Floor Statements

Mr. President, one of the favorite pastimes of politicians in Washington is to talk about how frustrated the American people are with politicians in Washington. After the past few weeks, it is easy to see why. I am talking about the President's promise, repeated dozens of times, that if you like your health care plan, you can keep it, and the sobering realization by literally millions of Americans is that it was not true.

Some of the top fact checkers in the country have used terms such as ``pants on fire'' and ``false'' and ``four Pinocchios'' to describe the claim that under ObamaCare folks would be able to keep their plans.

In a matter of weeks, it has gone from being one of the law's top selling points to a national punchline. If millions of people were not so frustrated and upset by it, it might actually be funny, but it is not the least bit funny.

At this stage about 50,000 folks are believed to have signed up for insurance on the Federal exchange--way below administration estimates. That is 50,000 folks who have signed up for insurance on the exchange, while 3.5 million Americans have lost their health care coverage. In other words, about twice as many folks have lost their insurance in the State of Idaho alone since October 1 as have obtained health insurance across the entire Federal exchange all across America. So this is a real crisis.

In my home State of Kentucky, over a quarter of a million people have lost their private health care plan so far and only about 7,000 Kentuckians have been able to obtain new private insurance under ObamaCare. If you consider that Kentucky received $250 million in taxpayer funds to get ObamaCare up and running, that works out to about $35,000 per private insurance enrollee, and that is before the taxpayer subsidies kick in.

We have literally thrown untold millions at this disastrous rollout, and what do we have to show for it? Millions of people losing their coverage despite assurances from the President they would be able to keep it. He said they would be able to keep it, period. That is what the President said.

Let's be very clear about something. These insurance cancellations are not any kind of an accident. This is no accident. It is the way the law was designed. Remember, in order for ObamaCare to work, millions of Americans had to lose the coverage they purchased on their own so the government could dump them into the ObamaCare exchanges. That way the government could then get them to pay more to subsidize coverage for everybody else. That is the way this was designed to work.

The 31-year-old dentist from Louisville whom I mentioned last week-- the one who is not married, has no kids--now has to carry pediatric dental care on his plan. He is one of the unfortunate ones subsidizing care for everybody else.

Despite the fact that the President and other supporters of the bill vowed up and down that folks would be able to keep the health care plan they had and liked, the fact is that was never true. It was never true and they knew it. They knew folks would lose their coverage. They knew it all along. Just as the President once famously predicted that utility rates would necessarily skyrocket as a result of his cap-and- trade policy, so too would health care rates skyrocket under ObamaCare. The only difference is that on health care, Democrats apparently knew they could not tell people how it would all shake out in the end, but they knew. That is why in 2010 every Democrat who was in the Senate voted against a Republican proposal designed to hold the President to his word.

The fact is the President's health care law was designed to capture millions of middle-class Americans, jack up their premiums, and use the extra cash to keep ObamaCare afloat. This is not some unforeseen consequence of the law, it is the law. It is working just as they designed it--just like what they voted for.

It is hard to take seriously this faux outrage we have seen of late from some of our Democratic friends. As for the President, this should be no great revelation to him either. Just the other day the media pointed out that the administration knew for years that Americans would lose coverage.

But there is something else.

At a bipartisan health care summit in 2010, the President was asked directly about this kind of thing by House Majority Leader Cantor. In reply, the President admitted that 8 million to 9 million would have to change coverage and justified it on grounds they would be getting better coverage from the government once they lost it. So the President actually admitted during that event that millions would lose their health care and still went out on the campaign trail claiming Americans could keep the health care plans they had.

This is why Americans feel so hurt by this particular broken promise. And what many of them want to know is why would Washington Democrats persist with it even after it became clear it was false?

I think the reasons are simple enough. One, they needed to pass the ObamaCare bill; and, two, they needed to sell it to a skeptical public. And neither would have been possible without it.

If the President had gone out and told people that if he likes your plan, you can keep it--if the President had said if he likes your plan, you can keep it--it would have never passed. That is why the President's so-called apology the other night rang so hollow for so many.

ObamaCare's problems run so deep and the broken promises are so pervasive that it is impossible to identify an ``easy fix.'' It truly ought to be repealed or delayed. But if the President is sorry for breaking his promise to the American people, there is a natural place to start. He could support legislation that would help restore the plans for the folks who want them back, and he can act on it as early as this Friday. That is because the House is expected to send over a bill that would allow Americans to keep the plans they have and want to keep. There is no reason the President and Senate Democrats should not join Republicans and the American people in supporting it.

