Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to talk about the President's sixth State of the Union Address tomorrow night. Although I do not think the Framers imagined the pageantry that has come to accompany the State of the Union, it certainly is enshrined in the Constitution. According to article II, section 3:

The President shall from time to time, give the Congress

information on the State of the Union and recommend to their

consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and

expedient.

``Recommend for Congress consideration such measures''--I note with interest in today's Wall Street Journal on the front page that President Obama intends to assert a unilateral agenda at the State of the Union, according to press reports, at least in the Wall Street Journal. The article begins:

President Barack Obama Tuesday night will seek to shift the

public's souring view of his leadership.

It goes on to say in paragraph 2:

Mr. Obama will emphasize his intention to use unilateral

Presidential authority, bypassing Congress when necessary, to

an extent not seen in his previous State of the Union

speeches.

This certainly does not sound like article II, section 3, where the State of the Union is anticipated by our Founders as an opportunity for the President to make recommendations to the Congress, but we shall see. It should not be difficult for President Obama to outline a number of national priorities that are necessary and expedient for the Congress to consider. As we enter the sixth year of the Obama administration, the economy continues to suffer from anemic growth and chronically high unemployment. Family poverty statistics are at record high levels. Small businesses, the ones that create our Nation's jobs for the most part, are struggling to pay for government mandates and keep Americans at work at the same time.

Of course, a major concern for Americans is the President's health care law, legislation that was rammed through Congress without bipartisan support. Individuals, families, businesses, and investors can plainly see that the law is plagued with problems. Hardly a day goes by without hearing from our citizens back home who are frustrated and worried about how the law impacts them.

Instead of more affordable and more accessible health care, families in my State and across the country are dealing with a backlash of canceled insurance policies, higher premiums, and fewer choices. No one can dispute these facts. At this point, Americans are right to be doubtful of more promises. They want to see results. They want to see real health care reform. They want to see job-creating strategies that will work, that have been proven to work.

Americans need more tomorrow night than phraseology from the President. Without leadership and accountability, the public is right to lack confidence that the President's big government approach can move us forward or that the President wants to work with Congress toward bipartisan solutions.

I hope we can work together for bipartisan solutions. One recent poll suggests--and this is stunning--that a majority of Americans actually question the Obama administration's competence in running the government. The same survey showed that most Americans believe the economy is either staying the same or getting worse.

I believe the American public sees things correctly. Until Americans see significant improvements in their lives, attempts by the White House to spin a positive economic message will ring hollow. Many Americans have been forced to take part-time work or have left the labor force altogether. In the December jobs report, an official report of the government, we saw that the labor force participation rate, which reflects the number of adult Americans who have a job or are looking for one, has fallen to its lowest level since 1979.

Let me repeat that. After 5 years of the Obama administration's leadership, the labor force participation rate is the worst it has been since 1978. Recent estimates indicate that median household income is almost $2,400 less than it was 4 years ago, in inflation-adjusted dollars.

President Obama has tried to shift the blame for the harm caused by his health care law, but that attempt to duck responsibility will not wash with the American people. Millions of Americans have had their health coverage canceled, even though the President repeatedly promised: If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. Oftentimes he punctuated that with `` . . . you can keep your health care plan, period.''

The President recently said he regrets that Americans find themselves in that situation. Americans find themselves in that situation because of the health care law which he rammed through Congress on a strictly partisan basis. They find themselves in that situation because they were told a very flat and emphatic statement by the President of the United States, the leader of the free world. That emphatic direct statement turned out not to be the case.

Americans are uncertain of how they will afford significantly higher premiums. Employers are facing costly mandates. Now we learned at the end of last week that Moody's has downgraded the economic outlook for health insurers, citing the law's difficult implementation and the administration's numerous delays. So Moody's downgraded the outlook of these health insurers that are trying to make the law work.

As the country's chief executive, the President should start a dialogue in his State of the Union speech tomorrow night that focuses on ways to empower Americans to create jobs and opportunities. This body is controlled by the Democrats. The other body is controlled by the Republicans. We need bipartisan solutions to create jobs and opportunities. We have seen a big government approach with more burdensome regulations and more bureaucratic intrusions. We have seen how that approach does not work.

The State of the Union offers the President an opportunity to outline issues where he is willing to work with Republicans in a bipartisan way. We should be talking about market-driven strategies to reform health care. We should be talking about the Keystone XL Pipeline and how to advance America's rich energy potential, the most abundant energy sources in the world right here in America. Keystone XL Pipeline would be a jobs win for the Obama administration. Yet the President cannot bring himself to come forward on this bipartisan idea.

Of course the best welfare program is a jobs program. The best unemployment program is one that creates jobs for Americans. Americans are ready to go to work. Rather than focus on the politics of jealousy and income inequality, the President should demonstrate leadership and cooperation. In a divided government, both leadership and cooperation are needed to bring about the enduring economic recovery this country needs.

I look forward to the President's address tomorrow night and hope we can hear bipartisan solutions to move us forward.

I yield the floor.

MLB Hall of Fame Inductees

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

It would be inconceivable for the senior Senator from Arizona to say anything which I would find offensive or insulting, and I take no offense from his remarks.

I wish to be recognized. We are in morning debate; are we in debate on the pending question?

I understand that soon Senator Levin will come to the floor, and perhaps there will be an exchange between Senator Cornyn and Senator Levin about a matter that may be coming to a vote sometime in the next half hour, and that would be the motion to table the filling of the tree.

I wish to speak for a moment or two about that. I think sometimes we talk about these things in shorthand within the Senate, and perhaps our constituents don't know what we are referring to when we say the majority leader has come in and filled the tree.

