Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to start this morning by quoting something my good friend the majority leader said back in 2007--back when Congress was weighing whether to raise the debt ceiling. Here is what the majority leader said back then:

Until we change the policies that led down this path, we

will be back year after year, digging the hole ever deeper.

And, of course, that is essentially what so many Americans are saying today: If we are going to address the debt ceiling, then let's also address the root causes of the debt. It just makes good sense.

One would think our friend the majority leader would continue to agree with this logic as well, but that is not what he has been saying lately. He is basically saying that it would be irresponsible for Congress to address the most pressing problem we face in the country, that it would be reckless to raise the debt ceiling if that also meant doing something about the debt. In other words, he now seems to think the best thing to do about our crushing Federal debt is to do nothing at all. That is why my friend the majority leader introduced legislation this week to now allow another $1 trillion to be added to the debt with no strings attached at all, none, just a $1 trillion

debt ceiling increase: Just keep raising the credit card limit and letting someone else deal with it later on.

We now have a debt close to $17 trillion--nearly double what it was in 2007. We are borrowing nearly $2 billion a day--$2 billion a day-- and apparently our friends on the other side are fine with that. They want us to give Washington a free pass to borrow and spend $1 trillion more. He is so comfortable with all of this, my friend the majority leader rejected the President's own proposal this week to do a short- term increase followed by a negotiation on reforms.

Well, in my view, we were sent here to solve problems, not to defer them. We were sent here to confront the challenges of the moment, not ignore them. That is why the majority leader's proposal just won't fly, because it is completely at odds with the wishes of most Americans. And that is something the President and a lot of other Senate Democrats agreed with when a Republican President was asking for a debt limit increase. Of course, the problem is a lot more serious now than it was back then.

Here is something else. Neither side wants to default on our debts. Neither side will allow it. That is certainly the case, and people should know that. It is irresponsible to do nothing about the debt, and it is irresponsible to be stirring up anxiety about default, but that doesn't mean the American people are wrong to ask that a debt limit increase include reforms aimed at actually tackling the problems that got us in this position in the first place, especially since what our country has routinely done in the past is just that.

Going back to the Eisenhower administration, requests to raise the debt ceiling have often been tied to important fiscal reforms--nearly two dozen times going back to the Eisenhower administration. That is how we got the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings reforms in the 1980s. That is how we achieved balanced budgets in the 1990s. That is how we secured significant spending reductions in President Obama's first term-- spending reductions on which he later campaigned.

Now President Obama seems to think Congress should just increase the borrowing limit on his already maxed-out credit card without a single negotiation. He seems to think the representatives of the American people should just do what he says when he says it and because he says it, no questions asked--no questions asked. You know, that is not just irresponsible, it is not the way Presidents of both parties have dealt with this problem in the past. Reagan negotiated, Clinton negotiated, and if President Obama wants America to increase the credit limit, he will negotiate too.

I would also like to address one of the President's favorite talking points these days. He says he won't negotiate over ``the bills Congress has already racked up.'' Look, if the President actually believed his own talking point, he wouldn't threaten to veto virtually every Republican attempt to get spending under control. We have tried endlessly. The only times we can even get him to discuss sensible budget reforms is when he is absolutely forced to--when Washington has to deal with things like the debt ceiling. So let's drop the tired talking points and just get about negotiating.

I know the President doesn't like the fact that Americans elected a divided government, but they did. We have a divided government, and no matter how much he tries to divide us, at the end of the day he is going to have to deal with a Congress he doesn't entirely control.

The American people can be persuaded to raise the debt ceiling, but they are not in any mood to simply hand over a blank check. They are looking for sensible reforms. So if the President wants to increase his credit limit, let's get to the table and negotiate. He has been inviting Members of Congress to the White House this week. In fact, we were told earlier today that Senate Republicans have been invited to meet with the President tomorrow morning. That is a good start but only if it means he has decided to drop his refusal to negotiate on solutions. But if this is just a meeting where he simply reiterates that he won't negotiate, then it certainly won't be very productive.

I yield the floor.

Reservation of Leader Time

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

Mr. President, last Saturday the House voted 400 to 1 to express the view that a government shutdown should not interfere with the ability of military chaplains to provide services for our servicemembers. The House took that vote amid reports that chaplains were limited in their ability to minister to those who sought their services even if ministers were doing so on a volunteer basis.

We have heard reports that those who have scheduled baptisms might not be able to have them. Obviously, this is not a tolerable situation. We have a very large military presence in Kentucky. The folks at Fort Campbell and Fort Knox do not need this. We need to remedy the situation immediately and care for the troops who have volunteered to defend us.

The House has already taken a stand, in an overwhelming, bipartisan basis--only one vote against it. It is time for the Senate to do the same. So I would call on the majority to allow a vote to express the Senate's views that servicemembers in my State and every other State or overseas should be able to receive religious services. This is one vote we should have today. Some of my colleagues will talk this afternoon about some of the other votes we should also have. The government may be shut down, but our service men and women should not be caught in the middle of this impasse.