This does not have to be a partisan battle. These cancellations have not discriminated based on party. The people out there who are frustrated and upset at losing their health care plans are Democrats and Republicans. The President can help all of them by backing the bill the House is expected to pass on Friday.

I think that is basically what President Clinton was suggesting yesterday when he said the President should honor the commitment the government made to these folks, even--even, said Bill Clinton--if it means changing the law.

I have had a lot of disagreements with President Clinton over the years. But at key moments he was willing to cross party lines, and I think here is a moment where the American people are expecting President Obama to do the same. Allowing Americans to keep their health plans is a promise Democrats made over and over.

Whether or not they meant it, Democrats promised this to the American people, and it is their duty to make good on what they said. Once the House acts, my conference will be watching closely to see whether the Senate Democratic majority allows a vote and will help us send a bill to the President's desk. The American people will be watching closely as well.

So my message to the President is simple: Mr. President, our constituents are frustrated and they are upset. You could help. Do the right thing.

Mr. President, Ford Motor Company has a proud 100-year history of manufacturing in Kentucky. Today the company announces a new model to be constructed in its Louisville assembly plant, further employing yet another generation of Kentuckians.

I congratulate Ford on this development and applaud its continued excellence in manufacturing in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I will start with a word of sympathy about the heartbreaking loss of Perry Inhofe, the son of our colleague, Jim Inhofe, killed in a plane crash on Sunday. Of course, we are all thinking of Jim and Kay, and the heartfelt prayers of the entire Senate family are with them and the entire Inhofe family at this very, very difficult time.

DC Circuit

Madam President, despite the repeated promises of President Obama, millions of people are losing their health insurance--health insurance they very much liked and were assured they could keep. It has been reported that so far 3.5 million Americans have lost their health insurance under ObamaCare. That includes over a quarter of a million in my State of Kentucky, a third of a million in Florida, and almost a million people in California.

This is a serious problem the President and congressional Democrats need to do something about. The obvious answer is repeal, but in the meantime the legislation offered by Senator Ron Johnson would help Americans keep the plans they have and like. If the President and Senate Democrats are serious about helping the millions of Americans who have unexpectedly lost their insurance over the past several weeks, then they should support it.

Unfortunately, they appear ready to ignore the problem. Rather than focusing on keeping their commitment to the American people, they are focusing on issues that appeal to their base. Rather than change the law that is causing so many problems for so many, they want to change the subject.

According to a recent press report, our Democratic friends want to divert as much attention as possible away from the problem-plagued ObamaCare rollout at this formative stage of the 2014 campaign, which brings us to the vote we are going to have later today.

We 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; rather, we will be voting on a nominee to a court that doesn't have enough work to do. A court that is so underworked, it regularly cancels oral argument days. It is a court whose judges tell us that if any more judges were put on the court, there wouldn't be enough work to go around. It is a court that is less busy now than it was when Senate Democrats pocket-filibustered President Bush's nominee to the court, Peter Keisler, for 2 whole years--2 long years. And it is less busy based upon the very standards Democrats themselves set forth when they blocked Mr. Keisler's nomination for 2 years. By the way, it is also less busy now than it was then, according to an analysis provided by the chief judge of that court.

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.

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. There are nominees on the Executive Calendar who would fill actual judicial emergencies, unlike the Pillard nomination.

Some of them, in fact, have been pending on the calendar longer than the Pillard nomination. But rather than work with us to schedule votes on those nominations in an orderly manner, as we have been doing all year long, the majority prefers to concoct a crisis on the DC Circuit so it can try to distract the American people from the failings of ObamaCare.

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

Congratulating Archbishop Joseph Kurtz

Finally, I congratulate Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, the Catholic archbishop of Louisville, on his election as president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Archbishop Kurtz is not a native Kentuckian--he is originally from Pennsylvania--but we have adopted him as one of our own since he was appointed head of the Louisville Archdiocese in June 2007. I wish him all the best as he seeks to promote the church's mission in the United States.

Congratulations.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Reservation of Leader Time

Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for giving me an opportunity to speak first this morning due to a commitment I have away from the Capitol.

tribute to billy graham

Mr. President, I want to start out this morning by saying a few words about a man who has earned the respect and admiration of countless Americans for his energy, courage, and faithfulness to a calling that he first received about 75 years ago on a late-night walk around the Temple Terrace Golf Course in Tampa. The son of a North Carolina dairy farmer, Billy Graham turns 95 today. And I just want to join all the others across the country and around world in thanking this good and humble servant for his decades of ministry and tireless preaching of the Gospel that he loves.