I know most Members understand this, but what that means is the majority leader comes in and he offers all of the amendments that could possibly be ordered at one particular time and, therefore, doesn't give anyone else the opportunity to offer amendments. That has really been a problem for us on the minority side.

We have that situation now, and perhaps the motion that will soon be made by Senator Cornyn will take care of that.

But on this important Defense bill, which has been brought to the floor in a shorthand manner, the majority leader has filled the tree, and there are five amendments offered.

One of the amendments, amendment No. 2555 by Senator Reid of Nevada, simply does this: Strike the words ``3 days'' and put ``4 days.''

That is all the amendment does.

Another amendment: Strike the words ``4 days'' and insert ``5 days.''

That is all the amendment does.

There is another amendment that says: The act shall be effective 3 days after enactment.

There is another amendment that helps fill the tree: Change the word ``request'' to ``requested.''

In other words, not substantive amendments, but amendments designed to simply fill up the parliamentary tree and prohibit Members on our side or other Members from offering a substantive motion that might affect the defense policy of the United States of America.

I would simply point this out and reiterate what Senator Cornyn said earlier today. Since becoming majority leader, our current majority leader, Senator Reid of Nevada, has filled the tree 79 times--in other words, offered all the amendments, prohibiting us from even getting a vote, getting a debate, on an idea that we might have.

By contrast, his 6 predecessors combined filled the tree only 49 times; in other words 79 times by this majority leader and 40 times by the other Democratic and Republican majority leaders.

Senate majority leader Bill Frist filled the tree 15 times during his 4 years. Democratic leader Tom Daschle filled the tree only once during his 1\1/2\ years.

Trent Lott was majority leader, and he did it 11 times in 5 years. George Mitchell from Maine, a very distinguished majority leader, filled the tree 3 times in 6 years; and Bob Dole, when he was majority leader, filled the tree 7 times in 3\1/2\ years.

The point I am making--and then I will sit down--is that this majority leader, in an unprecedented manner, has filled the tree over and over. Why? To prevent other Senators from having an opportunity, as representatives of the 50 States, to offer ideas to improve bills and to get them on record on important issues.

I would hope that we could have a parliamentary motion in just a few moments to allow this tree to be taken down and to allow the elected representatives of the 50 States to come before the President of the Senate and before the American people and offer different ideas.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to celebrate the passage of the National Pediatric Research Network Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation that was signed into law last month.

I wish to thank my colleague, Senator Sherrod Brown, for his leadership on this issue. I was pleased to work with him on this important initiative in the previous two Congresses.

The National Pediatric Research Network Act expands and enhances our Nation's commitment to pediatric research by providing the infrastructure that is needed to advance the field for decades to come. To do so, the law includes training and support for early-career investigators and authorizes the National Institutes of Health to select a number of competitive pediatric research consortia. Each consortium, comprised of multiple institutions, will focus on specific, high-impact pediatric research, including basic, translational, and clinical investigations.

In addition, the law specifically states that a subset of the consortia must focus primarily on pediatric rare diseases. Participating institutions are encouraged to coordinate with multi-site clinical trials of pediatric patient populations. This will provide needed support for the families of children suffering from rare diseases, such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy, the most common fatal genetic disorder diagnosed in childhood, and spinal muscular atrophy, the leading genetic killer of children under the age of 2.

The National Pediatric Research Network Act's collaborative approach allows us to rethink and improve the way pediatric research is conducted. Shared resources among pediatric institutions help maximize the government's return on investment and avoid duplication. Rather than allocating additional funds at the taxpayers' expense, the law seeks to accelerate treatments for pediatric diseases by emphasizing collaboration and the efficient use of limited Federal resources.

I wish to thank the many families and organizations in Mississippi and across the country that helped build the bipartisan support necessary for passage of this bill, including Children's Healthcare of Mississippi, FightSMA, Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy, the Coalition for Pediatric Medical Research, Children's Hospital Association, National Organization for Rare Disorders, National Down Syndrome Society, the Federation of Pediatric Organizations, and the Kakkis EveryLife Foundation.

Simply put, this law will result in an improved and coordinated NIH pediatric research investment. This effort will help children across our Nation overcome numerous devastating diseases and conditions. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure the timely and effective implementation of this law, and I will continue to fight for the health and well-being of our children.

Mr. President, I would point out that the distinguished Senator from Delaware was on his way to speak and has graciously offered to defer for moment or two while I make my brief remarks.

Mr. President, I rise this evening to speak briefly about the delegation chosen by President Obama to represent the United States at the opening and closing ceremonies of the 2014 Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, Russia. I would also like to offer a few suggested additions to the delegation.

As Members know, Janet Napolitano, former Secretary of Homeland Security, will lead the U.S. delegation to the opening ceremonies on February 7. Our Deputy Secretary of State, William Burns, will lead our delegation to the closing ceremonies on February 23. Our two delegations will include tennis legend Billy Jean King, gold medalist figure skater Brian Boitano, gold medalist figure skater Bonnie Blair, silver medalist hockey player Caitlin Cahow, and Olympic gold medalist speed skater Eric Heiden. These individuals are American sports figures who should be lauded for their contributions. I am confident they will represent us well.

May I suggest with all seriousness that this delegation could well be expanded. Some have asked what message the President might be trying to send to Russia in choosing this delegation. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney asserted this morning that ``in the selection of the delegation, we are

sending the message that the United States is a diverse place.'' Whether we are sending a message or simply pointing to our diversity, I submit our official delegation would be enhanced by adding the following: an American citizen of Russian parentage, perhaps a Russian orphan adopted and raised to adulthood by loving parents in the United States would be a good addition to this delegation or a Syrian American who has fled the barbaric and treacherous rule of Bashar al- Assad in Syria. In addition, an Iranian-American exile from the oppressive and murderous regime in Iran might make an outstanding addition to this delegation. I would also suggest that LTG Keith Alexander, the Director of the National Security Agency in this administration, would be an appropriate representative also of the United States of America.

