grab are most sharply illustrated by the very nominee before us, which I believe I heard the majority leader commenting on what a stellar nominee this person is.

Professor Pillard may be a fine person, but she is not someone who should receive a lifetime position on the second highest court in the land. She will be confirmed, however, because of the Democratic majority's power grab a couple of weeks ago. So let's take a look at her legal views. They certainly make one thing clear: The nominee before us is a liberal ideologue; in other words, just the kind of person this administration is looking for to rubberstamp its most radical regulatory proposals on the DC Circuit.

Let's take the so-called Hosanna-Tabor case. Last year the Supreme Court reinforced a core First Amendment principle when it ruled unanimously that churches, rather than the government, could select their own leaders.

Every single justice sided with the church's argument in that case. Every single one. It makes sense. Freedom of religion is a bedrock foundation of our democracy. I think every member of this body would surely agree that the government does not have any business picking a group's religious leaders for them. But Professor Pillard seemed to have a very different view. Prior to the Court's unanimous decision, she said the notion that ``the Constitution requires deference to church decisions about who qualifies as a minister'' in the case before the Court seemed ``like a real stretch.''

This is the nominee, after the power grab, the Senate is about to confirm, who said that, ``It is a real stretch that a church would be able to pick its own leaders.'' This is an astonishing judgment from somebody who is about to end up on what we believe is the second most important court in the land.

But she went on from that. The position of the church in the Hosanna- Tabor case represented a ``substantial threat to the American rule of law.'' How do you like that, Mr. President? It is a substantial threat to the American rule of law that a church should be able to pick its own leaders. A substantial threat to the American rule of law.

This was a case decided the other way from Professor Pillard's position, 9 to 0. Talk about radical. Talk about extreme. No wonder they wanted a simple majority to be available to confirm a nominee like this. I mean, even the Court's most liberal justices, as I mentioned, disagreed with Professor Pillard on this one.

One of them characterized that kind of position as ``amazing.'' This is a member of the Supreme Court in the 9-to-0 decision, characterizing Professor Pillard's view as ``amazing.'' In other words, Professor Pillard must think that even the furthest left Supreme Court Justice is not far enough left for her. So you get the drift of where she is.

We rightly expect justices on our nation's highest courts to evaluate cases

before them with a judge's even-handed mindset, not the absolutism of an ideologue. But just listen. Listen to the kinds of things Professor Pillard has said.

She has expressed sympathy with the idea that the rights of our Constitution--the same Constitution she would be charged with upholding--have ``just about run out,'' and that this necessitates a shift toward international law--a shift toward international law. Apparently, she feels the U.S. Constitution is no longer adequate, and we need to rely on foreign law to determine what we do here in this country.

She has said that abortion, essentially without limits, is necessary to avoid ``conscription into maternity;'' That even commonsense laws many American men and women support serve to ``enforce incubation.''

She has referred to the types of ultrasound images that are now available to so many proud moms and dads to be as ``deceptive images.''

Ultrasound is a ``deceptive image,'' according to Professor Pillard, perpetrated by the ``anti-choice movement.'' In other words, she appears to think that proud moms and dads should not believe their own eyes when they look at the images science has made increasingly available to us over the past few years.

It is an understatement to say that these sorts of views are worrying for someone the President wants on one of our Nation's top courts. In short, Professor Pillard does not seem like a person with the mindset or the temperament of a judge. She seems like a person with the attitude and disposition of a leftwing academic, someone who seems to come to conclusions based on how well they support her own theories.

Judges are charged with fairly evaluating the law that is actually before them, not the law as they wish it to be. So I will be voting against the Pillard nomination. It is important to keep this in mind as well. Nearly every single Democratic Senator voted to enable the majority leader's power grab last month. Those Senators are responsible for its consequences. That includes the confirmation of Ms. Pillard, regardless of how they vote on her nomination.

So I would urge Democrats to rethink the kind of nominees brought to the floor moving forward because now they are all yours. You are going to own every one of them. A simple majority. You own them. Extremist nominees like Professor Pillard are the reason the President and Senate Democrats took the unprecedented step of going nuclear 2 weeks ago. They unilaterally changed more than two centuries of history and tradition and violated their own prior statements and commitments so nominees like this could rubberstamp the President's most leftwing agenda items.

This is the playbook. Forget the rules. Forget checks and balances. Certainly forget the will of the American people. Do whatever it takes--whatever it takes--to get the President's agenda through. The other side of this, of course, is that Democrats are determined to change the subject from ObamaCare--anything to change the subject.

We now know that this President engaged in a serial deception in order to get his signature health care bill enacted into law. The White House debated whether to tell the truth or not on whether folks would be able to keep the plans they have. They decided not to tell the truth, a conscious decision to mislead the American people going back to 2009.

Their view was that the talking point was just too useful. They needed it in order to get what they wanted. So I would probably be looking to change the topic too if I were our friends on the other side of the aisle. Change the subject to Senate rules or nominees or anything else for that matter.

The last thing the majority wants to talk about is ObamaCare, because they own it 100 percent. Not a single Republican in the House or Senate voted for it. Every single Senate Democrat did. The problem is what Senate Democrats have done by going nuclear here in the Senate is really no different from what they did on ObamaCare. Once again they said one thing and did another.

The majority leader said publicly and repeatedly he would not break the rules, and then he did. He said he would not break the rules, and then he did. As I said a couple of weeks back, he might as well have said: If you like your Senate rules, you can keep them.

Here we are today. Here we are today ready to watch Senate Democrats rubberstamp an extremely liberal nominee to a lifetime position on a vote threshold the majority leader, back when he was in the minority and supported minority rights in the Senate, said would be disastrous for our democracy.

Anything it takes. Anything it takes to get this President's agenda around the checks that have been established to restrain power. Anything it takes to get around anybody who disagrees with them, whether it is ObamaCare or the judges they expect to defend it. Anything it takes, they are willing to do.

Let me say again that nobody who supported this rules change can walk away from nominees like Professor Pillard or their rulings. They own them.

Let's get back to ObamaCare for a few minutes because that is the issue the American people are most concerned about now. That is the issue the Democrats want to distract us from.

The American people should know what the liberal playbook is. The left believes the President's agenda runs straight through the DC Circuit Court. That is why they pressured Democrats to change the rules of the Senate to pack this court with folks like Professor Pillard.

The goal here is actually twofold: First, grease the skids for an agenda that can't get through the Congress. Then build a firewall around it by packing this court with your ideological allies. That way Democrats can keep telling folks what they think they want to hear about ObamaCare and anything else, but they can also rest assured that nobody is going to tamper with it.

All of this is in the context in which the national debate over ObamaCare and its failures should be viewed. None of it should distract us from what ObamaCare is doing to our health care system or to the millions of ordinary Americans who have been suffering under its effects.

Over the past couple of months the American people have been witness to one of the most breathtaking indictments of big-government liberalism in memory. I am not only talking about the Web site--the subject of late-night comedy--I am talking about the way in which ObamaCare was forced on the public by an administration and a Democrat- led Congress that we now know is willing to do and say anything to pass the law. They are willing to do or say anything.

In the Senate we had the ``Cornhusker kickback,'' we had the ``Gator aid,'' we had the ``Louisiana Purchase,'' and they finally got up to the 60 votes they needed. They had to get every single Democrat, and they got them any way it took. This is coupled with the grossly misleading statement: If you have your policy and you like it, you can keep it. If you have your doctor and you like him or her, you can keep them. The President and his Democratic allies were so determined to force their vision of health care on the public that they assured them they wouldn't lose the plans they had, that they would save money instead of losing it, and that they would be able to keep using the doctors and hospitals they were already using. The stories we are hearing now on a near-daily basis range from heartbreaking to comic.

Americans are very upset. Finally, the big-government crowd messed with an issue that affects every single American. In my State they have shut down the coal industry. That has had a big impact by creating a depression in Central Appalachia. One could argue they can go after the coal industry because it is confined to certain areas of the country. But on health care they are messing with everybody. The one issue every single American is affected by and cares about is their own health care.

The attention-getting stunts the President has engaged in--we can have those until we are blue in the face, but they don't change anything. All they do is remind folks of the way Democrats continue to set up one set of rules for themselves and another for everybody else. There is one set of rules for us and another set for everybody else.