In a career that spans generations, Billy Graham has walked the halls of power and counseled presidents and kings. But he has never forgotten his mission in life. And while he may not be able to preach at the giant rallies that made him a household name, he is still finding new ways to share his faith with a world in need of healing, hope, and purpose. Tonight, at the age of 95, Billy Graham will preach what's been called his final message to America.

Growing up, Billy Graham wanted to be a baseball player. Thankfully, God had different plans. And ever since that night in Tampa, he's put his extraordinary natural talents and generosity of spirit at the service of others.

Billy Graham's first crusade took place in the Civic Auditorium in Grand Rapids, MI, in September 1947. In the decades to come, more than 400 crusades would follow in more than 185 countries and territories on six continents. At one memorable crusade in South Korea, more than one million people showed up to hear the powerful preaching and the hopeful message of the Reverend Billy Graham.

Billy Graham may be the only preacher with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. But he never let that celebrity get to his head. I am sure he would say that his beloved Ruth helped keep him focused. And it is a credit to both of them that all five of the Graham children are carrying on the family legacy today.

As Billy Graham has receded from public life in recent years, we have missed the steady, reassuring presence that he lent to moments such as the Oklahoma City bombing and 9/11. But we have been consoled to know that he is still there on his mountain retreat in Montreat, NC. Billy Graham once said that ``God has given us two hands, one to receive with and the other to give with.'' So today, I join countless others in sending our own message of thanks to a man who has been called ``America's pastor,'' and to say how grateful

we are for the life and witness of the Reverend Billy Graham.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, nearly every day we see evidence of more Americans losing their health coverage. Just take a look at this map right here to my right--105,000 losing their coverage in Idaho; 215,000 in Pennsylvania; 330,000 in Florida. Out in California it is getting close to 1 million. All of these people have lost their health coverage.

In my home State of Kentucky, which has been frequently referred to by some as a success story, let's get the facts straight: 280,000 people--probably on a per capita basis more than any other State in America--280,000 folks are losing their private insurance as a result of ObamaCare, despite the President's repeated promises that such a thing could not possibly happen. That compares, by the way, with only about 5,000 who have been able to sign up for new private care on the Kentucky exchange.

Let's go over that again. In my State, 280,000 people have lost their health care policies while 5,000 have signed up on the exchange. Most of the people in Kentucky who are signing up for something new are signing up for Medicaid, for free health care. I think we can stipulate that if you are giving out free health care, you are going to have more people sign up. But on the exchanges in Kentucky, 5,000 have signed up, and 280,000 have lost their policies. In other words, so far about 56 times as many Kentuckians have lost their private insurance plans as have gotten new ones on the State exchange. That is hardly what most people would define as a success.

But, if ObamaCare has gotten off to a troubled start in Kentucky, the same is also true in many other parts of the country. That is why one of the most senior Democrats just said that ObamaCare is facing ``a crisis of confidence.'' I certainly agree with her.

She cited the ``dysfunctional nature of the Web site'' as just one reason for the ebbing confidence. She also pointed to the ``cancellation of policies'' and ``sticker shock'' as two additional points of concern--cancellation of policies and sticker shock.

She is right. Americans are far less concerned about a Web site than they are about the availability and affordability of their health care. The White House has tried to dismiss stories about folks losing insurance by saying they had lousy plans to begin with and that those Americans should be happy--they should be happy that the government is now forcing them to get a different one. In other words, the government is smarter than they are. You had a lousy plan to begin with, so I am going to make you get a different one.

But what so many have discovered is that ObamaCare is actually worse. Take Matthew Fleischer. He is 34 and recently wrote to the Los Angeles Times to share his experience with ObamaCare. Matthew recently found out he would be one of those 1 million or so Californians losing their health insurance. He says he is being funneled into an exchange plan that would drive his premiums up by more than 40 percent. Here is some of what he wrote:

My old plan was as barebones as they came, so I assumed

that even though the new plan would cost more, my coverage

would improve under ObamaCare, at least marginally. It did

not.

Under my old plan my maximum possible out-of-pocket expense

was $4,900. Under the new plan, I'm on the hook for up to

$6,350. Copays for my doctor visits will double. For urgent

care visits they will quadruple. Although slightly cheaper

plans exist if I tried to shop around on the exchange, I will

lose my dental coverage [if I choose] to switch. Needless to

say, I am not pleased.

He is one of numerous people who have been blind-sided since ObamaCare's debut last month. Look, our constituents are worried. They feel deceived. They are very upset, and they should be--not only with the law itself but with the way the administration has basically brushed their concerns aside, just brushed their concerns aside, concerns it does not seem all that interested in solving.