I had indicated to my colleague, the majority leader, that I would ask unanimous consent after my remarks, which I will proceed to do now. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 58, which was received from the House; I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I object.

Madam President, I appreciate the comments of my good friend, the majority leader. I might say, however, that as much as I appreciate his comments to all of us, the real challenge is his relationship with the House and whether or not we can begin the discussion process to get to an outcome.

Nobody is happy with the government shutdown, certainly not anybody on this side, and not anybody on the other side. But I would remind everybody on both sides of the aisle that

Democratic Senators have said repeatedly ObamaCare is the law of the land and, basically, we should get used to it.

We have suggested various modifications, some of which enjoy bipartisan support. But, obviously, so far that is not something our friends on the other side are willing to do.

But let me also point out to all of you that the Budget Control Act is also the law of the land. It was negotiated on a bipartisan basis, signed by the President of the United States, and the Budget Control Act is the law of the land.

When my good friend the majority leader says he was negotiating with the House over the CR level, my view was that was not a negotiation, that was current law, in place, passed on a bipartisan basis, signed by the President of the United States--current law.

So I think I can pretty safely say that nobody on this side believes that we ought to revisit a law that has reduced government spending for 2 years in a row for the first time since the Korean War, at a time when we have a debt the size of our economy which makes it look a lot like a Western European country.

So as we go into whatever discussions we end up having to solve the shutdown problem, I would say to my friends on the other side, revisiting a law negotiated by the President, passed on a bipartisan basis, that is actually reducing government spending ought not to be a part of the final outcome.

But talk we should. The American people have given us divided government. And when you have divided government, it means you have to talk to each other. This is not 2009 and 2010 when our friends on the other side had a total hammerlock on all the government. We now have divided government. It means we have to talk to each other and get to an outcome.

I think it is far past time to get that done. I hope, given where we are today, there is adequate incentive to get those talks started, principally between the majority leader and the Speaker, to get us to the outcome we all want, and to get us there soon.

But let me just conclude by saying the Budget Control Act is the law of the land. If you believe in reducing government spending, it is working. My Members and the American people think reducing government spending is a good idea. So we have a law in place that is achieving those kinds of results. That is not something at a time when we have a debt the size of our economy that we ought to lightly walk away from.

So I hope my good friend, the majority leader, will, in addition to talking to us, which we appreciate, talk to the Speaker because that is how we resolve this crisis.

I yield the floor.

We are now in the second week of a government shutdown that nobody claims to want.

Democrats say it is unreasonable to ask for any changes or delays to ObamaCare. Republicans, we think the ObamaCare rollout has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt just how reasonable a delay is. If anybody had any doubts about the need to delay this thing, those doubts should have been allayed this weekend when the administration admitted its Web site wasn't working and took it offline for repairs.

Delay and basic fairness are what Republicans are asking for at this point, not exactly the Sun and the Moon.

Another thing Republicans have been saying is that if we can't agree on a bill to fund the entire government, let's at least pass the most urgent pieces of it. Let's at least pass the parts we can all agree on. That is exactly what the House has begun to do.

Over the past several days, the two parties in the House have responsibly come together and passed no fewer than eight bills to fund things such as the Coast Guard, the Guard and Reserve, and programs for veterans. In other words, the House has quietly shown the two parties aren't completely at odds in this debate and that there is, in fact, some common ground here. Slowly but surely the House has approved funding for folks who shouldn't get caught in the middle of a political impasse such as this. They have done it on a bipartisan basis.

Over the weekend the House passed a bill that said a government shutdown doesn't affect the free exercise of religion on military bases, and 184 Democrats agreed. Another bill said government workers shouldn't have to wonder how they are going to pay their bills during a shutdown, and 189 Democrats agreed with that.

The bill to fund FEMA drew 23 Democrats. The one to fund NIH drew 25; national parks, 23.

Let's be clear here that the problem isn't the House. There is actually a fair amount of agreement among Republicans and Democrats over in the House, that Republicans and lawmakers have a duty and a responsibility that rises above the politics of the moment to fund things such as veterans, cancer trials, the National Guard, and reservists in every State.

The problem is the Senate.

I know Democrats don't like it, but the American people have given us divided government for two elections in a row. They gave us a Republican House, and they gave us a Democratic Senate.

This means negotiation isn't a luxury; it is a necessity. Until Senate Democrats accept reality, these crises will only be harder to resolve. So I would suggest they start thinking about how they might start playing a constructive role in the crisis and in the challenges that lie ahead. There is a time for politics, and there is a time for sitting down like adults and working things out. Republicans are ready and willing to negotiate. We invite Senate Democrats to join us.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to start this morning with a point that is obvious to me but I think bears repeating: Nobody wants the shutdown. Democrats say they do not want it; Republicans certainly don't want it. We all can agree on at least that. The question at this point is: How do we resolve the issues that truly divide us--that really divide us. The point I have been making all week is simply this: The only thing keeping the government from opening back up is the Democrats' refusal to apply a very simple principle of fairness when it comes to ObamaCare: Let's treat everybody the same. Let's treat everybody the same. Basically, all the House is asking for at this point--they wanted a lot more, but all they are asking for at this point--is a level playing field when it comes to ObamaCare. That is about the only thing standing in the way of the government's opening back up, and it is a pretty reasonable request. If Washington Democrats can't agree to that, then can they at least join us in making sure that veterans programs are funded; that the Honor Flight veterans can visit the World War II Memorial, and that the National Institutes of Health can continue its research? Can we at least agree on that? That is just the right thing to do.