Whether it is ObamaCare or the IRS or the NLRB or pushing the button on the nuclear option, it is all basically the same debate: We are going to do what we are going to do. We don't care what the rules are; we will break the rules. We will do whatever it takes to get what we want. It is a party that is clearly willing to do and say just about anything to get its way.

Millions of Americans are hurting because of a law Washington Democrats forced upon them. What do they do about it? They cook up a fight over judges on a court that doesn't even have enough work to do. This is a court that they were arguing a few years ago shouldn't have any additional members because they had a light workload, and now the court has an even lighter workload.

We know what this is about. As I indicated, I would want to be talking about something else too if I had to defend dogs getting insurance while millions of Americans lost theirs. It isn't going to work. The parallels between the latest move and the original ObamaCare push are all too obvious to ignore.

The majority leader promised over and over that he wouldn't break the rules of the Senate in order to change them. On July 14 he went on ``Meet the Press'' and said: ``We're not touching judges.'' This was on July 14 of this year. That echoed the promise he made in January of this year. It sounds very similar to ``If you like your policy, you can keep it.''

Then there are the double standards. When the Democrats were in the minority, they argued strenuously against changing the rules. And let's not forget about the raw power at play. The American people decided not to give Democrats the House or to restore the filibuster-proof majority they had in the Senate in the last two elections--an inconvenient truth for our friends on the other side.

They don't own the place anymore. They did in the first 2 years, with 60 votes in the Senate and a 40-seat majority in the House, but not anymore. The American people took a look at that first 2 years and issued a national restraining order in November of 2010. Our friends don't want to be deterred by that. They are going to pursue their agenda through the courts and through the regulatory schemes the administration propounds. They changed the rules of the game to get their way. It is pretty clear that if one can write the rules of the game, they ought to be able to win.

Earlier this year the senior Senator from New York said Senate Democrats intended to ``fill up the DC Circuit one way or another.'' It couldn't be any more clear than that. We will do it one way or the other. We break the rules, change the rules, and do what we want to do. The arrogance of power is on full display by an arrogant majority. It is on full display in the Senate.

Our colleagues evidently would rather live for the moment and try to establish a storyline that Republicans--I just heard it here from the majority leader--Republicans are intent on obstructing President Obama's judicial nominees. It is a storyline that is patently ridiculous. One can keep saying things over and over, but it doesn't make it true. It doesn't make it true to keep saying the wrong thing over and over.

Here are the facts. Before this current Democratic gambit to ``fill up the DC Circuit one way or another,'' as the senior Senator from New York said, the Senate had confirmed 215 judges and rejected 2--some provocation for breaking your word and breaking the rules of the Senate in order to change the rules of the Senate. That is a confirmation rate of 99 percent. Republicans have been clearly willing to confirm the President's judicial nominees. And on the DC Circuit, we recently confirmed one of the President's recent nominees by a vote of 97 to 0.

The Democratic strategy of distract, distract, distract is getting old. It is not working. The American people are not listening to this ridiculous argument. They are worried about their health care and are angry at the people who caused them to lose their policies. In my State 280,000 people have lost their policies, and on the exchange 26,000 have been able to get private policies. The rest of them are all Medicaid recipients.

The Democratic playbook of broken promises, double standards and raw power--the same playbook that got us ObamaCare--has to end. With the help of the American people, we will end it in 1 year. Meanwhile, Republicans are going to keep pushing to get back on the drawing board on health care--to replace ObamaCare with real reforms that help rather than punish the middle class.

At this point I am going to refer to some constituent letters I have received related to ObamaCare that the Senate would find noteworthy.

This is a letter from a constituent in Bowling Green:

I am a 35-year-old college graduate and represent many

hardworking middle-class Kentuckians who are being directly

impacted by . . . ObamaCare. I am a married father of 2 young

children. We are, by most accounts, an average American

family. Before [ObamaCare] was passed, my family was insured

through a health insurance policy purchased on the open

market. We shopped several different policies and chose the

one that was the best fit for our needs.

Recently, we received a notice from our insurer that our

plan didn't meet the requirements of the [new health care

law]. According to the letter, we were required by law to be

transitioned into a plan that did meet these new

requirements. Also included in the letter was our new

premium. That is what shocked us. According to the letter,

our premiums would be increasing by 124%, more than double

what we had budgeted for this expense.

According to a speech by the Vice President on September

27th [of this year], a family of four earning $50,000 a year

could get coverage for as little as $106 a month. Should I

have to pay 8 times that amount because my wife and I both

work hard to provide for our family and earn more than the

Vice President's limit of $50,000 a year? Why should the

price of a product be based on my ability to pay?

That is a very good question: ``Why should the price of a product be based on my ability to pay?''

He continues:

Would that work at the gas station? Should the price of a

gallon of gas be decided by my income tax return? Or at the

grocery store? Should the price of a gallon of milk be

determined by my income tax return? Or in shopping for a

home loan? Should the interest rate on my mortgage be

higher if I earn more than $50,000 a year? This predatory

pricing structure runs contrary to the basic American

foundational principles of Free Enterprise and is illegal

in every other marketplace. It should be illegal in health

care too.

Larry Thompson from Lexington:

My health plan that I have had for 10 years just got

canceled, and the least expensive plan on the exchange is a

246 percent increase--that means hundreds of extra dollars

per month we don't have. Obama lied and made a promise he

couldn't keep when he said repeatedly if we wanted to keep

our current health care policy we could.

That is what Mr. Thompson from Lexington said. And he continues:

He has really affected our lives for the worse--much worse.

I'm so mad. We must stop insurance companies from canceling

policies--now.

And of course the reason they are having to cancel policies is because the law makes them.

Sherry Harris from Nicholasville in my State:

Did you know the Lake Cumberland Hospital in Somerset is

not on the Anthem network? Which means anybody in Pulaski and

surrounding counties that qualify for a subsidy and want to

use it will have to drive to London, Corbin or Lexington to

get care?

Harriet White from Rockfield, which is in Warren County, near Bolling Green:

Dear Senator McConnell: I am deeply upset because of the

effect this health care act has had on our family's health

insurance. It has negatively impacted our finances and our

quality of care. The President promised that if you had

health care, you would not be impacted. The sad truth is

that, like my coworkers, my deductible has doubled, along

with my premiums. The only way to be able to adjust is for us

to either reduce or stop our 401(k) contributions. This is

hardly affordable health care. I don't understand why such a

blatant lie has been allowed to go this far. Do we not as

American citizens have the right to choose basic services? I

don't think the government should make choices for the people

that impact us in such a negative way. Thank you for your

time, and please keep fighting this gross abuse of power.

Aaron McLemore from Louisville:

Seeing as I'm a single male (31, policy being cancelled)

with no kids or dependents, and I'm paying for pediatric

dental care and maternity care, it doesn't make a whole lot

of sense to me.

This is a single male, age 31, having to pay for pediatric dental care and maternity care, and he says it ``doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.'' He makes more than $100,000 a year and doesn't qualify for a subsidy on the

Obama exchange. So the current policy of this 31-year-old is being canceled. A new policy from the exchange will more than double his monthly premium and nearly double his yearly out-of-pocket maximum. His higher costs aren't subsidizing lower income policyholders whose subsidies have already been paid by the government, but he is providing a subsidy in another way: The new act requires him to buy a policy with features he doesn't need.

What ObamaCare is doing is moving McLemore out of the individual market, where people are sorted by age and health history and scope of coverage, to a market more like the traditional employer-based group policy in which young and old workers get the same coverage and pay the same premium.

Mr. and Mrs. Spears from Louisville:

I think you should know what is going on here in Kentucky

with Kynect--

That is the Kentucky Web site--

I had to sign my wife up since our governor canceled all of

the KyAccess policies effective January 1, 2014. I signed up

through the benefits firm, advising them that I wanted no

subsidies since we have always paid our way in 42 years of

marriage. He told me the full pay option of $517 per month

and advised no income verification was necessary since no

subsidies were involved. So I chose the Kentucky Co Op plan,

as I felt the monies would stay in Kentucky with this plan.

He went on to say:

And then I received four mailings from Kynect. One stating

she was declined coverage unless I sent income verifications;

also one stating I have to fill out a voter registration and

return as they have no information on my voting record.

So what does whether you are registered to vote have to do with signing up for ObamaCare?