If the past 2 weeks are any indication, the administration seems far more concerned with shifting the blame. That is why the President's PR team has been scrambling to readjust his now-debunked promise, ``If you like your plan, you can keep it.'' How many times did we hear the President say that over the last 3 years? But every new variation basically amounts to this--this is what it really amounts to: If the President likes your plan, you can keep it. That is the truth. If the President likes your plan, you can keep it; not if you like your plan, you can keep it.

The truth is, all these rhetorical adjustments only prove the point. They are a tacit admission that the administration did in fact mislead the public about ObamaCare in order to pass it. Many of our friends on the Democratic side are starting to realize this too, and they are starting to panic. We have seen some of the most vulnerable Senators even putting forward proposals that might allow some folks to keep their plan.

From a policy perspective, we Republicans welcome that. We have long argued that Americans should be able to purchase the plans that suit their needs, not just the plans that meet with the President's approval. But the concern these Democrats are now showing seems hard to take seriously when you consider that they have continued to support ObamaCare for so long, even as Republicans, health officials, and policy experts across the country warned that exactly what is happening would happen. The fact is that back in 2010 the entire Democratic caucus voted against legislation that would have specifically allowed the Americans now losing their plans to keep them. I will say that again. Back in 2010 the entire Democratic caucus voted against legislation that would have specifically allowed the Americans now losing their plans to keep them.

This doesn't mean Republicans won't now consider good legislative proposals. Of course we will. But for Senators looking to absolve themselves of past ObamaCare mistakes, there is only one escape, and it begins with repealing ObamaCare, and it ends with working together on bipartisan reforms that can actually work.

The White House keeps promising Americans that once healthcare.gov is fixed, everybody's going to love ObamaCare, but it is hard to see how that could possibly happen. An IT guy is not going to give Americans their health care plans back. An IT guy is not going to make ObamaCare premiums any more affordable or its coverage any better. An IT guy is not going to allow Americans to keep seeing the same doctors they like or continue to go to hospitals that deliver the care they want. Let's not forget that there is no software fix for undoing the damage this law has already inflicted on the paychecks and lost hours of our constituents. There is no string of code for repairing ObamaCare's harm to jobs and to our country.

The President could not be more right when he says ObamaCare is about more than a Web site. It sure is. I could not agree more. It is about people. It is about the people we represent, folks such as Matthew Fleischer and Edie Sundby, whom I mentioned. Edie is

battling stage IV gallbladder cancer and says that because of ObamaCare she is about to lose access to the kind of affordable care she credits with keeping her alive for the past several years. It is about folks like a 40-year-old constituent of mine named Mark. Mark owns a small business and thought he would be able to keep his current insurance, but then he got a letter from his insurer terminating the plan anyway. After looking at his options on the Kentucky exchange, he discovered that his Kentucky premiums would rise by 300 percent. It is not right, and it is not fair.

Here is an important lesson: ObamaCare would not be law today if the President and his allies in Congress had told the truth about the consequences it would bring. People like Edie, Matthew, and Mark would not be in the troubling circumstances they are in now if the President had simply been honest about ObamaCare.

The President can keep talking about a Web site if he wants, but Republicans are going to keep fighting for the middle-class Americans who are suffering under this law because that is where the focus should be.

Mr. President, almost 1 year ago now, Michigan's Governor Rick Snyder signed historic right-to-work legislation into law. At the time he said he viewed it ``as an opportunity to stand up for Michigan's workers, to be pro-worker.''

The union bosses, the entrenched special interests, and the professional left may have stood in united, militant disagreement, but Michigan's soft-spoken Governor was right. The more venom Big Labor directed at him, the more it seemed to confirm the suspicions of many of the middle-class workers Snyder was trying to help. He was, in fact, on their side.

The truth is, over the years, Big Labor has come to care more about its own perks and power than the workers it was charged with protecting. Snyder knew that and he knew it was time to tip the scales back in favor of workers. He is not alone.

In the Senate, Senator Paul and I share Governor Snyder's commitment to helping restore worker rights. That is why yesterday we filed an amendment that would enact similar forward-looking reforms at the Federal level.

Our right-to-work amendment is simple enough. It merely calls for repealing the discriminatory clauses in Federal law that allow, as a condition of employment, forcing workers to join a union or forcing workers to pay union dues. In practical terms, here is what that would mean for middle-class folks in Kentucky and across America: If you want to join a union, you can. If you don't want to join a union, you don't have to. That is it. That is all this is about.

This is just common sense. It is basic fairness. According to one survey, about 80 percent of unionized workers agree that employees should be able to decide whether joining a union is for them. But this amendment isn't just about ending institutional discrimination against workers; it is also about job creation, economic growth, and making America more competitive in the 21st century.