So whether it is messaging that is taking place or simply diversity, I strongly suggest this outstanding delegation could be improved by these individuals and perhaps others.

I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, it is my understanding that at 10 a.m. the Senate will proceed to a cloture vote on the proposed budget. It has already been passed by the House of Representatives. The cloture vote will take 60 Senators. If those 60 votes are in favor, we would then move to a period of debate--pro forma debate, actually, because the question would already have been decided. If Members do not favor this budget, the time to register that opposition is this morning. At 10 a.m. is the last chance to say no to this proposal and simply send it back to the negotiators and ask them to do a better job.

I rise this morning to reiterate my strong opposition to the House- passed budget, to the Murray-Ryan budget. I do so for one specific reason. I would first interject that there are many aspects of the budget that Members do not like, that we are not overly delighted with. We realized from the outset that there would be compromises and unpleasant decisions that had to be made because when you find additional revenues, when you cut programs that are popular, it hurts and it is uncomfortable. So I appreciate the fact that Senator Murray and Representative Ryan have made tough decisions. Apparently, the House of Representatives on a bipartisan basis has agreed to go along. But my objection that moves me from ``undecided'' to a ``no'' is what the budget does to current and military retirees and the fact that it breaks a promise that has been made to military retirees for years and years. It does so retroactively, unlike what it does to Federal employees, unlike what this Congress directed on an earlier occasion when establishing a commission to look into retirement. What it does to military retirees under the age of 62, instead of receiving the same cost-of-living adjustment everyone else would be receiving, it cuts their COLA back to COLA less 1 percent.

Why do we have a cost-of-living adjustment in the first place? The cost-of-living adjustment is designed to protect the purchasing power of a pension. So when a young man or young woman joined the military, say, 20 years ago at age 22, for example, they served for 20 years at least and they were entitled to a pension under the law. That was the deal. We agreed also that once that pension was received and was in place, we would protect that pension against inflation each year by a cost-of-living adjustment. It is simply fair. It protects the purchasing power and the real ability of that pension to protect and support the retired military person and that person's family.

What this budget does is it goes back on that promise. It says to people who have completed their service, who have completed the full 20 years of their bargain: You may have done what we asked you to do, but now the government is not going to do what we told you we would do. We are not going to protect the purchasing power of your pension. In the first year, we are going to cut that cost-of-living back 1 percent. The next year, whatever cost-of-living there is out there, you get that less 1 percent.

It adds up over time. I think Members have been astonished to learn that an E-7 retiring at age 40 today; that is, an enlisted person, would experience a loss of $83,000 in purchasing power over the course of the 22 years that pensioner would experience between ages 40 and 62--$83,000 in broken promises to our military retirees. An O-5 would lose some $124,000 lifetime with this budget agreement.

It is on the verge of being adopted. The only thing that stands in the way between our military retirees and this broken promise amounting to $83,000 for the typical enlisted person and $124,000 for the typical retiree officer--the only thing standing in the way is this vote at 10 a.m. on cloture.

Forty-one of us could say to the Senate: Hold on a minute. We know we have a problem. We know we have an $80 billion package. But there is $6 billion of it here that is unfair to military retirees. We can do better than that.

There are amendments we would like to offer. There are amendments Senator Graham would like to offer. There is an amendment by Senator Ayotte, the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, that would eliminate this broken promise to our military retirees and pay for it with other savings elsewhere, savings that have already been endorsed as good government and are simply a matter of tightening up the enforcement of laws that are already there.

We can find, my colleagues, $6 billion elsewhere without breaking a promise to people who during the time of a global war on terror have stood forward, donned the uniform of the United States of America, and volunteered time and time again to re-up, to go overseas, place themselves in harm's way, and embark on a career in the U.S. military. We can pass a budget that accomplishes the goals of Murray-Ryan without breaking this promise. I so hope we will. But this is the time. Forty- seven minutes from now is the opportunity we will have. After that, it is a simple majority. The deal will be done. The news accounts say that the debate is over, that the votes are already in.

I would hope that somewhere someone within the sound of my voice is realizing this is just another example of the government breaking its word. When we do this, when we tell falsehoods and change our minds and change our positions to the American people over and over again, what does that do to the confidence the American people should have in their government and the confidence in their elected officials to do what we promised to do and to fulfil our side of the agreement?

I implore my colleagues even at this late hour to take a pause, perhaps ask the committee, the conference committee which I was a member of and which was not consulted, to take another look, find the $6 billion in savings elsewhere, and fulfill our promise to the American people.

One other point before I yield back. I wish to point out that a commission was established last year by Congress entitled the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission. The purpose of this commission is to provide us with a comprehensive list of ways to make meaningful reforms to military pay and benefits.

Members should remember that we specifically told this commission it could recommend any option as long as it grandfathered in those who currently serve and those who are currently retired. That was the sense of the Senate, and that was the sense of the Congress last year.

This is one reason why military retirees are so surprised by this reversal--so surprised that we would be on the brink of changing the rules in the middle of the game--because we specifically said, only last year, that we would not do such a thing. I hope we will honor that promise, and there is yet time for the Senate to do so.

For this reason, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the cloture vote which will begin shortly.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the distinguished chairman yield on her reservation?

I don't mean to prolong this, but I wish to ask this of the distinguished chairman.