Those issues respond directly to the concerns a number of our Democratic colleagues have raised and it is the same thing this Congress voted to do a couple of days ago with the brave men and women of our military. I hope my friends across the aisle will reflect on the efforts of Republicans in the House and allow the Senate to quickly vote on all the bills the House sent us last night so we can get the government reopened as soon as possible.

That said, yesterday's meeting at the White House, frankly, wasn't particularly encouraging. The President basically called us all down there to tell us he is not interested in negotiating. It was essentially a negotiation about not negotiating. Now we hear he is off campaigning today in Rockville rather than sitting down to get this thing solved, which is certainly disappointing.

But here is the good news. A solution isn't that far from reach. As I said, nobody wants a shutdown, so that is a good start. And it is hard to argue with what Republicans are asking for, especially after the embarrassing--embarrassing--rollout of the ObamaCare exchanges on Tuesday. I mean, one of the folks the President had standing behind him at the White House tried to log on and sign up for ObamaCare, and after a couple of unsuccessful attempts, the Post reports she gave up-- literally gave up. And here is the quote she gave afterwards: It is not so great.

Not so great? Some Americans might call that an understatement. You would think the administration would be begging for a delay after stories like that. So this should be easy. Congress gets treated the same way as everybody else on the ObamaCare exchanges and individuals get the same break the President already handed out to employers, the same break the President has already unilaterally given to employers. It is time for Democrats to start acting responsibly. It is time to work with us and find our way out of this mess.

Mr. President, many of us were stunned this week to see the administration blocking the World War II Memorial. It was a reminder to all of us how much we owe the ``greatest generation.'' Last week the Senate unanimously agreed to ensure our troops are paid during the shutdown, and the President correctly signed it into law immediately.

Today the House will pass a bill to ensure our veterans--in fact, they have done that--continue to get the services and benefits they so richly deserve. If Democrats are unwilling to fund other parts of the government, at the very least they can agree to support our veterans.

As the Senator from Texas and the majority leader were just discussing, I have the first of these unanimous consent requests to propound.

I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate receives H.J. Res. 72, making continuing appropriations for veterans' benefits for fiscal year 2014, the measure be read three times and passed, and the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, is that an objection?

I object.

Mr. President, with all due respect to my good friend the majority leader, he was speaking about the junior Senator from Texas, whom I don't see on the floor at the moment. The request was made by the minority leader, the Republican leader of the Senate, and it dealt, quite appropriately, with veterans' benefits. That was the whole purpose of the consent request.

I would repeat that I was the one who requested consent that we provide relief for veterans during this shutdown, and the person to whom his speech seems to be directed I don't see on the floor at the moment. But with that, I know we are in the middle of a colloquy here, and the Republican whip has the podium now.

Madam President, if it was not clear earlier this week why Republicans were asking to delay ObamaCare, it should be pretty clear to everybody this morning. The rollout of this thing made a trip to the DMV look like a good time. The word of the day was ``glitch.'' You could probably explain one or two of these glitches away, maybe three, but not glitches in Nebraska, Maryland, Florida, Wisconsin, Illinois, and in Kentucky--not glitches all across the country.

Kentuckians who tried to log in yesterday got a message that read ``server error.'' Let me translate that. It did not work. I mean, if the plural of anecdote is data, it seems to me the plural of glitch has to be systemic failure. This is the law that Washington Democrats were so adamant about unveiling yesterday, they were willing to shut down the government over it.

Instead of agreeing to a couple of commonsense proposals related to this law, they stuck to their absolutist position: 100 percent of ObamaCare when and how they want it, no matter what. This, of course, unless the President thinks you are one of the chosen few who deserve a special break.

So basically Washington Democrats shut down the government because they did not think middle-class Americans deserve the same kind of treatment as their employers, and because they did not think Congress should have to follow the same rules on ObamaCare exchanges as everybody else.

These were fair things to ask for. They were reasonable. If the Democrats who run Washington could have brought themselves to that sensible position, they would have voted to keep the government open. But in the end, they got their shutdown, which they apparently think will help them politically. They held on to their absolutist position on ObamaCare regardless of the consequences for American families.

Two days into this thing they still refuse to budge. The President reiterated again yesterday he is not interested in talking. The majority leader made it clear he is not interested in talking either. He shot down just about every attempt to engage in serious discussions with the House or with any one else for that matter.