The letter continues:

I called Kynect today and advised them I am receiving no

subsidies and do not feel I should be required to send this

information to them. And if they wanted this information, I

file taxes every year and would be easily accessed. In

regards to voter registration, I advised this has nothing to

do with health registration, and I strongly objected to the

language linking the two in the letter. Any clear thinking

person would be upset at our State government trying to bring

voter registration into this mess, not to mention personal

information they should not need since no subsidies are

involved.

These stories go on and on.

Lana Lynch from Brandenburg:

My out-of-pocket expenses for my family of five went from

$1,500 a year to $7,000 a year. The best policy that is

available by my employer has a $7,000 out-of-pocket a year

[provision].

And she works for a very large health care provider.

Jeannine Gentry from Ekron:

We are covered under my husband's policy through his

employer. We have not found out exactly how much the premium

is going to rise but have been told to expect between 150 to

300 percent increase per paycheck. We do know for certain

that our deductible will rise from $5,000 annually to $8,500.

Ann Knauer from Sheperdsville:

I received my insurance papers from United Healthcare and

found that my premiums had risen from $214 to $480 a month. I

only get $1,181 in Social Security a month. That's after my

Medicare payment. So I went online to see if I could get my

husband signed up for this ACA insurance. I filled out the

information, but was told that what I stated for our income

was incorrect and that I needed to send in proof of my

income. Then they insisted we fill out this form about voter

registration. We are already registered to vote and felt this

was completely unnecessary. The form did have a spot that

stated that we were already registered, but I just don't

trust the Web site, so we declined. We got forms in the mail

anyway. I'm just going to stick with my old insurance and pay

the higher premiums because I know what it covers. I have

Medicare and United Healthcare. I have kept this insurance

because of my husband, who is also retired but not covered

under any other insurance. My insurance came from my job that

I had before I retired, as part of the retirement package.

Mike Conn from Prestonsburg. And I might say that Prestonsburg is in eastern Kentucky, in the heart of Appalachia, which is also suffering a depression as a result of this administration's war on coal. So this person who corresponded with me is also living in the middle of a depression-riddled part of my State also created by the Obama administration.

Here is what he said:

A policy that has similar coverage to what we had would

cost us around $1,100 a month. This is a 100 percent increase

for me and my wife. I was informed by the individual that was

helping me find coverage that it was because we live in

eastern Kentucky.

Apparently their insurance company is not available there.

Finally, he says:

We will not pay that.

Giselle Martino from Prospect:

My premium health care, at premium cost to me, is being

canceled. I paid a very high premium to have a major medical

plan. I am now forced into the exchange for a lesser plan

with more exclusions and higher deductibles. I will most

likely never reach these deductibles. How does this help me?

I'm basically paying into the plan for the others. If I must

pay for my higher tier heart drugs anyway, why should I

bother with the health plan? What a disappointment this

administration has caused.

Cheryl Russell from Owensboro:

We got a letter from our insurance company saying our

current policy will not meet the Affordable Care Act, which

means it will go away. According to our insurance company, we

will have to take pediatric dental and vision insurance. We

don't have kids. They said it was because of ObamaCare. They

are allowing us to keep our plan until December 2014, for an

additional $38 more a month, so we can find another plan.

Another plan through this company that we had our whole life

will cost us at least $900 to $1,000 a month. It will cost us

over $150 more a month plus our deductible goes up to $5,700.

I sent you a message last week. I am sending this again.

Please keep taking a stand against ObamaCare. Our President

lied to us. Not only are we going to lose our insurance, but

when we go to a different policy we have to pay more. We will

never be able to retire. We are 58 and 56 years old. We will

have to work the rest of our lives just to pay for our own

insurance. The company we work for doesn't provide it. This

isn't fair and it isn't right. Thanks for taking a stand for

all those who are in Kentucky.

So, Mr. President, in wrapping up my remarks, here is the situation. On Christmas Eve 2009, on a straight party-line vote--60 Democrats voting for and 40 Republicans voting against--the administration jammed through a 2,700-page rewrite of 16 percent of our economy. The goal, one could argue, was a noble goal--that of trying to reduce the number of uninsured in America from an estimated group of about 45 million Americans.

The first problem with this particular solution is that CRS--the Congressional Research Service, which doesn't work for either Republicans or Democrats--says when all is said and done we are still going to have 30 million uninsured. So what is the cost-benefit ratio of taking $1 trillion out of the providers of health care--roughly $750 billion in reductions; cuts to hospitals, home health care, nursing homes and the like, hospice; billions of dollars in taxes on medical devices; taxes on health insurance premiums kicking in the first of a year; a $1 trillion impact on the providers of health care--and over on the consumer side I have just given a series of stories about how it impacts the consumers of health care: higher premiums, higher deductibles, lost jobs, a record number of part-time employees, and wreaking havoc on the American economy, the consumers of health care, and on the providers of health care--all to reduce the number of uninsured from 45 to 30 million.

This has to be the worst cost-benefit ratio in the history of American government, all of this disruption--this catastrophic impact on 16 percent of our economy--in order to make a marginal reduction in the number of uninsured. This has to be the biggest mistake in modern times. In fact, I am hard-pressed to think of a single bigger mistake the Federal Government has made, and it has made some whoppers over the years. I am hard-pressed to think of a single example that comes anywhere close to this, a gargantuan, massive mistake, which has had a lot to do with the fact that we have had such a tepid recovery in our country after a deep recession.

The pattern since World War II has been that the deeper the recession, the quicker the bounce-back--until this one: a deep recession, a tepid recovery. The government itself is the reason for that: massive overregulation, an army of regulators who will now have their work sped through the DC Circuit Court who believe if you are making a profit you are up to no good; you are obviously cheating your customers and mistreating your employees. They are here to help you. This massive bureaucratic overreach has definitely slowed our recovery.

So I hope the American people will give us an opportunity in the not too distant future to pull this thing out root and branch and start over and do this right.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I realize Democrats want to deflect attention of the impact of ObamaCare from our constituents. That is one of

the reasons we are having these nominee votes. But our constituents have the right to be heard, so I wish to share some thoughts from a constituent of mine in Owensboro, Cheryl Russell. Here is what she wrote:

We got a letter from our insurance company saying our

current policy will not meet the affordable care act, which

means it will go away.

According to our insurance company, we will have to take

pediatric dental and vision insurance, [even though] we don't

have kids.

They said it was because of ObamaCare. . . .

She goes on:

Another plan . . . will cost us over $150.00 more a month

plus our deductible goes up to $5700.

Please keep taking a stand against Obama Care . . . not

only are we going to lose our insurance, but when we go to a

different policy we have to pay more. . . .

We are 58 & 56 years old. We will have to work the rest of

our lives just to pay for our insurance. . . .

This isn't fair and it isn't right.

Madam President, I come to the floor today to recognize the retirement of an upstanding citizen from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and to pay tribute to his career of service to my home State. This month, Greg Jones concludes over 21 years as executive director of the non-profit Southeast Kentucky Economic Development Corporation, SKED. His daily presence at the helm of the organization will be sorely missed, but his legacy will endure in the thousands of jobs he helped create and the increased economic vigor he helped bring to the region.

When he first took the job at the behest of Congressman Hal Rogers in 1992, Greg oversaw a two-person staff and commanded a $75,000 budget. Under his leadership the organization has grown to its current staff of 10 professionals and a budget of nearly $2 million. Throughout his tenure as executive director, Greg marshaled SKED's resources to help start and expand businesses, provide training for entrepreneurs, and attract new industries to the corporation's 45-county service area. Under Greg's watch, SKED has unquestionably lived up to its stated mission--``to foster economic growth and vitality in the region.''

I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in recognizing Greg's exemplary career as well as wishing him a happy retirement with his wife Belinda and son Christopher.

An article about Greg Jones's retirement from SKED recently appeared in an area newspaper, the Commonwealth Journal. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

There being no objections, the article was ordered to be printed as follows:

SKED Executive Director Greg Jones Retiring in December

[From the Commonwealth Journal,

Oct. 13, 2013]

Somerset, Ky.--Greg Jones, executive director of Southeast

Kentucky Economic Development Corporation (SKED), will retire

in December after more than 21 years of service to the

nonprofit organization and to Southeast Kentucky.

The longest serving executive director in the

organization's 27-year history, Jones is credited with

strengthening SKED's mission of job creation and making it

the premier economic development agency in the region.