I think everyone should understand that although the Senator from Washington chairs the committee and was a member of the conference committee, this is not a report of the conference committee. The question I wish to ask is, Did the negotiators realize, when this COLA- less-1-percent provision was inserted in the conference committee, that it would mean $80,000 lifetime out of the retirement pay of the typical enlisted retiree? Did the conferees realize the magnitude of what they were agreeing to? Did the two negotiators agree to the magnitude of what they were sending to the House and Senate?

Madam President, I wonder if the Senator from Alabama would yield to me for 60 seconds.

Thank you, Madam President.

I would ask the Senator from Alabama, it seems to me no one wants to claim parenthood of this very onerous penalty on the retired servicemembers of the United States of America. I would have to infer from the answer of the Senator from Washington that she was not aware. One percent from COLAs sounds so innocuous, but when its comes to $130,000 for officers and $80,000 for enlisted people, it is real money.

This is a penalty, and it is hitting the people who step forward and volunteer to serve our country and protect our security. So until someone is willing to step forward and claim ownership, I have to assume the negotiators did not know the impact this would have on our military retirees. It seems to me the Senator from Alabama has devised a way to surgically remove this provision, pay for it elsewhere, and send it back to the House. I think we would be doing them a favor, frankly.

I thank my friend from Alabama for yielding.

Madam President, if the Senator would yield for an answer to that question, precisely 3,456 DOD retirees--the very people we are penalizing in this provision--have been recalled to Active Duty since September 11, 2001.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, we are now on Calendar No. 349, Susan P. Watters of Montana to be U.S. district judge for the District of Montana. I note on the Executive Calendar this nomination came before the Senate from the committee on September 19. It is my understanding that this nominee was cleared by our side of the aisle and could have been brought up on any Monday afternoon by a voice vote.

I think Members might be wondering and certainly people within the sound of my voice tonight might be wondering why we are spending time tonight in a protracted debate on three district court nominees--Landya B. McCafferty of New Hampshire, Brian Morris or Montana, and now Susan Watters of Montana to be confirmed--when there has never been a district court judge in the history of our Republic prevented from serving because of a filibuster.

To me, we have gotten to this point because of the heavyhanded overreach of the majority in trampling on the rights of folks on our side of the aisle. We find ourselves--temporarily, I hope--in the minority. That has a way of changing from time to time. But it is the sort of overreach that I am reminded of from 2009 when a supermajority in both Houses rammed through ObamaCare and caused all of the grief that we currently are facing and that real, live Americans are having with the so-called Affordable Care Act.

It actually might be in one way beneficial that we are spending this time on something that could have been done so quickly because it gives us an opportunity to point out that we should be right now, at this moment, working on the National Defense Authorization Act and also on the budget--two matters that are pending that must be addressed by this Senate before we can go home and take a day or two with our constituents and loved ones for the Christmas holiday. But it gives me an opportunity, as the budget comes over tonight from the House of Representatives, to point out one of the most onerous provisions in the budget, which has just passed with sweeping bipartisan support in the House of Representatives.

I will stand before this body tonight and say that I cannot vote and will not vote for this budget, and I hope that even yet Members of the Congress and the American public will listen to the broken promise that is contained in this budget that will be coming forward. We will perhaps get back to the nomination in a moment.

We should note two things about this budget. It asks for an additional contribution for pensions for Federal employees, but it does not do it to current Federal employees. As you enter the Federal service after the beginning of the year, you pay an additional amount that is withheld from your paycheck for your pension. That is hard to do, it is distasteful to do, but at least it is fair to the people who join the Federal service under one set of rules.

On the other hand, the budget that comes over to us from the House of Representatives and that I will oppose when it eventually does come up for a vote hopefully next week does to retired servicemen what we were persuaded not to do to Federal employees: It breaks a promise to retired service people who have already served their time. This is what it does. It says to every retired servicemember under the age of 62: You are not going to get your COLA anymore. Each year until you get to be 62, you are going to get your COLA, less 1 percent. I can tell you

that this is not a matter of nickels and dimes to the people who have stepped forward, joined the military, volunteered for a career in the military, done their 20, and now are going to be told, if this budget passes next week: We are sorry. We are changing the rules way after the game has begun.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter to me from VADM Norb Ryan, U.S. Navy, Retired, president of the Military Officers Association of America.

Let me point out what the retired vice admiral says.

On behalf of the 380,000 members of the Military Officers

Association of America, I am writing to express our strong

opposition to the proposal within the Bipartisan Budget Act

of 2013 which penalizes future uniformed service retirees and

current retirees under the age of 62. Even though the budget

deal would help ease the harmful effects of sequestration for

2 years for the Department of Defense, something we support,

doing so on the backs of servicemembers who served our Nation

for over 20 years is just shameful.

I would interject at this point that I have to agree with that statement.

The vice admiral goes on to say:

Reducing working age retiree annual cost of living

adjustment by 1 percent until they reach the age of 62 is

simply a tax. Servicemembers who retire at the 20-year point

would feel the full negative final effect of the proposal by

reducing their retired pay by nearly 20 percent by the time

they reach the age of 62.

This is the pertinent part of the letter I am having printed in the Record, and my colleagues should hear me on this:

For example, an Army sergeant first class, E-7 retiring

this year with 20 years of service would see an average loss

of over $3,700 per year by the time he or she reaches age 62,

a cumulative loss of nearly $83,000.

That is what this bipartisan budget resolution does to the retired military enlisted people who have volunteered to serve our country for 20 years and who joined under one set of rules--$83,000 lifetime taken from this retired E-7.

For a lieutenant colonel, O-5, the average annual loss would be over $6,200 annually, a cumulative loss of over $124,000.

I will yield on this, absolutely, to my friend.

The rules, if this budget passes and is signed into law by President Obama, will be changed on this individual retroactively. The result will be that, instead of the retirement pay he signed up for and agreed to under the law when he did his duty, he will experience an $83,000 loss, lifetime.