Look, this week Washington Democrats had a choice: Defend basic principles of fairness when it comes to ObamaCare or shut down the government. They chose the latter. It was the wrong decision, in my view. It is time for them to start finding solutions, to start talking, and put the interests of their constituents ahead of the interests of their party.

Well, Mr. President, Democratic leaders in Congress

finally have their prize--a government shutdown that no one seems to want but them. House Republicans worked late into the night this weekend to keep the government open, and Senate Democrats dragged their feet literally for days. They refused to pass anything. News reports suggest the majority leader was even working behind the scenes to block any bipartisan negotiations from taking place.

Then, after doing essentially nothing all weekend but obstruct, with just hours left to go, Democrats voted again and again to reject reasonable legislation. Every piece of legislation the House sent over would have kept the government from shutting down--every single one of them. Each one represented more of a compromise than the last. And get this: Last night Senate Democrats went so far as to reject legislation that would have kept the government running under just two conditions-- just two--that families get the same 1-year relief as employers and that Congress has to follow the same rules on the ObamaCare exchanges as their constituents. That is how extreme the Democratic position is. They won't even accept basic fairness as a principle under ObamaCare.

Today they have gone even further. They have now said they won't even agree to sit down and work out differences. They won't even talk about it. They literally just voted against working out a compromise. They seem completely opposed to negotiation or compromise on a law that is killing jobs, driving up premiums, and driving people out of the health care plans they already have and like, and they do not even want to talk about it.

So we know the Democrats who have shut down the government will yell and point fingers. They have already started that particular routine. They will say it was the mean old Republicans or the tea party or FOX News or maybe even George W. Bush. They shut down the government, and now they are praying the American people will think somebody else is responsible. They are doing this because they would rather see the government shut down than do anything to protect the American people from the consequences of ObamaCare despite the stories we see every single day about the pain this law is causing all of our constituents.

Now, I will say this: I appreciate yesterday's bipartisan action to ensure that servicemembers currently defending us are going to be paid on time. The brave men and women who defend our country deserve no less. But now we need to do the same for the rest of the American people.

The House legislation has been perfectly reasonable. It didn't have everything Republicans wanted. It didn't have everything Democrats wanted. But it represented compromise, and it reflected the will of the American people, who don't want a government shutdown and who want to tap the brakes on ObamaCare--good folks who just think the middle class deserves a bit of a break. Senate Democrats could have passed any one of those compromises and averted this mess. Instead, they chose to shut down the government.

Well, it is past time for Senate Democrats to listen to the American people. The House has already done its job to fund the government again and again and again.

I know the Democrats who run Washington want to extract as many political points as they can from this manufactured shutdown, but they owe our country more than that. They need to understand that ObamaCare is not ready for prime time--not ready for prime time. Their stubborn refusal to even discuss temporary relief for the middle class was a staggering act of political arrogance. So this morning I am calling on the Democrats who run the Senate to sit down with the House and negotiate, to come to a reasonable solution that cancels their shutdown and pass it because no one wants a shutdown, it seems, but our friends on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. President, the unanimous consent request the majority leader just propounded was one a number of my colleagues were about to ask that dealt with a military pay issue, and a number of them are here on the floor. I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy on the issue of protecting military pay.

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

I am not sure if you have a fax machine at home. Many Americans don't anymore and neither do a lot of small businesses. It seems a bit odd to tell small businesses they need to fax in--fax in-- enrollment forms for ObamaCare, but this is what the Obama administration is now doing.

If I might paraphrase the President: The 1980s called, and they want their health policy back.

To be fair, snail mail is also an option and it looks as though the President's people will try to have the issue fixed soon, despite passing a law more than 3 years ago. Again this is the same President who told us that ObamaCare is ``working the way it's supposed to,'' and that those who already have health care won't see many changes under this law. This is the same guy who promised us his health care ideas would make American premiums lower and that they would be able to keep the plans they like.

Forgive me for being a little bit skeptical, given how these other rosy scenarios have played out. I am not the only skeptic out there. Just ask the folks who have already been laid off or seen their hours cut. Ask the graduate who can't find anything but part-time work. Ask the twenty-something who is going to lose her employer health plan and pay more over in the exchanges.

The reality simply does not match up with the rhetoric. That includes the President's remarks yesterday in Maryland. He said there is no ``widespread evidence'' that ObamaCare is hurting jobs. That is actually what he said, no ``widespread evidence.''

We all know the President was hanging around with Bill Clinton the other day. What we didn't know was he was getting pointers on syntax. It makes you wonder what would constitute widespread evidence of job loss in this President's mind. I mean, only yesterday his press secretary dismissed reports of a company dropping health insurance for 55,000 employees as only an ``anecdote.''

Maybe that is how things look from the south lawn. It looks a lot different if you just lost the health care plan you liked and wanted to keep. As Senator Moynihan used to tell us: Data is the plural of anecdote. There are just too many stories about the impact of ObamaCare, far too many to be dismissed with the wave of a hand.