Beginning with a $75,000 budget and two-person staff in 1992,

Jones and his current staff of 10 professionals now operate

with an annual budget of nearly $2 million.

``I've had the privilege to lead SKED and our amazing team

of professionals for over two decades, and I am extremely

proud of our successes,'' Jones said. ``I shall forever be

grateful to Congressman Hal Rogers and the incredibly

supportive and talented individuals on the SKED Board of

Directors for giving me the opportunity to be a part of this

remarkable organization. And, finally, I wish to thank the

dedicated staff of SKED for their loyalty and friendship over

these many years.''

It was Congressman Rogers who asked Jones to head up the

grassroots effort he began, in 1986, back in 1992. At the

time, Jones was working as executive director of the

Somerset-Pulaski County Chamber of Commerce.

``Over the last two decades, Greg Jones has worked

tirelessly to recruit thousands of jobs and expand the

industrial portfolio of southern and eastern Kentucky,'' said

Rogers. ``Greg's foresight to address vital infrastructure

upgrades, recruit high-tech companies and support

entrepreneurial growth will continue to benefit economic

development in our region for years to come. While he is

moving on from daily operations at SKED, I have asked Greg to

remain in close contact to offer guidance for the

organization that he has helped mold for success. My wife

Cynthia and I wish Greg and his family many blessings in his

years of retirement.''

As SKED executive director, Jones has been responsible for

the marketing and industrial recruitment activities for the

45-county SKED service area, managing a $10-million loan

portfolio and providing economic and community development

assistance to local communities in Southeast Kentucky.

Under his leadership, SKED has successfully assisted more

than 100 businesses and industries in starting or expanding

their operations in the region. These companies now employ

more than 7,700 workers and have invested an estimated $500

million in Southeast Kentucky. He has successfully prepared

loan and grant applications totaling more than $26 million to

support the organization's job creation activities.

Building partnerships has been Jones's mantra for the past

21 years. Whether it was with local community leaders or

state and national funding agencies, Jones worked tirelessly

to form strong alliances across the region, state and nation.

One of those key partnerships is with the Appalachian

Regional Commission (ARC).

Earl Gohl, ARC federal co-chair, has worked with Jones on

several key projects in recent years.

``Greg's leadership has made SKED what it is today,'' Gohl

said. ``What he has accomplished with the SKED

entrepreneurship program and the Valley Oak Technology

Complex has laid the groundwork for what Eastern Kentucky can

be tomorrow.''

Jones led SKED to receive designation as a Community

Development Financial Institution (CDFI) in 1999. As a

result, the organization received funding to implement

several innovative regional projects including the Valley Oak

Technology Complex, the Somerset Rail Park, the Southern

Kentucky Information Technology Center and the Enterprise

Center.

SKED received the National Association of Development

Organization's (NADO) 2002 Innovation Award in recognition of

its technology initiatives.

In 2009, SKED became a Certified Development Corporation

(CDC) by the U.S. Small Business Administration. This

designation authorized SKED to process SBA 504 loans

throughout the state of Kentucky. The 504 Loan Program is the

SBA's economic development tool to provide small-business

financing and create jobs all across America.

To date, some 250 people have received entrepreneurial

training from SKED thanks to a grant from the ARC in 2011.

SKED established the Entrepreneurial SMARTs program designed

to offer nationally acclaimed entrepreneurship classes at a

reduced rate. A CDFI grant provided the funding to hire a

professional to teach the classes.

SKED is governed by a 12-member, volunteer board of

directors. Over the past 21 years, Jones has worked with a

number of successful men and women on the board, each with

different areas of expertise and from a variety of career

fields, but all leaders in their own communities. As board

members, they share SKED's mission of job creation in

Southeast Kentucky.

SKED President Tim Barnes is one of those community

leaders. President and CEO of Hometown Bank, he's led the

SKED Board of Directors for the past three years.

``Greg has been the face of SKED for so long, it's hard to

imagine ever being able to replace him,'' Barnes said.

``Let's just say there will be no replacing Greg. He's one of

a kind. His legacy of caring professionalism will live on

through the lending programs and other initiatives he's

worked so tirelessly to develop over the past two decades. We

wish him all the best in his future endeavors, and speaking

on behalf of all board members past and present, I say a

hearty thank you.''

The SKED Board of Directors plans a national search for

Jones's successor.

A native of Laurel County, Jones has served on numerous

boards and commissions both locally and nationally. These

positions include being past president of the Appalachia

Development Alliance. He is currently on the board of

directors for both TOURSEKY and the National Institute for

Hometown Security. He was named East Kentucky Power

Community/Economic Development Professional of the Year in

2007.

He earned his B.S. in industrial technology at Morehead

State University in Morehead, Ky. He also holds a master of

public administration degree from Southern Illinois

University--Edwardsville. He also attended the Institute for

Organization Management and Economic Development Institute.

In 1995, he received the Certified Economic Developer

designation from the American Economic Development Council.

He is married to Belinda Taylor Jones and they have a son,

Christopher.

Mr. President, tens of thousands gathered today in Soweto to pay their last respects to a man who symbolized so much for so many, and it is not hard to see why. Politicians come and go, Presidents rise and fall, but Nelson Mandela was more than a politician, more than just a foreign leader. He was a symbol--a symbol of freedom and hope, not only for his own people but for all people. We also remember Nelson Mandela as a symbol of reconciliation, especially when he had every reason not to be. How many of us could spend so many years in confinement--away from people we love, with little to do but mull the circumstances of our incarceration--and emerge so forgiving toward our captors?

To me it was telling to see that one of the many people paying respects to Nelson Mandela this week was an Afrikaner named Christo Brand. The two men struck up an improbable but lasting friendship during Mandela's time on Robben Island. I say ``improbable'' because Brand was his jailer.

The story goes that years after his release from prison, President Mandela was attending a ceremony and greeting Members of Parliament when he spotted Brand out across the room. Mandela lifted his arms and announced to everyone that this man had been his warden but he was also his friend. Then he asked Brand to join him in a group photo. ``You must stand next to me,'' he insisted. ``We belong together.'' I think that says it all.

Nelson Mandela could have followed the example of other leaders in the region; he could have led South Africa down the path of Zimbabwe, but he did not. He urged his country to embrace inclusion and freedom and democracy instead. He asked his countrymen to stand with him because he knew that, as he once said to Christo Brand, his people ``belong together.'' So this morning the Senate joins the world in mourning the loss of Nelson Mandela. May his commitment to freedom and reconciliation continue to inspire.

Advancing an Agenda

Now, Mr. President, on to the business at hand.

I want to start out by saying that I think it was important for all of us to get back home and hear from our constituents over the past couple weeks. I talked with a lot of Kentuckians, and I can tell you there is a lot of anxiety and a lot of frustration out there. Folks are frustrated and upset by what is happening with their health care under ObamaCare, and they are outraged at the tactics and the outright deception--deception--that led to its passage.

It is now clear that the President knew perfectly well that a lot of folks would not be able to keep the plans they had and liked, despite the endless assurances to the contrary they heard from the President himself. Many are also starting to realize that the talking points they heard about their premiums and keeping their doctors were not worth the paper they were written on either.

The response they have gotten from the White House in the face of all this is just as bad. In the face of all the hardship and disruption this law is causing for literally millions of Americans, the White House is defiant. In the face of all of this, the President is trying to convince people that somehow we are the problem. According to the President, the problem is not the law. The problem is the people who are unhappy with it. The people who are unhappy with it, the President says, are the problem. This is exactly what folks are frustrated with-- the idea that Washington knows best.

So we are going to keep fighting this fight. If anybody needed any proof that Big Government liberalism does not work, they have gotten a clinic over the past 2 months. It is clearer now than ever that we need to replace this law with commonsense, patient-centered reforms that will actually drive down costs and increase innovation.

The idea that making our health care system more like the Department of Motor Vehicles will somehow improve the final product has now been thoroughly discredited, and a thousand Presidential speeches are not going to change that.

But here is the larger story: ObamaCare is not an isolated case. It may be the most obvious example of this administration's determination to advance its agenda by any means possible, but it is one example of many.

The latest example was the administration's complicity in the power grab we saw last month in the Senate. News reports suggest that the President, who denounced this tactic when Republicans thought about it back in 2005, was actively lobbying for it ahead of the majority leader's fateful decision to pull the trigger.