I can only imagine that it is a severe blow to morale. Also, it has to make people who are willing to step forward and risk their lives, be separated for months and years from their loved ones, it has to make them wonder, what else is being promised to me that is going to be taken away?

Right. We do not do anything to any other Federal employee retroactively, only the military in this budget. I cannot imagine how the public could think that is fair.

I will tell you who else believes it is discriminatory. I have a list of members of the military coalitions listed in a letter to the Honorable Harry Reid and the Honorable Mitch McConnell dated December 11, 2013. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

I simply say, in answer to the distinguished Senator from Georgia, here are the groups who are expressing outrage, dismay, and strong opposition to this provision:

The Air Force Sergeants Association; Air Force Women Officers Associated; AMVETS; AMSUS; Association of the United States Navy; Chief Warrant Officer and Warrant Officer Association, U.S. Coast Guard; Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public Health Service, Inc.; Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States; Fleet Reserve Association; Gold Star Wives; Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America; Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America; Marine Corps League; Marine Corps Reserve Association; Military Officers Association of America; Military Order of the Purple Heart; National Association for Uniformed Services; National Guard Association of the United States; National Military Family Association; Naval Enlisted Reserve Association; Society of Medical Consultants to the Armed Forces; the Military Chaplains Association of the United States of America; the Retired Enlisted Association; United States Army Warrant Officers Association; United States Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers Association; Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States; and Vietnam Veterans of America.

This distinguished list of organizations consisting of members and former members of the U.S. military have registered their opposition.

I can only hope at this point that Members of the Senate will listen. This is a so-called savings of $6 billion out of an $80 billion package.

Surely we could find $6 billion without putting an $80,000 penalty on the back of an E-7 retired enlisted person who is not rich, who served honorably under one set of rules and who has been now told sorry.

I have to say when people see the government not keeping its promises, I think it is destructive to our system of government. It is exactly the sort of thing we are seeing with ObamaCare. It is not being overly repetitive to remind my colleagues that the President of the United States, Barack Obama, repeatedly, over and over, promised the American people that they could keep their insurance.

For example, in a speech at the American Medical Association on June 15, 2009, President Obama stated:

That means that no matter how we reform health care, we

will keep this promise to the American people: If you like

your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If

you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your

health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter

what.

These are the words of the leader of the free world. Of course, we know from story after story of real people who are being hurt by this law that time after time after time again, in thousands of homes across the United States of America, that promise, just as the promise made to the servicemen, is being broken.

If the Senator from Georgia will indulge me, let me give one example of a family of real individuals, honest, hardworking Americans who feel that another promise is being broken in the form of the so-called affordable health care.

I received an email from a father in Greenville, MS, who is concerned about his 27-year-old son. For the past 6 years his son was covered under a policy provided by Humana. When the healthy 20-year-old first received coverage, the policy protected against a major medical emergency and the cost was only $70 a month.

The President told the American public: ``If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan.''

According to this father in Greenville, MS, this policy is no longer available, and the plan available for his son will now cost just under $350 per month as opposed to $70 a month--a broken promise. The healthy 27-year-old who works in the automotive industry has been working since he was 20. He now questions whether he can afford to insure himself at all because his cost has quadrupled. His discretionary income will now taken a huge hit--as the discretionary income of these retired heroes will take a huge hit--and the higher premiums will cause uncertainty in his family.

I know my friend from Georgia may want to give some examples of some people in his home State. Once again, in this instance, a promise has been made, a very explicit promise. In a very blatant way that promise turned out not to be the case at all.

I thank my colleague from Georgia. Let me mention a husband and wife in Hernando, MS. They are small businesspeople. As the Chair is aware, that is how we create jobs in the United States of America. We love it when a big manufacturing plant moves in, but it is the small businesses throughout this great land that create the bulk of the jobs, and we appreciate it.

ObamaCare has hit the small businesses so hard and hurt their ability to create jobs.

This particular small business couple in Hernando, MS, tell me their private insurance plan that they have offered their employees in the past will not be grandfathered and the new plan they are forced to offer their employees will have a 7-percent premium increase in 2014-- that is real money--and a 66-percent premium increase in 2015, according to their insurance agent.

Perhaps they believed the President when he said: ``If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period.''

Perhaps they believed Members of the majority party, such as the distinguished majority leader from Nevada who said it not only means making sure you can keep your family's doctor or keep your health care plan if you like it but also that you can afford to do it.

Perhaps they believed that, but instead a 7-percent premium increase is hardly affordable at that and then a 66-percent premium increase, which is a blow. Their small group plan they offered to their eight employees currently costs $491 per month per employee. By 2015 the plan will cost this small business couple over $800 per month per employee.

These are real stories. These are real facts. It is going from $491 per month per employee to $800 per month per employee. I wonder how many jobs they will be adding to that small business. This plan doesn't include dental or vision.

They pride themselves, this small business couple, on providing their employees quality, affordable health care that they help supplement. But with the frequent changes the President is making to the law, they are uncertain whether they will be able to cover the enormous cost.

As small business owners, it is impossible for them to expand. They will not be able to hire additional employees with the uncertainty of the future.

Let me mention one other example and then perhaps Senator Chambliss can have a moment to speak on some Georgians.

The next example is a family of four living in Corinth, MS, in the northeast corner of our State. They are full-time employed parents who currently do not have health care. They spent a month and a half trying to sign up for coverage for themselves and their two children. The least expensive plan they could eventually find after spending countless hours trying to navigate the Web site will cost them just under $800. For a working family in Mississippi with two young children to care for, this cost is an almost impossible burden on this family of four.

It may be that the Senator from Georgia has examples similar to these.