Consider the fact that manufacturing employment is one-third higher in States with right-to-work laws or that, according to a recent study, States with right-to-work saw improvements in real personal income and average annual employment compared to what they would have seen without such laws or that many of our Nation's labor laws were passed in an earlier era, in some cases before many folks even had television sets.

America's labor regulations are antiquated and they need to be updated for the modern world. That is what the flextime legislation I introduced last week sought to achieve, and that is what right-to-work seeks to achieve as well.

Protecting the rights of workers, creating jobs, growing the economy, and keeping pace with the modern world is what right-to-work is all about. It is just common sense. If States such as Michigan, with proud traditions of organized labor, can look their problems in the face and act, then it is time for the Federal Government to act too.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Paul and me in supporting this important amendment.

Mr. President, I wish to say a word about ObamaCare as well.

I wish to remind my colleagues that the President is absolutely correct. He is correct when he says ObamaCare is about so much more than some flawed Web site. It is about people. People such as the California woman with stage 4 gallbladder cancer whose story we read about in the Wall Street Journal just this past weekend. I will read some of what she wrote:

I am a determined fighter and extremely lucky. But this

luck may have just run out: My affordable, lifesaving medical

insurance policy has been canceled effective December 31.

Here are the impossible choices she says she is left with. She can either get coverage through the exchange and lose access to her cancer doctors or she can pay up to 50 percent more for, as she put it, ``the privilege of starting over with an unfamiliar insurance company and impaired benefits.''

That is just not right. It is not what the President promised, and it is not the kind of health care reform Americans asked for.

So we should keep our focus where it belongs--on the real people getting hurt by this law.

But that doesn't mean we should stop asking questions about healthcare.gov too. Because if the government can't even run a Web site that it had 3 years--3 years--and hundreds of millions of dollars to create, can Americans entrust the same bureaucracy with even more power over their health care?

The calamitous rollout reminds us that we do not even know if data being submitted over this Web site is 100 percent secure. In today's age of digital scammers, that is a real concern for our constituents. Identity theft is about the last problem Americans need to be dealing with right now, especially with everything else this economy and this law have been throwing right at them. They are already mad enough

about the President's repeated, unequivocal claims of, ``If you like it, you can keep it.''

The White House keeps trying to message its way out of this whopper, but no matter what they say, the reality remains: People are getting hurt. People are getting hit with premiums they can't afford and millions are losing the coverage they like. In my home State of Kentucky alone, 130,000 individual policies and 150,000 small group policies will be canceled. Remember, the President assured Americans up and down this wasn't going to happen.

I read about one DC woman who just lost her plan. She found something comparable on the exchange, but it cost a lot more than what she had before. Here is what she said: ``[It's] just not fair. [It's] ridiculous.''

She is not alone.

So I will say again it is time for Washington Democrats to work with Republicans to start working for their constituents instead of thinking that their first priority is to protect the President and his namesake legislation.

Mr. President, I wish to say a few words of thanks this morning to a member of the Senate family who is leaving us today. After 44 years of government service, including 32 here in the Senate, Carl Fritter has decided it is time to go.

Carl has been a real friend to my office over the years, through his work in the Office of Conservation and Preservation, and we are sorry to see him leave us. But before he does, I want to say how grateful we are for his outstanding work over the years.

Carl learned the art of bookbinding in an apprentice program at the Government Printing Office many years ago. He says he never saw himself as a bookbinder, but after working outside one January during the construction of the Kennedy Center, he started thinking about getting a job indoors, and his supervisors over at the GPO gave him the opportunity. Carl would learn his trade from bookbinders from all over the world, each of whom taught him different techniques, which he put to good use in the Senate Library for many years.

In 1990, the Office of Conservation and Preservation was created. Carl was named Director 4 years later.

In addition to binding and repairing books, Carl taught himself a lot of other crafts. I am told he makes some pretty amazing decorative boxes, bowls, gavels, and books. One of Carl's most memorable projects was a fall-down box that he built as a gift for Margaret Thatcher. It was a box that opened to reveal a plate in the middle, with two congressional resolutions on either side. I am sure Prime Minister Thatcher loved it.

Carl, thank you for lending us your talents for so long and for giving so much of your life to this institution. We wish you and Bunny all the best in your retirement. I am sure you will enjoy passing down your skills to your grandkids. They will have a great teacher. But the entire Senate community will miss your craftsmanship and your commitment to excellence, and we will miss your friendship.

Carl, thank you very much.

Mr. President, given that October is National Work and Family Month, I wish to take the opportunity to discuss an issue that has become increasingly important to working families, and that is the need for workplace flexibility.