So the President and the majority leader were for the protection of minority rights in the Senate until they were no longer in the minority. At that point, minority rights, the rules of the Senate, and the principle of a meaningful check on the Executive became an inconvenience--an inconvenience--that stood in the way of their desire for more power.

As I indicated last month, this was a pure power grab, plain and simple. If the majority party cannot be expected to follow the rules, then there are not any rules.

So this was a grave mistake, and it was a grave betrayal of trust, since some of the main players had previously vowed they would never do it, and then they did--just as the President had vowed that if you like your health care you could keep it. For the President and his enablers in Congress, the ends now clearly justify the means, and that is a very dangerous place for us to be.

So Republicans will continue to speak out against these offenses against our institutions and against the American people, who have a right to expect elected leaders to keep their commitments and respect the rules and our laws. The American people have a right to that.

The American people have given us divided government. The administration needs to accept that fact. They need to work with the government that the people have given them, not the one they wish they had. They need to stop viewing the rules that govern the rest of us as mere suggestions to follow as they wish, while the American people are left to suffer the consequences.

As I have indicated, we see the results of this mindset most powerfully with ObamaCare--a law that this administration was determined to force through--determined to force through--by hook or by crook, regardless of what half-truths it had to repeat to get there, regardless of which Senators it had to coax and cajole.

But the pattern did not end with the law's passage. The administration has repeatedly--repeatedly--invoked executive power to change whatever parts of the law prove inconvenient. Its friends begged for relief from the law, so they carved out special loopholes. Statutory deadlines became an irritation, so they waived them. ``Incorrect promises'' made to sell the law became an embarrassment, so they changed entire sections on the fly.

To many Washington Democrats, this is all fine--not because they necessarily want to circumvent the law, perhaps, but because they feel justified in doing so if that is what it takes to enact their agenda.

We have seen Democrats use this same approach with immigration policy, with welfare reform, with recess appointments. We have seen them use it to justify government-sanctioned harassment of entire groups of people over at the IRS.

Two weeks ago, we saw Washington Democrats take this ends-justifies- the-means approach to a whole new level entirely, by eliminating-- eliminating--the right of the minority party to be heard in the Senate--something they themselves had warned against for

years when they were in the minority, something the Vice President called ``a naked power grab'' when he was in the Senate.

Washington Democrats changed our democracy irrevocably--irrevocably. They did something they basically promised they would never do. And to what end? To what end? To pack the courts with judges they expect will rubberstamp the President's partisan agenda, to eliminate one of the last remaining obstacles standing between the President and the enactment of his agenda through executive fiat. In short, because they wanted power that the voters have denied them at the ballot box, they tried to get it another way.

So before we all vote this morning, I just want to make sure everybody understands what this vote is all about. Two weeks ago the President and his Democratic allies defied two centuries of tradition, their own prior statements, and--in the case of some Democratic leaders--their own public commitments about following the rules of the Senate.

They did this for one reason: to advance an agenda the American people do not want. It is an agenda that runs straight through the DC Circuit. So now they are putting their people in place, to quote one member of their leadership, ``one way or another.''

This vote is not about any one nominee. It is not about Patricia Millett. It is about an attitude on the left that says the ends justify the means--whatever it takes. They will do whatever it takes to get what they want. That is why we are here today, and that is why I will be opposing this nomination.

Washington Democrats, unfortunately, are focusing their energy on saying and doing anything--anything it takes--to circumvent the representatives of the people. But, ultimately--ultimately--they will be accountable to the American people, and the American people will have their say again very soon--sooner than many of our colleagues might hope.

Reservation of Leader Time

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I make a point of order that nominations are fully debatable under the rules of the Senate unless three-fifths of Senators chosen and sworn have voted to bring debate to a close.

Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, over the past several weeks, the American people have been witness to one of the most breathtaking-- breathtaking--indictments of big-government liberalism in memory. And I am not just talking about a Web site. I am talking about the way in which ObamaCare was forced on the public by an administration and a Democratic-led Congress that we now know was willing to do and say anything--anything--to pass the law.

The President and his Democratic allies were so determined to force their vision of health care on the public that they assured them up and down that they would not lose the plans they had, that they would save money instead of losing it, and that they would be able to use the doctors and hospitals they were already using.

But, of course, we know that that rhetoric does not match reality. The stories we are hearing on a nearly daily basis now range from heartbreaking to comical. Just yesterday I saw a story about a guy getting a letter in the mail saying his dog--his dog--had qualified for insurance under ObamaCare. So, yeah, I would probably be running for the exits too if I had supported this law. I would be looking to change the subject--change the subject--just as Senate Democrats have been doing with their threats of going nuclear and changing the Senate rules on nominations. If I were a Senator from Oregon, for example, which has not enrolled a single person--a single person--for the ObamaCare exchange, I would probably want to talk about something else too.

But here is the problem with this latest distraction: It does not distract people from ObamaCare. It reminds them of ObamaCare. It reminds them of all the broken promises. It reminds them of the power grab. It reminds them of the way Democrats set up one set of rules for themselves and another for everybody else--one set of rules for them and another for everybody else.

Actually, this is all basically the same debate, and rather than distract people from ObamaCare, it only reinforces the narrative of a party that is willing to do and say just about anything to get its way--willing to do or say just about anything to get its way. Because that is just what they are doing all over again.

Once again, Senate Democrats are threatening to break the rules of the Senate--break the rules of the Senate--in order to change the rules of the Senate. And over what? Over what? Over a court that does not even have enough work to do?

Millions of Americans are hurting because of a law Washington Democrats forced upon them, and what do they do about it? They cook up some fake fight over judges--a fake fight over judges--who are not even needed.

Look, I get it. As I indicated, I would want to be talking about something else too if I had to defend dogs getting insurance while millions of Americans lost theirs. But it will not work. The parallels between this latest skirmish and the original ObamaCare push are just too obvious to ignore.

Think about it. Just think about it. The majority leader promised--he promised--over and over that he would not break the rules of the Senate in order to change them. This was not an ancient promise. On July 14 on ``Meet the Press'' he said: ``We're not touching judges.'' This year, on July 14, on ``Meet the Press'': ``We're not touching judges.''

Then there are the double standards.

When Democrats were in the minority, they argued strenuously for the very thing they now say we will have to do without; namely, the right to extended debate on lifetime appointments. In other words, they believe that one set of rules should apply to them--to them--and another set to everybody else. He may just as well have said: ``If you like the rules of the Senate, you can keep them.'' ``If you like the rules of the Senate, you can keep them''--just the way so many Democrats in the administration and Congress now believe that ObamaCare is good enough for their constituents, but that when it comes to them, their political allies, their staffs, well, of course, that is different.

Let's not forget about the raw power--the raw power--at play here. On this point, the similarities between the ObamaCare debate and the Democratic threat to go nuclear on nominations are inescapable-- inescapable. They muscled through ObamaCare on a party-line vote and did not care about the views of the minority--did not care one whit about the views of the minority. And that is just about what they are going to do here.

The American people decided not to give the Democrats the House or to restore the filibuster-proof majority they had in the Senate back in 2009, and our Democratic colleagues do not like that one bit. They just do not like it. The American people are getting in the way of what they would like to do. So they are trying to change the rules of the game to get their way anyway. They said so themselves. Earlier this year, the senior Senator from New York said they want to ``fill up the DC Circuit one way or another''--``fill up the DC Circuit one way or another.''

The reason is clear. As one liberal activist put it earlier this year, President Obama's agenda ``runs through the DC Circuit.'' You cannot get what you want through the Congress because the American people, in November 2010, said they had had enough--they issued a national restraining order, after watching 2 years of this administration unrestrained--so now their agenda runs through the bureaucracy and through the DC Circuit.

As I said, in short, unlike the first 2 years of the Obama administration,

there is now a legislative check on the President. The administration does not much like checks and balances, so it wants to circumvent the people's representatives with an aggressive regulatory agenda, and our Democratic colleagues want to facilitate that by filling up a court that will rule on his agenda--a court that does not even have enough work to do, especially if it means changing the subject from ObamaCare for a few days.

And get this: They think they can change the rules of the Senate in a way that benefits only them. They want to do it in such a way that President Obama's agenda gets enacted but that a future Republican President could not get his or her picks for the Supreme Court confirmed by a Republican Senate using the same precedent our Democratic friends want to set. They want to have it both ways.