Mr. President, indeed, this does hit rural America much harder, but it hits all Americans hard.

I would ask unanimous consent if the Senator from Georgia and I may speak as if in a colloquy.

I didn't hear any debate during 2009, in the extensive hours I stood on the floor and listened to the other side propose this, explaining that in situations as in Georgia, folks in the metropolitan area would pay half the premium that folks down in rural southwest Georgia would pay. That was never something the majority party, in proposing this so-called affordable act, said: Now, we are going to have to live with this, we just want you to know that.

This is a total surprise, and one of the myriad unintended consequences of this unfortunate law. Did my colleague hear any warning about that to the American people?

My friend and colleague has very effectively gone chapter and verse into what this law is doing to families in Georgia, to small businesses in Georgia, to potential job creators in Georgia and all across the United States of America. But it is not just families and small businesses, it is also local governments.

The Senator from Georgia and I came here after the 1994 elections on a promise, among other things, that we would fight against unfunded mandates on local governments. What we are finding out about ObamaCare is that it is absolutely an unfunded mandate on, for example, small towns and small counties that make up the bulk of the population in my State of Mississippi.

Let me just give a couple of examples of what it is doing to municipal governments. A city employee in Batesville, MS, tells me he recently attended a meeting of city workers and their health care provider. They were told their premiums will rise over 9 percent because of the President's health care law. This will be an increased cost of $55,000 to $60,000 that the city will have to cover to provide health care coverage for their employees.

Presumably, they do not have a printing press in the back of city hall, so they are going to have to put an extra tax on the people of Batesville, MS, to cover the additional unfunded mandate the Affordable Care Act puts on the city of Batesville.

I could also mention, and will also mention, at the other end of the State on the gulf coast the city of Ocean Springs, MS, reported it will see a premium increase for their little budget of $47,000 to provide health care under the new improved ObamaCare. This is a 13 percent increase because of the President's health care law. The city currently covers 100 percent of the employee premiums. The mayor of Ocean Springs, who I know happens to be a Democrat, said:

We're going to have to find $47,000 from somewhere.

Presumably, it will come from the taxpayers of Ocean Springs, MS, and other small towns and rural counties around the State of Mississippi.

We are all human. I have made many mistakes during my life, and some of the mistakes I have made have been in my capacity as a legislator. I served in the State senate for 7 years. I have been in the U.S. House and Senate for some 19, along with my good friend from Georgia. I would hope that when I have seen mistakes that I have made legislatively I have been willing to go back and revisit those decisions and say: We are all human. We didn't get it right this time, and we ought to fix it.

That is one of the real disturbing things to me about this ObamaCare law. We see that the rollout was disastrous. We see that the effect on towns, counties, families and businesses is disastrous, and at the end of the day we are still going to have over 30 million Americans uninsured--the same amount we were targeting for coverage, supposedly, with the passage of ObamaCare. I would hope colleagues from both parties at this point would see where this has led us and agree there is a reason Congress meets every year. We can alleviate the problems that have arisen. We can correct the mistakes that have been made.

I appreciate people such as our colleague from Montana, Senator Max Baucus, who at least said the law's implementation, he thought, was going to be a huge train wreck, noting that small businesses have no idea what to do, what to expect. I appreciate that sort of candor from one of the architects of the act.

It would seem to me, that being the case, it is incumbent on people who feel that way to say that we need to revisit this. We need to pull this law out root and branch and replace it with something that cuts the cost of insurance, that slows the growth rate of health care expenditures and uses market forces and competition, which we use in every aspect of our society except for health insurance.

I appreciate our colleague from West Virginia, Senator Jay Rockefeller. He is retiring at the end of this Congress, but he said the health care law was beyond comprehension.

I think we would get over 60 percent of Americans agreeing with that. The law is beyond comprehension and the most complex piece of legislation ever passed by the Congress.

I appreciate that sort of candor as compared to the position that, as far as I can tell, is still held by the majority leader, the Senator who controls the flow of legislation on the floor of the Senate and who would have to be involved in bringing a corrected bill to the floor.

Our majority leader said this earlier this year: ``This legislation is working, and it will be working better once we get the Web site up.'' Boy, how nonprophetic that was.

And I love this quote: ``ObamaCare is wonderful for America,'' said the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, Harry Reid of Nevada. ``ObamaCare is wonderful for America. Get over it.''

I would hope I would be willing, if I had made such an egregious mistake, to say we need to come back and revisit this issue--for the benefit of American families, for the benefit of small businesses that want to create jobs, for the benefit of small cities that having to increase their taxes and do without other services to cover this unfunded mandate.

So I publicly implore my colleagues at this moment to agree that this didn't work. I never thought it would work, but some people did. But it hasn't worked. I guess it is the reason we have elections every 2 years. But I would hope that, even before the 2014 elections, Republicans and Democrats could come together and say: We got this wrong. We need to fix it, and we need to do it for the right reasons. We need to do it for the future of this country and for American families.

Or more than have fun; engage in real mischief and real harm to American citizens.

If I can underscore that, there is no question that because of the Snowden matter and because of other breaches of confidentiality and security, Americans are more and more concerned about this issue.

I note that our colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, said about ObamaCare that it is causing fear, doubt, and a crisis of confidence. And I have to feel that some of the lack of confidence the American people have is the very real concern about security.

It is no wonder that a Pew survey released this week shows that 54 percent of Americans disapprove of the health care law and only 41 percent are in favor of it. Yet my friend mentioned the former Speaker, the current minority leader in the House of Representatives, who just this year said: The implementation of this law is fabulous. Fabulous. She compared it to the Declaration of Independence guarantee of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. According to the former Speaker, this is what this is all about.