Ironically, the same day the President was painting more rosy scenarios in Maryland, the administration announced yet another delay in this law's implementation. That is about the time we found out about the fax machines and all that follows the revelation of yet more exchange problems, this time with an exchange in the District of Columbia. You might be able to take away any one of these ObamaCare problems in isolation and explain it away, say it doesn't matter and call it an anecdote, but what we are getting here is a constant drip, drip, paired with the effect of seeing what is happening to our jobs, our health care, and the economy.

It all adds up to just one thing: a law in trouble, a law that needs to be repealed. This is the goal of every Republican Member here in the Republican Conference in the Senate. We are united on the need to repeal ObamaCare. We want to replace it with sensible, bipartisan forms that actually will work, and in a few minutes each and every one of us will vote against funding ObamaCare.

The American people want this repealed. Republicans want it repealed. I wouldn't be surprised if a number of our Democratic colleagues secretly want it repealed as well. The problem is we can't get this done unless my friends on the other side are prepared to step up with us and work on the issue, because there are 54 of them and 46 of us. This doesn't mean we will give up the fight if they don't. We won't. There are a lot of other things we can do in the meantime.

For instance, we can follow the administration's lead in offering ObamaCare a delay for the American people. After all, the administration seems to think businesses deserve a break from ObamaCare. Doesn't the middle class deserve the same treatment, the very same treatment? Republicans think so. I think we might be able to convince enough Democrats to join us on that to help us provide fairness--fairness to the middle class.

Yesterday, one Democratic Senator already signaled his willingness to delay some of the worst aspects of the law as well. He called a delay for the

American people ``very reasonable and sensible.'' He posed a question: ``Don't you think it'd be fair?''

The answer is: Yes, that would be fair. That is a question for my Democratic colleagues to respond to. Many of them know how badly this law is hurting their constituents. Isn't that the fair thing to do? Of course it is.

I am calling on Democratic Senators to put the middle class ahead of the President's pride, calling for them to pass a delay for everyone. We have already filed legislation that would do just that. A bipartisan majority of the House already supports it. Let's work together to actually do it. Once we get that done, let's keep working to get rid of this law and replace it with real reforms, not with ideas from the 1980s, but with commonsense, step-by-step reforms that will actually lower the cost for the American people and spare them from this terrible law.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, later this morning in Maryland, the President will try again to sell his namesake health care plan to an increasingly skeptical public. He will claim that Americans will have lots and lots of options under ObamaCare. Unfortunately, keeping the plan you have and like will not be an option for a great many Americans.

It must be frustrating for the President that folks keep tuning out all of this happy talk. It is not hard to see, frankly, why Americans are not buying the spin. Over the past couple of years, I have participated in more than 50 health care town halls in my home State. I have met with health care professionals, doctors, and nurses. I have met with patients, and I have met with everyday Kentuckians, folks who are just concerned about providing health care for their families.

Many of the Kentuckians I have met with are a lot more knowledgeable about ObamaCare than the Washington intelligentsia might like to assume. In fact, more than a few of them seem to know more about the law than some of my colleagues who rammed it through Congress. Let's be clear. A person does not need a Ph.D. to understand that a law that drives costs up rather than down is a bad deal.

Kentuckians understand that the new government bureaucracies are less likely to lower costs and improve care than they are to just simply get in the way. So it is for these and so many other reasons that Kentuckians and people across this country are rightly concerned about ObamaCare.

Two nights ago, I had another great opportunity to connect on this issue with Kentuckians via a tele-town hall. I will tell you, the good people of my State are as concerned about this law as ever. One woman who participated said she thought she had been making it, but reports that she will now be forced to get a second job due in no small part to ObamaCare.

I have received more than 50,000 letters from constituents frustrated by ObamaCare as well. Single parents want to know what they are supposed to do when their hours are cut. Families want to know why Washington is OK with their insurance premiums going up by double digits. Small business owners want to know how they are ever going to comply with more than 20,000 pages of regulations. They want to know how they are going to be able to keep their employees insured, workforces growing, businesses expanding, and far too often, their doors open once this law comes on line.

One Kentuckian from Henderson wrote to me about the small trucking business she and her husband own. They have got 13 employees, and they have always provided insurance for all of them. But their agent recently told them their premiums would go up, a 100-percent increase in premiums. Here is what she wrote to me:

We can't afford this, even if we raise the portion the

employees pay. Then they wouldn't be able to afford it.

That was the experience reported to me by a woman and her husband running a small business in Henderson. These are the utterly predictable consequences of a law rammed through by a Democratic majority over the objections of the American people early on a cold, dark, Christmas Eve morning.

Until a few brave Democrats join our united Republican conference in voting to get rid of ObamaCare and starting over with a real bipartisan reform, we are going to continue hearing this same heart-wrenching stories over and over again.

We are going to keep seeing articles like the one that appeared earlier this week in Politico. It is titled, ``Obamacare: One Blow After Another.'' I want to read the opening paragraph:

The ObamaCare that consumers will finally be able to sign

up for next week is a long way from the health plan President

Barack Obama first pitched to the nation.