But this sort of gerrymandered vision of the nuclear option is wishful thinking. As the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee Senator Grassley pointed out yesterday: If the majority leader changes the rules for some judicial nominees, he is effectively changing them for all judicial nominees, including the Supreme Court, as Senator Grassley pointed out yesterday.

Look, I realize this sort of wishful thinking might appeal to the uninitiated newcomers in the Democratic Conference who have served exactly zero days in the minority. But the rest of you guys in the conference should know better. Those of you who have been in the minority before should know better.

Let's remember how we got here. Let's remember that it was Senate Democrats who pioneered, who literally pioneered the practice of filibustering circuit court nominees, and who have been its biggest proponents in the very recent past. After President Bush was elected, they even held a retreat in which they discussed the need to change the ground rules by which lifetime appointments are considered. The senior Senator from New York put on a seminar, invited Laurence Tribe, Cass Sunstein. In the past the practice had been neither side had filibustered circuit court nominees. In fact, I can remember at Senator Lott's gagging several times and voting for cloture on circuit judges for the Ninth Circuit, knowing full well that once cloture was invoked, they would be confirmed.

So this business of filibustering circuit court judges was entirely an invention of the guys over here on the other side, the ones you are looking at right over here. They made it up. They started it. This is where we ended up.

After President Bush was elected, they held this retreat that I was just talking about and made a big deal about it. It was all a prelude to what followed, the serial filibustering of several of President Bush's circuit court nominees, including Miguel Estrada, whose nomination to the DC Circuit was filibustered by Senate Democrats a record seven times--seven times. Now they want to blow up the rules because Republicans are following a precedent they themselves set.

I might add, we are following that precedent in a much more modest way than Democrats did.

So how about this for a suggestion? How about instead of picking a fight with Senate Republicans by jamming through nominees to a court that does not even have enough work to do, how about taking yes for an answer and working with us on filling judicial emergencies that actually exist?

Yet rather than learn from past precedent on judicial nominations that they themselves set, Democrats now want to set another one. I have no doubt if they do, they will come to regret that one as well. Our colleagues evidently would rather live for the moment, satisfy the moment, live for the moment, and try to establish a story line that Republicans are intent on obstructing President Obama's judicial nominees. That story line is patently ridiculous in light of the facts. That is an utterly absurd suggestion in light of the facts.

Before this current Democratic gambit to fill up the DC Circuit one way or the other, the Senate had confirmed 215--215--of the President's judicial nominees and rejected 2. That is a 99-percent confirmation rate. There were 215 confirmed and 2 rejected--99 percent.

Look, if advice and consent is to mean anything at all, occasionally consent is not given. But by any objective standards, Senate Republicans have been very fair to this President. We have been willing to confirm his nominees. In fact, speaking of the DC Circuit, we just confirmed one a few months ago 97 to 0 to the DC Circuit.

So I suggest our colleagues take a timeout, stop trying to jam us, work with us instead to confirm vacancies that actually need to be filled, which we have been doing. This rules change charade has gone from being a biannual threat, to an annual threat, now to a quarterly threat. How many times have we been threatened, my colleagues? Do what I say or we will break the rules to change the rules. Confirm everybody, 100 percent. Anything less than that is obstructionism. That is what they are saying to us.

Let me say we are not interested in having a gun put to our head any longer. If you think this is in the best interests of the Senate and the American people to make advice and consent, in effect, mean nothing--obviously you can break the rules to change the rules to achieve that. But some of us have been around here long enough to know that the shoe is sometimes on the other foot.

This strategy of distract, distract, distract is getting old. I do not think the American people are fooled about this. If our colleagues want to work with us to fill judicial vacancies, as we have been doing all year--99 percent of judges confirmed--obviously we are willing to do that. If you want to play games, set yet another precedent that you will no doubt come to regret--I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you will regret this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.

Let me be clear. The Democratic playbook of broken promises, double standards, and raw power, the same playbook that got us ObamaCare, has to end. It may take the American people to end it, but it has to end. That is why Republicans are going to keep their focus where it belongs, on the concerns of the American people. It means we are going to keep pushing to get back to the drawing board on health care, to replace ObamaCare with real reforms, to not punish the middle class, and we will leave the political games to our friends on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Is it correct that more than 200 judicial nominations have been confirmed by the Senate since 2009?

Mr. President, a further parliamentary inquiry.

Is it correct that under the bipartisan streamlining provisions of S. Res. 116 and S. 679 in the 112th Congress, the Senate removed 169 nominations from Senate consideration completely, moved 272 nominations to the Senate's expedited calendar, and removed from Senate consideration approximately 3,000 nominations for the NOAA officer corps and the Public Health Service?

I move to adjourn the Senate until 5 p.m. and ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Is it correct that under the bipartisan provisions of S. Res. 15, adopted earlier this year, postcloture debate time on a district court nomination is limited to 2 hours before an up-or-down vote is required under the rules?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

Is it correct under the provisions of S. Res. 15, adopted earlier this very year, that postcloture debate time on any executive branch nomination other than those at the Cabinet level is already limited to 8 hours before an up-or-down vote is required under Senate rules?

Mr. President, one other parliamentary inquiry. When the Senate's rules were amended and a new standing order on consideration of nominations was established earlier this year, the majority leader and I engaged in a colloquy to announce that no further rules changes would be considered unless under the regular order and through the action of the Senate Rules Committee.

Would the Chair confirm that currently the rules of the Senate provide that a proposal to change the Senate rules would be fully debatable unless two-thirds of the Senators present and voting voted to invoke cloture, which would mean 67 Senators voting in the affirmative if all 100 voted?

Further inquiry: It is my understanding that prevailing on appeal of the ruling of the Chair would

change Senate precedent on how nominations are considered in the Senate and effectively change the procedures or application of the Senate's rules.

How many votes are required to appeal the ruling of the Chair in this instance?

So I am correct that overturning the ruling of the Chair requires a simple majority vote?

Mr. President, I make a point of order that nominations are fully debatable under the rules of the Senate unless three-fifths of the Senators chosen and sworn have voted to bring debate to a close. Under the precedent just set by the Senate, cloture is invoked at a majority. Therefore, I appeal the ruling of the Chair and ask for the yeas and nays.

I appeal the ruling of the Chair and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate a friend of mine and a good friend to the Commonwealth, Mr. James L. Hurley, on his recent inauguration as the 20th president of the University of Pikeville. A graduate of the class of 1999 himself, President Hurley's new post makes him the school's first alumnus to serve as president.

President Hurley was sworn in last month at the Eastern Kentucky Expo Center in Pikeville, KY. He succeeds former Governor Paul Patton in the position. Patton previously appointed Hurley as the institution's vice president and special assistant. James is a native of eastern Kentucky and is married to Tina, also an alumna of the University of Pikeville.

President Hurley, after earning his bachelor's degree at the institution he now leads, earned a master's degree in educational leadership from Indiana

University, a rank I in instructional supervision from the University of Kentucky, and a doctorate in higher education leadership and policy at Morehead State University. As an undergraduate he was a student- athlete on the Pikeville men's basketball team.

I commend President Hurley for his great achievement in reaching this position and certainly wish him all the best in his leadership of the University of Pikeville. I look forward to working with him to accomplish great things for the school, the region, and the Commonwealth.

Mr. President, an article that appeared in the University of Pikeville campus newspaper after the announcement of his ascension to the presidency described James L. Hurley's accomplishments and goals in his new position. I ask unanimous consent that said article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in recent weeks we have seen a lot of hand-wringing on the other side of the aisle over ObamaCare--a little shock here, a little dismay there, and more than a little feigned outrage. What we haven't seen, of course, is anything even approaching a good answer as to why the President told the American people one thing and then did the other or a solution to the national crisis of millions--millions--of Americans, some with very serious medical conditions heading into the holiday season having just been told they would lose their health care plans.

The folks who voted for this law and the President whose name it bears did everything they could to keep these folks in the dark about the realities of ObamaCare for more than 3 years--3 long years. But the problems we are seeing shouldn't come as news to anyone, least of all our Democratic friends, because what we have seen are the utterly predictable consequences of ObamaCare.