I think Americans and more Members of this body are concluding that this law isn't fabulous, contrary to what the former Speaker said; that ObamaCare is not wonderful for America, contrary to what the current majority leader of the Senate said. I hope that we could even yet revisit this.

I think we only have about 5 minutes to go. If I may comment for one brief moment about the breaking of the rules to change the rules that occurred.

One would have thought that hardly any nominations were getting through. To hear our friends on the other side of the aisle justify the reason for changing years and years of precedent and for going back on an agreement we made midyear, an agreement we made back in January, and a Gang of 14 agreement made by some of the most distinguished people ever to have served in the Senate--as a matter of fact, the facts are these: Hundreds of

executive nominations on this Executive Calendar have been approved with the slightest blip by this Senate, Republicans and Democrats. Only four nominees were felt to involve such extraordinary circumstances that we were determined to prevent those individuals from taking office for very good reasons, we thought, by the use of the 60-vote rule--only four out of hundreds this year. Yet that was given as an excuse to the American people to break the rules to change the rules.

It was a sad day. It is the kind of overreach we are seeing this week, which gets us back to the matter at hand and is the kind of very unfortunate overreach that has visited so much pain and hardship on the American people in regard to their health care and their health insurance coverage.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Louisiana for asking that question.

What I am hearing from Mississippi, and what I think we are going to be hearing from all across the United States of America, is that this is about to be a disaster for property owners in the United States of America. So I join my colleagues today--and perhaps there will be others besides the three of us on the floor--in saying we need to address the very real problem of increases in flood insurance premiums, which will unfairly hurt homeowners and businesses in my home State of Mississippi and across the United States of America.

I appreciate my colleague presenting the map to show that this is indeed a national problem and not just a regional or coastal problem. The severe onset of unaffordable rates--unaffordable rates--could have a devastating impact on the livelihood of homeowners and communities throughout the Nation and on our economy. Moreover, they could jeopardize the long-term solvency of the National Flood Insurance Program, which covers some 5.6 million Americans.

There is no doubt that NFIP faces enormous challenges. The damages wrought by storms such as Katrina, Rita, and Sandy have left the NFIP in the red for nearly a decade, amounting to nearly $24 billion at the last count.

In the early years of the NFIP, when bad storm years were roughly offset by light storm years, taxpayers effectively carried policyholders through years because of the NFIP's authority to borrow from the Treasury. However, the catastrophic 2004-2005 hurricane seasons put the program more than $20 billion in debt and disproved the notion that the finances would balance out over time.

The principles for NFIP reform are worthy goals. Premiums need to reflect risks more accurately, flood risks must be projected and mapped more accurately, and the purchase of flood insurance needs to be encouraged and enforced in order to enlarge the risk pool.

We cannot expect the NFIP to continue as a viable program without addressing the huge imbalance between premium revenue and payments for losses. At the same time, Congress cannot sit by in the face of these dramatic unaffordable rate increases facing many Americans.

The manner in which these reforms are being implemented is alienating the very people the program is intended to help. The new rates penalize people who have followed the rules, while placing the heaviest burden on those who are only now recovering from recent disasters.

In communities still recovering from recent Mississippi River flooding and in communities along the gulf coast, where the aftermath of Katrina still lingers, a financial burden of this magnitude could force homeowners either to leave their property unprotected or to move away altogether.

Ensuring the long-term success of the NFIP means taking an honest look at how the reforms Congress enacted last year are being implemented and whether they are unfairly hurting citizens--and I contend they are. Allowing rates to go from a few hundred dollars to tens of thousands of dollars is hardly a reasonable approach to reform.

Reform should not be unnecessarily painful, unfair, or counterproductive to the goal of solvency. Premium increases that make the coverage literally unaffordable could lead to a net loss in program revenue. Nobody benefits from that. Nobody benefits, neither the homeowner nor the taxpayer, when NFIP premium increases result in foreclosure.

I am concerned that NFIP may well have overestimated net revenue increases. They may have underestimated the burden of the program going forward. That alone would be a good reason to delay the increases, if a longer phase-in would result in a net increase in revenue to the program, as I suspect it would.

A delay would also allow time to study the effects of premium increases and it would allow us, as policymakers, to look for less harmful approaches to reform. The Federal Emergency Management Agency should be able to complete an affordability study and ensure that its technologies and methodologies accurately assess risk.

I thank my colleague from Louisiana and I thank my colleague from Florida for joining us. I urge all of my colleagues to support action that provides immediate relief to Americans facing these steep rate hikes.

Madam President, I rise at this point to discuss Wicker amendment No. 2185. This is an important amendment. I hope the leadership of this committee is paying attention. My amendment would prohibit foreign governments from constructing, on U.S. soil, satellite positioning and ground monitoring stations. I think many Americans were surprised when, on November 16, the New York Times published an article by Michael Schmidt and Eric Schmitt entitled ``A Russian GPS Using U.S. Soil Stirs Spy Fears.''

I ask unanimous consent a copy of this article be printed in the Record.

This article elaborates on a proposal under review by our own State Department to allow the Russian space agency to construct half a dozen satellite ground monitoring stations on U.S. soil. The article describes these potential sites as ``seemingly innocuous, dome- topped antenna perched atop an electronics-packed building surrounded by a security fence somewhere in the United States.'' Taken at face value, these Russian ground monitoring stations are supposed to improve the accuracy and reliability of Russia's version of the global positioning system.

According to the Times article, the Obama administration is actively considering this request by Moscow in an attempt to reset once again the administration's failed reset policy which the President once hailed as the beginning of better U.S.-Russian relations. We have every reason to be skeptical of Russia's intentions to utilize GPS monitoring stations on U.S. soil. Let me repeat this: GPS monitoring stations controlled by Russia on U.S. soil.