Among other things the story notes that ``millions of low-income Americans will not receive coverage'' and ``a growing number of workers won't get to keep their employer-provided coverage.'' Just yesterday, we heard the District of Columbia's exchange hit a huge bump in the road just days before launch. I would not be surprised if we see more stories of these types of problems popping up all across our country.

Let's talk about premiums too. A few weeks ago one veteran at a town hall wanted to know how this law could possibly be free. This veteran said: How can it possibly be free? Well, of course it is not free. He was right. Premiums are part of that story. Based on the administration's own data, along with some intrepid reporting, here is how much more a single 27-year-old can expect to pay under ObamaCare in Columbus, OH: 436 percent increase, for a 27-year-old under ObamaCare in Columbus, OH.

In Charlotte, NC, it is 523 percent; Little Rock, 613 percent more, 613 percent. Imagine for a moment. You are 27. You have done everything right. You have studied hard, graduated from college. You have student loan debt, car payments, car insurance payments, utility bills, rent, renter's insurance, 401(k) contributions, and health insurance, of course. Then there is gas, food, and maybe just maybe, occasionally having a little bit of fun.

Then you lose your employer-sponsored health plan thanks to ObamaCare. You get dumped into the exchanges. So jack up those monthly health insurance payments by 300, 500, even 600 percent. What are you supposed to do now, go uninsured and pay penalty taxes? Stop contributing to your retirement account? You cannot very well give up the car you need to get to work, or food, or paying back your student loans.

None of this is a good option. They are not good for our society either. We should not be setting up disincentives for 27-year-olds to insure themselves or contribute to their own retirement. But this is the incentive structure that ObamaCare creates. When you consider how hard the Obama economy has hammered millennials already, it is hardly fair to whack them again, especially when so many are just barely hanging on as it is.

So this law is a mess. It needs to go. It is way past time to start over. As I have been saying all week, we need just five brave Democrats to join us to make that happen. So I hope some of our Democratic friends who voted for this law will look at themselves in the mirror and think, truly think, about whether protecting the President's pride is really more important than helping the American people, because we owe our constituents better than ObamaCare.

We can do better. With your help we can do that. With your help we can start over with the kind of real bipartisan reform that Kentuckians and Americans are actually hoping for.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, about 4 years ago I mounted a campaign right here on the Senate floor against a bill that would come to be known as ObamaCare. Nearly every day we were in session, I spoke about the dangers of this bill for individuals, for families, for businesses, and the very character of our country. I predicted that it would be a complete disaster and that anyone who voted for it would come to regret it because the promises that were being made about ObamaCare could not possibly be kept. And guess what happened. These predictions are all coming true.

ObamaCare has not even been fully implemented yet, but we can already see the train wreck headed our way. Premiums are skyrocketing. Major companies have been dropping the health care plans their employees have and like. And every week it seems there are new reports about glitches that will hurt families, compromise personal information, or expose the American people to fraud--all of which helps explain why even some of the bill's fiercest early backers are looking for an escape hatch.

But there is only one escape hatch that will fully help those trapped by this law, and that is full repeal. That is why I am supporting the House-passed CR. Not only does it defund this terrible law, it does not increase government spending by a penny, and it keeps the government from shutting down, which nobody wants. It does something else--and this is really important--it puts the focus right where it belongs: on the Democrats who voted for and continue to support ObamaCare. Once we invoke cloture, the focus will then turn to our friends on the other side of the aisle, the Senate Democrats. The majority leader is counting on his Democratic allies to amend the bill. He can only afford to lose four Democrats--just four--if he wants to restore funding for ObamaCare. So if five Senate Democrats vote against the majority leader, ObamaCare will be defunded. That is a vote we should have and in all likelihood will have.

Democrats have been hearing the same complaints about ObamaCare that the rest of us have. The spotlight--the spotlight--really should be on them. This is a rare opportunity to defund the law with a simple majority--a simple majority to defund ObamaCare. We should have that vote. I just do not happen to think filibustering a bill that defunds ObamaCare is the best route to defunding

ObamaCare. All it does is shut down the government and keep ObamaCare funded. And none of us want that. That would be the results of filibustering.

Four years ago every Democrat voted for this bill and had the excuse that they did not know how it would turn out. Well, they do not have that excuse now. I think we deserve to know where they stand now. Four years ago every Senate Democrat worked to jam this bill through the Senate, over the loud objections of their constituents. As the implementation of this law proceeds, their constituents remain just as angry about it, and it is important for their Senators to go on record once again. We are giving them a do-over--a second chance, if you will. Do they stand with the people of their States, who do not want this law to be implemented, or did they double down on this failed experiment? That is the question.

Everybody knows where Republicans stand on this issue. We may be divided on some things. We may not always agree on tactics. But on the question of repealing ObamaCare, we are totally united.

This law should be defunded. That is what the House bill does. That is why I plan to support it. But if we are going to repeal ObamaCare, we are going to need some Democratic votes to do that. That is the only plan I have seen in this debate that will actually get us to our common goal of undoing the law.