The fact is a lot of folks warned about these kinds of consequences coming to pass, but the President's political machine just steamrolled anybody who spoke up--ran right over them. They laughed it all off, dismissed everyone else as naysayers and cynics, when all the while they basically knew--they knew--we were right.

Countless independent experts, health care professionals, and insurance authorities across the country all warned--all of them warned--about what we are seeing right now. So did many of us. If only the Democrats who run Washington had listened. But the President needed their votes for a bill he hoped would define his legacy, so they gambled that their constituents would just learn to live with ObamaCare and forget the false promises. That was the gamble. In other words, Washington Democrats were specifically warned about the consequences we are seeing, and they voted for ObamaCare anyway.

Republicans repeatedly warned about Americans losing their health plans--repeatedly. We repeatedly warned about Americans losing access to doctors and to hospitals. We repeatedly warned about rising costs and skyrocketing premiums. Check the Congressional Record. We warned and we warned and we warned about each of these.

Frankly, we shouldn't have had to do that. It doesn't take an actuary to figure this stuff out, and the issues my constituents now have to put up with as a result of this law are just simply unacceptable.

Kimberly Maggard from Nicholasville wrote that the health plan available to her through the ObamaCare exchange--now listen to this-- would cost more than her family's house payment and car payment combined. Kimberly Maggard from Nicholasville in my State wrote that the health plan available to her through the ObamaCare exchange would cost more than her family's house payment and car payment combined.

Here is what she said:

We are just average Kentuckians working and living paycheck

to paycheck without any assistance from government programs.

I really don't know what we will do if they have to pay that

amount out for insurance. We might lose our home . . . our

transportation . . . my daughter might have to drop out of

college . . . the list goes on and on. What are we supposed

to do?

Harriet White from Rockville said that ObamaCare is negatively impacting her family's finances and quality of care. Here is what she said:

The sad truth is that like my coworkers, my deductible has

doubled along with my premiums. The only way to be able to

adjust is for us to either reduce or stop our 401(k)

contributions. This is hardly affordable health care.

Here is what Larry Thompson from Lexington said:

[The] health plan that I've had for 10 years just got

cancelled, and the least expensive plan on the exchange is

the 246 percent increase--that means hundreds of extra

dollars per month we don't have.

Look, all of this is completely and totally unacceptable, and so many of ObamaCare's consequences were basically predicted by Republicans years ago--years ago.

So it is no wonder vulnerable Democrats are dashing for the exits, performing political contortions that would make Houdini blush. But here is the issue: Until these folks are willing to face reality, I doubt it will matter.

One of our colleagues on the other side was asked back in 2009 if she would accept ``100 percent responsibility'' and ``100 percent accountability'' for the failure or success of any legislation she voted for. She said she would. So she and her colleagues now have a choice. They can keep trying to distance themselves from ObamaCare in public while simultaneously protecting it from meaningful change in private--to keep standing by as this train wreck unloads on the middle class--or they can simply accept that they were wrong to ignore all the warnings, and then work with Republicans to repeal and replace ObamaCare with real bipartisan health care reform. That is the choice.

If Washington Democrats are looking for a political exit, that is the only meaningful one available--the only exit. If they are looking for the best policy outcome to do right by the people who elected them, they will reach the same conclusion. That is the good news.

I hope they will get there soon because we have already seen Washington Democrats travel through just about every one of the stages of grief: Denial at first, claiming the law's only problem is that it was just too popular; then anger, pointing fingers of blame at contractors, Republicans, of course, the media--really anyone but themselves, then bargaining, proposing nips and tucks to a law that needs an overhaul instead.

For the sake of our country, let's hope they just speed right along to acceptance--the acceptance that ObamaCare can't work and won't work, and that their constituents deserve better. When they do, Republicans will be right here, just as we have always been, ready to work with them to start over with real reforms that decrease costs and improve access to care. That is what our constituents wanted all along, and that is just what we should give them.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate a great public servant from my home State, the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Dennis ``Pat'' Wooton has devoted his life to service--service of his country in the Vietnam war, service of schoolchildren as a teacher in the Buckhorn school system, service of his State as Congressman Hal Rogers's field representative, and now service of his hometown of Buckhorn as the city's newly appointed mayor.

Mayor Wooton was born 66 years ago in the same Kentucky town he now serves. After graduating from Buckhorn High School in 1963, he worked his way through Berea College, graduating in January of 1968.

In the same year of his graduation from Berea, Mr. Wooton was drafted into the U.S. Army and began his basic training at Fort Knox. After completing infantry training at Fort Polk, LA, he was assigned to the 1/5 Mechanized Infantry, 25th Infantry Division. Mr. Wooton bravely served his country in Vietnam from November 1968 to January 1970. A litany of medals and citations, including the highly revered Bronze Star, serve as testaments to his distinguished service.

Mayor Wooton returned from Vietnam in January 1970, but this did not mark the end of his military service. In 1976 he joined the Army Reserves, where he served as a drill sergeant until 1987.

Before reenlisting to train the next generation of American soldiers, Mr. Wooton returned to his alma mater in 1970 to teach the next generation of Buckhorn High School students. Over the next three decades he became a Buckhorn institution, serving as the school's principal for 14 years and being inducted into the Kentucky High School Baseball Coaches Hall of Fame. He retired in 2000 after 32 years of dedicated service.

But retirement from Buckhorn High School did not mean retirement from a life of service. In the intervening 13 years, Mayor Wooton continued to add to his already impressive record of public service. This includes his election as Perry County sheriff, a post he served in from 2003 to 2006. Following his stint as sheriff, he served as Congressman Hal Rogers's eastern Kentucky field representative from 2007 until April 2013. All of this in addition to his long list of volunteer activities which include, but are not limited to, training the Buckhorn Volunteer Fire Department and serving on the Governor's Smart Growth Task Force.

Now, Mr. Wooton has found yet another way to serve his community. Appointed as mayor of Buckhorn by the city council in June 2013, Mayor Wooton is already hard at work to better the lives of Buckhorn residents. In his first year, he is set his sights on expanding Buckhorn's water lines in an effort to remedy the city's water supply problems.

Pat Wooton's lifetime of service to his country, Commonwealth, and community embodies our great Kentucky motto, ``United we stand, divided we fall.'' I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in recognizing an exemplary citizen.

The Hazard Herald recently published an article highlighting Pat's appointment as mayor of Buckhorn. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed the Record.

Mr. President, over the past few weeks, we have seen vivid, painful confirmation of the predictions that many of us made about ObamaCare. Most notable among them, perhaps, was the President's often repeated promise: ``If you like your plan, you can keep it.'' ``If you like your plan, you can keep it,'' he said. But we were always doubtful that could possibly be true.

This was always what Democrats thought they had to tell the American people in order to muscle ObamaCare into law. They knew it wouldn't work otherwise. They knew the truth would not sell and, of course, that is all coming out now.

But we are also learning a lot of other very unsettling things about this law, such as the fact that a lot of things that were working well in our health care system are now being thrown out for no good reason by the same people who brought us the ObamaCare Web site.

High-risk pools are a good example. About three dozen States set up these kinds of pools to ensure Americans with serious medical conditions, such as those suffering from diabetes and heart disease, would have a place to turn. High-risk pools have often proved successful and popular among the communities they serve. They currently provide insurance to hundreds of thousands of Americans, including thousands of Kentuckians, nearly all of them with preexisting conditions--the very people the law was supposed to help. These folks benefit from this coverage and many want to keep it. Unfortunately, that would no longer be possible under ObamaCare. Nearly all of them will lose their coverage at the end of the year.

Just as millions of other Americans across the country, folks who like the coverage they have in these high-risk pools--and remember, I am talking about some of the most vulnerable people in our society--are now discovering they won't be able to keep it, either, despite what the President told us again and again. As it turns out, the folks who ran this law through Congress think people in these high-risk pools belong in ObamaCare instead. They don't think it matters whether my constituents want to get dumped into ObamaCare or not; they made that decision for them.

A lot of folks in Kentucky don't think this is right and they are upset, and not just because they are losing their plan and all the hassle and complication that involves. For many of these folks, the plans they are being forced into have more limited hospital and doctor networks than the plans they currently have. As one State official recently put it, ``If you're in the middle of chemotherapy, the last thing you want to do is switch oncologists.''

We seem to see these kinds of stories just about every day now. There is the North Carolina woman with a severe heart condition who said she didn't know if her cardiologist and her procedures would be covered under ObamaCare. Here is what she said: ``It's . . . the uncertainty that gets to me.''