Yesterday my colleague Senator Ayotte and I introduced the Family Friendly and Workplace Flexibility Act of 2013, which we hope will provide America's workers with the flexible work arrangements they need. Countless Americans have become increasingly familiar over the past several years with the same reality: more and more to do, with less and less time to do it. And while Congress can't legislate another hour in the day, we can help working Americans better balance the demands of work and family.

The Family Friendly and Workplace Flexibility Act is a commonsense measure Congress can pass to help alleviate that burden for millions of families by providing greater flexibility in managing their time. We all know working moms who are stretched between a job and supporting their kids,

and baby boomers with elderly parents who require care and attention. A 2010 study conducted by the White House Council of Economic Advisers found that work flexibility programs can ``reduce turnover and improve recruitment, [increase] the productivity of an employer's workforce, and are associated with improved employee health and decreased absenteeism.''

Another study conducted by the Society for Human Resource Managers found that women's responsibilities have increased at work and men's responsibilities have increased at home, resulting in 60 percent of wage and salaried employees believing they do not have enough time to spend with their loved ones. The American workplace has evolved dramatically since the industrial workplace of the post-Depression era. Yet the labor laws written during this time period are still in place today and the makeup of our workforce has also changed dramatically.

Today, 60 percent of working households have two working parents. Sixty-six percent of single moms and 79 percent of single dads work as well. American workers have had to adapt to keep pace with this changing environment. So should our laws. Instead of sticking with an antiquated labor law, I believe we need to update the Fair Labor Standards Act to actually meet the changing needs of workers.

That is why I am introducing the Family Friendly and Workplace Flexibility Act.

This bill will allow flexible workplace arrangements such as compensatory time and flexible credit hour agreements, which are currently available to employees working for the Federal Government-- Federal employees already have this--to be extended to businesses regulated by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Currently, the FLSA prohibits employers from offering compensatory time or comptime to their hourly employees. This bill would amend the FLSA to allow private employers to offer comptime to employees at a rate of 1\1/2\ hours for every hour of overtime work. I should add that this would be a completely voluntary process. An employee could still choose to receive monetary payments as their overtime compensation. This bill simply allows the option for employees to choose paid time off over work instead. There is no need for Washington to stand in the way of families earning the time that they need.

This bill also institutes a flexible credit-hour program under which the employer and employee can enter into agreements that allow the employee to work excess hours, beyond the typical number of hours he or she is typically required to work, in order to accrue hours to be taken off at a later time. This option is for employees who do not get the opportunity to work overtime, but still want a way to build up hours to use as paid leave. Like comptime, this program is voluntary and may not affect collective bargaining agreements that are in place.

Under this legislation, employers would not be mandated to offer flexible workplace arrangements, just as employees are not mandated to choose their benefits, rather than direct compensation for overtime work. Both parties are free to choose what works best for them.

I would like to take a moment to focus on some of the protections in the bill. Under this bill, an employee may accrue up to 160 hours of comptime per year. At any point in the year, a participating employee may request to revert back to receiving traditional overtime compensation in exchange for their accrued comptime, essentially cashing out their banked time. Further, the bill also requires employers to provide monetary payment at the end of the year for any unused comptime or flextime.

I have also included a provision that safeguards unpaid comptime and flextime in the case of bankruptcy. Thus, the bill takes steps to protect against any potential for lost wages in these kinds of circumstances.

If anyone understands the benefits of comptime, it is our public employees. That is because flexible work arrangements have been available to Federal employees since 1978. If the Federal law already provides these beneficial workplace arrangements to Federal and State workers, why should we not make them available to all employees? Public employees enjoy these arrangements so much that the unions representing them frequently fight for comptime arrangements when negotiating collective bargaining agreements.

It is very important to note this legislation does not do anything to alter the 40-hour work week. Let me repeat that: This bill in no way alters a 40-hour work week or how overtime is calculated.

Another way in which the Family Friendly and Workplace Flexibility Act protects employees is by prohibiting employers from coercing employees into accepting or rejecting comptime or flextime arrangements.

When we look at today's modern workplace, we see some companies such as Dell, Bank of America, and GE that already provide flexible workplace arrangements to their salaried employees who are not subject to the rules under FLSA. Perhaps it is no coincidence that workplaces such as these are also among the highest-ranked companies at which to work.

Now is the time to allow private companies to provide the benefits of flexible arrangements like comptime to their nonexempt workers as well. After all, it is not just workers at some places of employment who are parents or family members who need to be able to take time off to attend a function for their child's school, to see a son or daughter's supporting event, or to care for an aging parent. It is workers at all places of employment.