For the sake of our constituents, we need to unite to achieve it. So this morning I would like to make a plea to our friends on the other side: Join us in taking it off the books and replacing it with the kind of commonsense, step-by-step reforms that lower costs and that Americans will actually embrace.

I yield the floor.

Reservation of Leader Time

Madam President, I wish to start by acknowledging the work of my colleague, the junior the Senator from Texas, who held the floor for nearly a day speaking passionately about an issue that unites every single Republican: ObamaCare is wrong for America and needs to be repealed. The Senator from Texas has focused on the dangers of this law, explaining once again why we are all on this side of the aisle committed to overturning it. Later this week every Republican will unite to vote against any amendment to add funding for ObamaCare.

This afternoon I would like to call on my colleagues across the aisle to once again listen to their constituents and actually join us in this effort. I would like to ask Senators to take their minds back to Christmas Eve 2009. Some of us remember it very, very well. In the early hours of the morning, the majority leader rammed through a massive 2,700-page takeover of the U.S. health care system against the will of the American people, against the principles of open and accountable government, and, I would argue, against their better judgment because the people who voted for this bill didn't have to listen to all the speeches I was giving back then to realize it would never, ever do what the President said it would. But they in the end obeyed the orders of the Washington Democratic leadership anyway, and now our friends on the other side are seeing the results of their votes.

ObamaCare is just as bad as many of us said it would be, and it is about to get a lot worse. This train is picking up speed, and there is a bridge out ahead. It is sort of like one of those Wile E. Coyote cartoons, except this isn't funny because these are people's lives we are talking about. We are talking about the college graduate who is faced with a choice between exorbitant premiums and government tax penalties. We are talking about the working mom forced to scrape by with less hours and smaller paychecks. We are talking about the small businesses that are unable to grow and hire more Americans. And that is not even getting into the concerns about glitches that could expose personal information to fraud or about Americans losing the health care they like and want to keep.

Even the administration is having a terrible time spinning this law. Just look at the cherry-picked report they released today. About the best they could claim was that some premiums would be lower than projected. Let me say that again: Some premiums would be lower than projected. Note that I didn't say ``lower'' but ``lower than projected.'' Basically, this law is a complete mess.

So Washington Democrats may have been able to brush the American people off back in 2009--just brushed them off--but they have no choice but to deal with reality now. We have seen how this has worked out over the last 4 years.

It is hard to blame them for looking back at their ObamaCare vote with a lot of regret. But here is the good news. Later this week the Senate will take up the House-passed CR. If the House-passed CR passes, it will keep the government from shutting down without increasing government spending by a penny and--and--defund ObamaCare.

So for all those Democrats who shanked it back in 2006, here is your opportunity for a mulligan. Here is your chance to finally get on the same page with the American people because the American people overwhelmingly oppose this law, and you can't open a newspaper these days without being struck by some new reason you should be opposed to it too.

Remember, it is more than just our constituents who are opposed to ObamaCare. Small businesses are opposed. Even big labor bosses are souring on it. All we need is five Democrats to show enough courage to stand against their party and with the American people on this vote. That is enough to pass the bill--enough to keep the government open and to keep ObamaCare funding out of it--before this train collides with reality.

I urge my Democratic colleagues to join us, the members of my conference who are already united in our opposition to ObamaCare. Democrats, on the other side of the aisle, can help us get this job done.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Kentucky and I be allowed to participate in a colloquy.

Mr. President, I would say to my friend from Kentucky, I have had over 50 hospital town hall meetings in our State over the last year and a half. The Senator and I have done a couple of these together. As a health care professional yourself, looking at it from a hospital and health care provider's point of view--which the Senator and I both had, either he in his profession or me by being in these hospitals a lot the last couple of years, and have learned a good bit-- what does the Senator think is the most devastating impact of ObamaCare on the provider world?

Speaking of Medicaid, I remember reading that our Governor got teared up when he announced that he had decided to accept the additional Medicaid mandate, which the Supreme Court actually had said was optional. I remember having a teared-up feeling too, but for a different reason. I gather what will happen in our State is there are going to be between 3- and 400,000 new people with free health care cards rushing toward the emergency rooms. What I have heard in a number of my town hall meetings is they cannot handle the Medicaid load that they have now, not to mention all of those new people who are headed their way, coupled with the $750 billion in health care provider cuts over the next 10 years to help provide a subsidy for people who are not old.

I mean, it is coming out of Medicare. It can provide subsidies for people who are not old. What is the Senator's take on where this all heads?

This bill was also sold, as we both recall, as doing something about health care costs. I was just noticing here that HHS's own actuaries revised their projections just last week to say that ObamaCare will actually increase health care costs by $621 billion out across the economy. Is there any way, I would say to my colleague, Dr. Rand Paul, how this could possibly hold down costs?

One of our constituents--I was going to mention here a letter--the Senator probably got it from the same constituent I did--to underscore how the rising cost is impacting people outside the health care provider world, regular people in business. This from a follow constituent of ours who writes:

My father began his Kentucky Fried Chicken business with

the colonel himself, and with the colonel's family. We

proudly served Colonel Sander's original recipe for 40 years.