Time and again, President Putin has shown he is unwilling to cooperate with America. The list of grievances continues to grow. Let's not forget that Russia has granted asylum to Edward Snowden, who is charged with espionage and theft of U.S. government property after releasing up to 200,000 classified documents to the press.

Let's not forget that Russia has defended the brutal regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and helped perpetuate the dictator's grip on power with military aid.

Let's not forget that Russia, the same Russia that wants to put GPS stations on U.S. soil, has denied Russian orphans a chance at a better life in the United States, with a ban on U.S. adoptions, ultimately victimizing the most vulnerable, in a desperate attempt to distract the world from Russia's human rights failings.

It is clear Russia's interests are not often aligned with those of the United States. Accordingly, I am deeply concerned and people within the intelligence community are deeply concerned and people within the Defense Department are deeply concerned about the Russian proposal to use U.S. soil to strengthen Russia's GPS capabilities. These ground monitoring stations could be used for the purpose of gathering intelligence. Even more troubling, these stations could actually improve the accuracy of foreign missiles targeted at the United States.

Our national security and foreign policy apparatus is large and widespread. I do not question anyone's patriotism or the intentions of the State Department. But it is clear that there are other parts of the administration that are very concerned about this.

This morning I had the opportunity to review a classified report by DOD. I encourage all Members of the Senate to review this classified document and, to me, I think it will reaffirm the need for increased transparency on this very serious matter. Senators Lee, Fischer, and Cornyn so far have joined me in filing an amendment to the Defense authorization bill that would fully inform the American people about the implications of the Russian proposal.

My amendment would prohibit the construction of GPS monitoring stations by any foreign government on U.S. soil until the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence jointly certify to the Congress that these stations do not have the capability to gather intelligence or improve foreign weapons systems. My amendment would also require a report to Congress on the use of satellite positioning ground monitoring stations by foreign governments.

This amendment is simple and straightforward, and I urge my colleagues to support its inclusion in the Defense authorization bill. I encourage cosponsors from both sides of the aisle.

Mr. President, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, my State of Mississippi will have the third highest premiums in the Nation as a result of the so-called Affordable Care Act. This is unacceptable for my State, and my colleagues can be sure I am hearing from my constituents about this.

For example, I heard from a married couple in Long Beach who own a small business. The private insurance plan they have offered to their employees for over 20 years will suffer a 33-percent premium increase on December 1. Their insurance specifically cited the ACA's mandated coverage, fees, and taxes for the increased premiums. The couple will continue to insure their employees because if they were to discontinue the coverage, their employees and families would suffer because they would not be able to afford individual plans.

I also heard from a 58-year-old graphic designer from Madison, MS, stating that his insurance premiums will double at the beginning of the year from $355 to $755. This gentleman is understandably angry about this premium increase. He understands that his insurance will now cover mandated benefits such as maternity care and birth control--something he will never use as a 58-year-old male.

I also heard from a 51-year-old disabled retired doctor and the father of two high school students. Earlier this week, he was informed by his insurance provider that his family's premiums will skyrocket in January. He says he discovered that the least expensive coverage for his family will result in a 112-percent increase in his premiums.

After hours on healthcare.gov trying to enroll his family, a firefighter, a father, and a husband discovered that the cheapest plan, a bronze plan, will be too exorbitant a cost for him to pay. He will opt to pay the penalty, and he and his family will remain uninsured.

These are real Americans who are learning that the Affordable Care Act is less affordable and less accessible.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to express my support for the Restoring the 10th Amendment Act--S. 1643. This legislation, which I have introduced with nine of my colleagues, represents an effort to ensure that States' rights are protected against further Federal encroachment.

Ratified and signed into law on December 15, 1791, the 10th Amendment is integral to the system of checks and balances that our Founding Fathers conceived. The Founders were right to be concerned that the Federal Government would seek to usurp powers belonging to the States. They understood that limitless Federal power was a threat to the future of our democracy.

In The Federalist No. 45, James Madison notes the difference between Federal and State power. He describes the powers that the Constitution grants to the Federal government as ``few and defined.'' He calls the powers left to the States as ``numerous and indefinite.''

Today, we can plainly see how wise our Founders were. As we enter into the second term of the Obama administration, Federal regulatory overreach has become an intrusive part of everyday life in the United States. From the President's sweeping health-care law to the extreme rulemaking of the Environmental Protection Agency, there is virtually no aspect of Americans' lives that escapes the creeping reach of Federal regulators.

The Restoring the 10th Amendment Act seeks to reverse this trend and to level the playing field by giving States a new tool to challenge Federal overreach. Specifically, it provides special standing in court for State government officials to dispute inordinately sweeping regulations issued by Federal agencies. Any rule proposed by a Federal agency would be subject to constitutional challenges if certain State officials determine that the rule infringes powers reserved to the States under the 10th Amendment. In this way, the bill would reinforce the safeguards in our existing system of constitutional checks and balances.

Americans have the right to expect the members they elect to Congress to uphold the Constitution's founding principles. It is our responsibility to ensure that the executive branch is held accountable for any overreach of its constitutionally defined powers.

This bill recognizes that the 10th Amendment is as important today as it was on the date of its ratification. It would keep the executive branch accountable and preserve the integrity of our constitutional system of checks and balances. Senators Cochran, Grassley, Isakson, Sessions, Roberts, Thune, Inhofe, Crapo, Risch, Enzi, and Cornyn have joined me as cosponsors.

I urge all of my colleagues to support the prompt passage of the Restoring the 10th Amendment Act.

If the Senator would yield for a moment. I think the distinguished majority leader is going to make a procedural motion which will take only a moment, and then I have a question for my distinguished friend from Ohio.