A report by the White House Council of Economic Advisers shows that nearly one-third of all American workers consider work-life balance and flexibility to be the most important factor in considering job offers.

Let me say that again. Nearly one-third of all American workers consider work-life balance and flexibility to be the most important factor in considering job offers.

It also shows that 66 percent of human resource managers cite family- supportive policies and flexible hours as the single most important factor in attracting and retaining employees. These numbers are pretty telling.

I am pleased that the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce has endorsed this legislation. I also thank my friend Congresswoman Martha Roby for her leadership and dedication in advancing this cause over in the House. She introduced a bill to accomplish similar ends as the Family Friendly and Workforce Flexibility Act and actually saw her bill to passage. Now it is time for the Senate to act.

The effort to provide greater flexibility and support for families in the workplace is one I have long supported. I have previously supported legislation allowing flexible workplace arrangements. This is the fifth time I have sponsored legislation to establish comptime, and I am proud to continue that fight today.

I consider myself very fortunate to be joined by Senator Ayotte in this effort. I suspect her predecessor, former Senator Judd Gregg, would be proud to see her leadership on this issue as well. Senator Gregg was a champion for flexible work arrangements throughout his entire Senate career, I was thankful to work with him on the issue in the past, and I am gratified to work with Senator Ayotte on this issue moving forward.

Yesterday Senator Lee introduced a similar measure that seeks to provide for comptime for American workers. Senator Lee is helping with the effort, working with conservatives to find out-of-the-box solutions to the challenges Americans face today. I applaud Senator Lee for his commitment to this effort and look forward to working with him in the future on this issue.

In closing, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense bill because it is the right thing to do for working families.

Millett Nomination

Finally, I will be voting against cloture on the Millett nomination, and I would like to discuss why. Ms. Millett is no doubt a fine person. This is nothing personal.

Peter Keisler, of course, is a fine person too. But our Democratic colleagues pocket-filibustered his nomination to the DC Circuit for 2 years on the grounds that the court's workload did not warrant his confirmation. They did so despite his considerable skill as a

lawyer and his personal qualities. His nomination languished until the end of the Bush administration. He waited almost 1,000 days for a vote that never came.

The criteria our Democratic friends cited to block Mr. Keisler's nomination then clearly show the court is even less busy now. For example, the seat to which Ms. Millett is nominated is not a judicial emergency--far from it. The number of appeals at the court is down almost 20 percent, and the written decisions per active judge are down almost 30 percent.

In addition to these metrics, the DC Circuit has provided another. The chief judge of the court, who was appointed to the bench by President Clinton, provided an analysis showing that oral arguments for each active judge are also down almost 10 percent since Mr. Keisler's nomination was blocked.

These analyses show that not only is the court less busy in absolute terms now than it was then, it is less busy in relative terms as well, when one takes into account the number of active judges serving on the court. The court's caseload is so low, in fact, that it has canceled oral argument days in recent years because of lack of cases. After we confirmed the President's last nominee to the DC Circuit just a few months ago--and by the way we confirmed him unanimously--one of the judges on the court said that if more judges were confirmed there would not be enough work to go around. So if the court's caseload clearly does not meet their own standards for more judges, why are Senate Democrats pushing to fill more seats on a court that doesn't need them? What is behind this push to fill seats on the court that is canceling oral argument days for lack of cases, and according to the judges who serve on it will not have enough work to go around if we do?

We don't have to guess. Our Democratic colleagues and the administration's supporters have been actually pretty candid about it. They have admitted they want to control the court so it will advance the President's agenda. As one administration ally put it, ``The President's best hope for advancing his agenda is through executive action, and that runs through the DC Circuit.''

Let me repeat, the reason they want to put more judges on the DC Circuit is not because it needs them, but because ``The President's best hope for advancing his agenda is through executive action, and that runs through the DC Circuit.''

Another administration ally complained that the court ``has made decisions that have frustrated the President's agenda.'' Really? The court is evenly divided between Republican and Democratic appointees. According to data compiled by the Federal courts, the DC Circuit has ruled against the Obama administration in administrative matters less often than it ruled against the Bush administration.

Let me say that again. According to data compiled by the Federal courts, the DC Circuit has ruled against the Obama administration in administrative matters less often than it ruled against the Bush administration. So it is not that the court has been more unfavorable to President Obama than it was to President Bush. Rather, the administration and its allies seem to be complaining that the court has not been favorable enough. Evidently they do not want any meaningful check on the President. You see, there is one in the House of Representatives, but the administration can circumvent that with aggressive agency rulemaking. That is if the DC Circuit allows it to do so.