It saddens me, however well intentioned, that this law will

undermine my ability to provide employment. It will deplete

resources that could otherwise be used to grow my business.

The Senator and I both have heard from a lot of Kentucky business people indicating, as this KFC franchisee underscores, the impact of this on the private sector.

The other thing that is clearly happening here is that

all indications are, we have a record number of part-time employees in our country now. Employers are downsizing in order to try to get below the 50-employee threshold. Of course, even as they do that, they are not necessarily unaffected by the rising costs of health insurance premiums. But we are looking around at some way to try to prevent the worst case scenario here, all of this disruption in our economy is actually the reason we have so many part-time workers; is it not?

The Senator was not here yet, but is the Senator fully aware of how this bill passed in the first place? Not a single member of our party in either the House or Senate voted for it. They brought us into session the day after Thanksgiving in 2009 and we were not allowed to leave for a month. We were here 7 days a week for a month. And we managed to eke it out. They had 60 Democrats, there were 40 Republicans. They eked it out with not a vote to spare on Christmas Eve, as a result of things like the Cornhusker Kickback, a special deal for Nebraska, the Louisiana Purchase, a special deal for Louisiana, the Gator Aid, a special deal for Florida, all while the President, the Vice President, and former President Clinton were up here telling me: Believe me. They are going to love it by the fall.

Here we are 4 years later. It is more unpopular today--I would say to my friend from Kentucky--than it was on the day it was passed. Is it not reasonable to conclude that is because of what it does?

The President himself seems to be kind of conceding that some things aren't working out well. He decided to delay the employer mandate for a year. Apparently, he has been meeting with some of his union allies to figure out what he can try to do for them.

I believe the 100 percent view of the Republicans is that if we are going to have a delay for business, why not have a delay for everybody? Obviously, we would like to defund the law entirely. There is a math problem on that in the Senate. There are 54 Democrats and 46 Republicans. But couldn't we all agree on delaying this train wreck? The train wreck, by the way, was what the Democratic chairman of the Finance Committee in the Senate, one of the authors of the bill, called it.

We have another example of this that affects our State. The President, even when he had a 40-seat majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate, couldn't get cap and trade through the Congress.

Yet last Friday he has announced he is going to do it anyway. All indications are there won't be another coal-fired generation plant built ever.

It is a perfect example of what the Senator is talking about, a kind of executive arrogance, that if I can't get what I want through Congress, I will just do it on my own and see you in court, or whatever limited options we have left.

If he really believes he has the power to delay ObamaCare, why not delay it for everyone, not just businesses.

Here at some point, regardless of differences of opinion that we have had on our side over procedure, what is likely to happen here at some point is we are going to have a 51-vote vote on defunding ObamaCare, something we have not been able to achieve here in the last 4 years. Four Democrats, who had second thoughts, who had an opportunity to take a look at the carnage of the last 4 years, could actually pass a bill that defunds ObamaCare.

I remember, I say to my friend and colleague, standing at this very chair, 4 years ago, looking at the other side

and saying if only one of you, only one, would come with us, this bill wouldn't pass.

I also said, however, if none of you do, every single one of you is responsible for its passage. Had any Democrat on the other side, any one of them, said this is a bridge too far, I am not going to do it, it wouldn't have passed.

Consequently, every single one of them is responsible for its passage, but they have a second chance now, an opportunity for a do- over. At some point here this week they will have a chance to cast a real vote on an up-or-down basis. I have watched this for 4 years, and I don't think we ought to go forward.

It will be interesting to see if party loyalty will be so great that none of these folks will be able to bring themselves to admit that they made a mistake 4 years ago.

The tragedy of this, correct me if I am wrong, but we passed a 2,700 page bill on a totally partisan basis. We have about 20,000 pages of regulations now issued.

I used them in a speech recently. They were 7 feet tall. We had to put them on a dolly to get it out on the podium.

I would ask my friend and colleague from Kentucky, didn't I read the other day, that even after we do all of the 2,700 page bill, the 20,000 pages of regulations, there still may be 25 or 30 million people uninsured?

I think this law has no chance of working. I don't believe that, even if we are unable to defund it here in the next few days, that we are necessarily stuck with it. I have been here a while, and you have been a long-time observer through your father's career and your own. I think it is pretty safe to conclude that things that can't work don't stick and don't last. We are, after all, a representative democracy. People complain, discuss, and tell us how they feel.

I don't think this law can possibly stand. It is pretty hard to predict exactly the day upon which it ends, but it is cracking.

We have Jimmy Hoffa, the President of the Teamsters, saying you are destroying the 40-hour work week, and their Cadillac health care plan. Don't you think ObamaCare can't possibly work?

I thank my colleague from Kentucky for the opportunity to exchange some views here about the impact of this on our State and our country.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 191, S. 1514, the Saving Coal Jobs Act. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed without intervening action or debate, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.