There is the breast cancer survivor and her husband who have been paying about $800 a month for premiums in a high-risk pool. After that policy was canceled, they expected lower rates under ObamaCare. Instead, they found their premium and deductibles could actually be going up.

This is scary stuff. But these are the real-life consequences of ObamaCare. This is no longer some theoretical policy discussion. I would suggest that as we contemplate the future of this law, our Democratic friends should start paying closer attention to stories such as these because it is not enough to have a messaging strategy and to play the old Washington game by trying to weather the PR storm until folks move on.

These stories we are hearing from our constituents are literally heartbreaking. This is not some hassle to move past. It is a problem to solve. It is what we were sent here for, and it is what health care reform should be about--about helping folks, not hurting them.

We do not need to get past this news cycle, as some of the White House spinners seem to think. What we need to get past is a White House mentality that told us last week that passing a bill to codify the very promise the President made to sell the bill would gut ObamaCare. We need to get past a mentality that caused the President to issue a veto threat on a law that would let him keep his promise to the American people about keeping the health care plans they have and like.

It is almost comical watching the contortions the administration is making trying to explain this fiasco away. Over the weekend we learned through a White House leak to the Washington Post that the President's new definition of success for the ObamaCare Web site is four out of five users making it through the checkout line--four out of five users making it through the checkout line. Who thinks that is acceptable? I certainly do not, and I cannot think of anybody outside the White House compound who will think that is acceptable either.

Frankly, if this is the President's way of restoring credibility on this law, by leaking that the Web site will not even work for one out of five users just a few days after vowing it would soon be up and running like a top, well, he has some work to do. The bar for clarity, honesty, and success under ObamaCare has sunk to new lows.

Look, if you are being treated for cancer and about to be dumped into ObamaCare, the last thing you want to hear is that leaving one out of five people behind is now considered an ObamaCare win. We are talking about people's lives here. This kind of mindset--whether we are talking about a Web site or anything else--is deeply worrying.

But then again this has always been the problem with blind faith in massive government programs. It is the old idea that we should not let the evidence get in the way of a good theory. That is the mindset the supporters of this law are stuck in right now--just blindly adhering to the hope that this program will work against all the evidence. It is pretty distressing. It is going to have to change if we are going to get anywhere.

The real question right now should be obvious: What is the administration's plan to turn all this around? We know they have a press plan. What is the policy plan? What is the policy plan? Does the administration have anything of substance to tell folks who are losing their plans? Does it have anything to tell folks in these high-risk pools who could be losing their doctors? Does anyone over there know-- anyone?

I have said this before and I will say it again: These are people's lives we are talking about. So it is time for a reality check. The defenders of ObamaCare have a choice: Stand up for your constituents or defend a law that is falling apart before our very eyes, a law that threatens to drag down the quality and affordability of care for millions--literally millions--of Americans who need it, including those most in need.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, as I noted last week, despite the repeated promises of President Obama, millions of people are losing their health insurance, health insurance they very much like and were assured that they could keep. It has been reported that so far 3.5 million Americans have lost their health insurance under ObamaCare. That includes over one-quarter of a million in Kentucky, one-third of a million people in Florida, and almost a million people in California. This is a serious problem that the President and congressional Democrats need to do something about. Unfortunately, they appear to be relying on half measures and creative accounting, not real solutions.

For example, we learned over the weekend that the administration's goal is to have the Web site serve only 80 percent of users, which is probably why our Democratic colleagues want to spend 100 percent of their time discussing other subjects, which brings us to the vote we will have today.

Nominations

For the third time in this work period, the majority will have the Senate vote on yet another nominee to the DC Circuit. This is not because the court needs more judges. It is the least busy court in our entire country. In fact, it is far less busy now than it was when Senate Democrats pocket-filibustered President Bush's nominee to that court, Peter Keisler, for 2 whole years. This is according to our Democratic colleagues' own standards.

Our colleagues are having the Senate spend time on this because doing so furthers their twin political goals: first, to quote a member of the Democratic leadership, to fill up that court because the President's agenda, according to an administration ally, runs through the DC Circuit; second, to divert as much attention as possible from the problem-plagued ObamaCare rollout at this formative stage of the 2014 campaign, according to published reports. In other words, rather than focusing on keeping their commitment to the American people, they are focusing on what appeals to their base. Rather than change the law that is causing so many problems for so many, they want to change the subject.

Unfortunately, the Senate will not be voting on legislation to allow Americans to keep their health insurance if they like it, as they were promised again and again and again. Rather, we will be voting on another nominee for a court that does not have enough work to do. The Senate ought to be spending its time dealing with a real crisis, not a manufactured one. We ought to be dealing with an ill-conceived law that is causing millions of Americans to lose their health insurance. Instead, we will spend our time today on a political exercise designed to distract the American people from the mess that is ObamaCare, rather than trying to fix it.

Last week I also suggested that if our Democratic colleagues are going to ignore the fact that millions of people are losing their health insurance plans, they should at least be working with us to fill judicial emergencies that actually exist, rather than complaining about fake ones. I noted there are nominees on the Executive Calendar who would fill actual judicial emergencies, unlike any of the DC Circuit nominations. Several of them, in fact, have been pending on the calendar longer than the nomination on which we will be voting today. Another week has gone by without any action by the majority to fill these actual judicial emergencies. Rather than work with us to schedule votes on them in an orderly manner as we have been doing, the majority chose to leapfrog over them in order to concoct a crisis on the DC Circuit so it can distract Americans from the failings of ObamaCare.

Unfortunately, our friends appear to be more concerned with playing politics than with actually solving problems. So like last week, I will vote no on this afternoon's political exercise. As I said last week, I hope the Senate will focus on what the American people care about rather than spend its time trying to distract them.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, by now I am sure every Member in this Chamber has received literally countless letters, emails, and phone calls from the millions of Americans who have been hurt by ObamaCare.

I recently saw a press release from the senior Senator from California saying that she has heard from more than 30,000 constituents who are facing skyrocketing costs or canceled plans.

Each story is unique. Each story is important. That is why this morning Senate Republicans will share some of those stories to put a human face to those who have suffered as a result of the Democrats' decision to force this law on our country.

I will start off with James Dodson, who is a constituent of mine from Owensboro. James has type 2 diabetes. He recently got a letter informing him that his high-risk pool coverage would expire next month. He says a replacement plan on the ObamaCare exchange will cause his premiums to spike from $676 to more than $1,000 a month.

Here is the question he asked me: ``Where [are] the savings the Democrats . . . promised 3 years ago?''

James' story is another reminder of why it is time for Democrats to work with us to repeal this law and start over with bipartisan reform. My constituent James is counting on them, and so are millions of others across the country who are suffering under this law.

I understand my friend from Texas has something he would like to share.

Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to an American hero who is also a proud and honored Kentuckian. Mr. John Wood of Glasgow, KY, will be honored this month for his service in uniform to our country. Mr. Wood served in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1941 to 1947, was present for the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, and was there at the Battle of Midway Island just months after America entered World War II.

After his military service, Mr. Wood settled in Glasgow, where he worked as a radio broadcast engineer from 1949 to 1990. He is a true legend from the Greatest Generation who still has much to teach us younger folks.

This November 18, Mr. Wood will be honored at Glasgow City Hall. Also, local officials in Glasgow, Cave City, and Barren County will join with local veterans' organizations in Kentucky to proclaim November 20 as ``John Wood Day'' in Barren County. Coincidentally, on November 20, Mr. Wood will also turn 93 years old. I cannot think of a better tribute to this fine man's service than to recognize him on his birthday.

My fellow Kentuckians can turn out to see Mr. Wood when he serves as the Grand Marshal for the Cave City Christmas Parade later this year, and also as a featured guest in the Glasgow Christmas Parade. These will be wonderful community events to bring Kentuckians together to honor John Wood's service and to say thank you to all veterans in the Christmas spirit.

I know I speak for my colleagues in the U.S. Senate when I express gratitude to Mr. John Wood for his service to our great Nation. Kentucky is proud to have him in our midst. I want to wish him a very happy birthday, a happy John Wood Day, and a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Recently an article appeared in a Kentucky publication, the Sanford Herald, highlighting Mr. Wood's life of service. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.