A court should not be a rubberstamp for any administration, and our Democratic colleagues told us again and again during the Bush administration that the Senate confirmation process should not be a rubberstamp for any administration. For example, they said President Bush's nomination of Miguel Estrada to the DC Circuit was ``an effort to pack the Federal courts.'' And they filibustered his nomination-- seven times, in fact.

We have confirmed nearly all of President Obama's judicial nominees. As I said, we confirmed a judge to the DC Circuit unanimously just a few months ago. This year we have confirmed 34 circuit and district court judges. At this time in President Bush's second term the Senate had confirmed only 14.

Let me say that again. This year we have confirmed 34 circuit and district court judges. At this time in President Bush's second term the Senate had confirmed only 14 of those nominees. In fact, we confirmed President Obama's nominees even during the Government shutdown.

In writing to then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter to oppose the nomination of Peter Keisler, Senate Democrats said:

Mr. Keisler should under no circumstances be considered--

much less confirmed . . . before we first address the very

need for the judgeship . . . and deal with the genuine

judicial emergencies identified by the judicial conference.

That course of action ought to be followed here too. Senator Grassley has legislation that will allow the President to fill seats on courts that actually need judges. The Senate should support that legislation, not transparent efforts to politicize a court that doesn't need judges in an effort to create a rubberstamp for the administration's agenda.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I recently received a disturbing note from a constituent in Burlington, KY. Unfortunately, I suspect a lot of my colleagues have been receiving notes just like it.

This gentleman said that after receiving several letters from his insurer, it became clear to him that the President was being misleading when he said if you like the plan you have--if you like the plan you have--you can keep it. That is because he found out his policy, which came into effect just 2 months after the law's arbitrary cutoff date for grandfather plans, will be discontinued next year. He is not happy about this at all, especially given the fact that a plan on the ObamaCare exchanges will dramatically drive up his insurance costs, from $400 a month to more than $700 a month, with zero subsidies available.

Here is what he had to say:

My wife and I are 54. We don't need maternity care and we

don't need ObamaCare.

He is right to be upset. This is simply not in keeping with the spirit of the President's oft repeated promise.

Perhaps the administration would like to tell him he should have just done a better job of keeping up with its regulatory dictates. But what about the millions who purchased their plans relying on the President's promise that they could keep them? What about the husbands and wives across Kentucky who suffered when two of our largest employers had to drop spousal coverage? What about the folks who lost coverage at work? What about all the smaller paychecks and lost jobs? What about the part-timeization of our economy?

This law is a mess. It is a mess. As Secretary Sebelius said herself yesterday: ``The system is not functioning.''

Maybe she was referring to no more than the narrow problems with healthcare.gov. But as the President keeps reminding us over and over, ObamaCare is about more than just a Web site. He is right about that. That is why, if the system is not functioning, it is just another sign that ObamaCare itself is simply not working. The President and his Washington Democratic allies understand this. That is why the White House is so eager to enroll everybody--other than themselves--into the exchanges. It is why they handed out a yearlong delay to businesses, and that is why the Washington Democrats' Big Labor allies are looking for their own special carve-outs.

What about everybody else? What about the middle class? Where is their carve-out? So far, Washington Democrats have resisted every attempt to exempt the struggling constituents whom we all represent.

The folks who rammed this partisan bill through know it is not ready for prime time, and they seem to want no part of it themselves. But for you out there, the middle class, it seems to be tough luck--tough luck.

We have even seen some of the same folks try to stamp out innovations that would help folks get out from under some of ObamaCare's more crushing burdens. That is why they have launched a crusade against small businesses that dare to experiment with self-insurance and other pioneering ideas. Maybe the administration does not like self-insurance because it represents a free market alternative to ObamaCare. But the fact is nearly 100 million Americans are already availing themselves of it. I am sure most of them like the greater flexibility and affordability it provides.

So it is time these folks spent their energy working with us to look after the middle class and to bring about the kind of reforms that will actually lower costs and that our constituents want, because they should not have to wake up to news such as this: ``Florida Blue is dropping 300,000 customers.''

``Hundreds of thousands of New Jerseyans opened the mail last week to find their health insurance plan would no longer exist in 2014''--out of existence.

``Half of the roughly 600,000 people in [my State of] Kentucky's private insurance market will have their current insurance plans discontinued.''

Mr. President, 300,000 Kentuckians will have their current insurance plans discontinued.

This is not fair. It is not what Americans were promised, and Republicans intend to keep fighting for middle-class families suffering under this law. I hope more of our Democratic colleagues will join us in this battle in the future.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.