BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, we are now on Calendar No. 349, Susan P. Watters of Montana to be U.S. district judge for the District of Montana. I note on the Executive Calendar this nomination came before the Senate from the committee on September 19. It is my understanding that this nominee was cleared by our side of the aisle and could have been brought up on any Monday afternoon by a voice vote.
I think Members might be wondering and certainly people within the sound of my voice tonight might be wondering why we are spending time tonight in a protracted debate on three district court nominees--Landya B. McCafferty of New Hampshire, Brian Morris or Montana, and now Susan Watters of Montana to be confirmed--when there has never been a district court judge in the history of our Republic prevented from serving because of a filibuster.
To me, we have gotten to this point because of the heavyhanded overreach of the majority in trampling on the rights of folks on our side of the aisle. We find ourselves--temporarily, I hope--in the minority. That has a way of changing from time to time. But it is the sort of overreach that I am reminded of from 2009 when a supermajority in both Houses rammed through ObamaCare and caused all of the grief that we currently are facing and that real, live Americans are having with the so-called Affordable Care Act.
It actually might be in one way beneficial that we are spending this time on something that could have been done so quickly because it gives us an opportunity to point out that we should be right now, at this moment, working on the National Defense Authorization Act and also on the budget--two matters that are pending that must be addressed by this Senate before we can go home and take a day or two with our constituents and loved ones for the Christmas holiday. But it gives me an opportunity, as the budget comes over tonight from the House of Representatives, to point out one of the most onerous provisions in the budget, which has just passed with sweeping bipartisan support in the House of Representatives.
I will stand before this body tonight and say that I cannot vote and will not vote for this budget, and I hope that even yet Members of the Congress and the American public will listen to the broken promise that is contained in this budget that will be coming forward. We will perhaps get back to the nomination in a moment.
We should note two things about this budget. It asks for an additional contribution for pensions for Federal employees, but it does not do it to current Federal employees. As you enter the Federal service after the beginning of the year, you pay an additional amount that is withheld from your paycheck for your pension. That is hard to do, it is distasteful to do, but at least it is fair to the people who join the Federal service under one set of rules.
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
[Page: S8758]
that this is not a matter of nickels and dimes to the people who have stepped forward, joined the military, volunteered for a career in the military, done their 20, and now are going to be told, if this budget passes next week: We are sorry. We are changing the rules way after the game has begun.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter to me from VADM Norb Ryan, U.S. Navy, Retired, president of the Military Officers Association of America.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
DEAR SENATOR WICKER: On behalf of the over 380,000 members of the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA), I am writing to express our strong opposition to the proposal within the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 which penalizes future uniformed service retirees and current retirees under the age of 62.
Even though the budget deal would help ease the harmful effects of sequestration for two years for the Department of Defense--something we support--doing so on the backs of service members who serve our Nation for over 20 years is just shameful.
Reducing working age retiree annual cost-of-living adjustment by one percent until they reach the age of 62 is simply a tax.
Service members who retire at the 20 year point would feel the full negative financial effects of the proposal by reducing their retired pay by nearly 20 percent by the time they reach age 62.
For example, an Army Sergeant First Class (E-7) retiring this year with 20 years of service would see an average loss of over $3,700 per year by the time he or she reaches age 62--a cumulative loss of nearly $83,000. For a Lieutenant Colonel (O-5), the average annual loss would be over $6,200--a cumulative loss of over $124,000.
This proposal also flies in the face of the principles that guide the ongoing congressionally-mandated review of military compensation and retirement.
Congress wisely removed the BRAC-like, ``fast-track'' rule so that the appropriate committees would have adequate time to assess impacts that any recommended changes to the retirement system would have on retention and readiness.
In addition, the guiding principles to the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission (MCRMC) include a grandfather clause to protect current retirees and service members from any changes to their retirement which this proposal blatantly disregards.
Currently serving members look at how they, their families, retirees, and survivors have been treated when making career choices. If Congress arbitrarily cuts the retirement benefit for those who have served their country for over 20 years, there could be an unintended impact on uniformed service career retention, and ultimately, national security.
Sincerely,
VADM NORB RYAN, USN (Ret),
President,
Military Officers Association of America.
Mr. WICKER. Let me point out what the retired vice admiral says.
On behalf of the 380,000 members of the Military Officers Association of America, I am writing to express our strong opposition to the proposal within the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 which penalizes future uniformed service retirees and current retirees under the age of 62. Even though the budget deal would help ease the harmful effects of sequestration for 2 years for the Department of Defense, something we support, doing so on the backs of servicemembers who served our Nation for over 20 years is just shameful.
I would interject at this point that I have to agree with that statement.
The vice admiral goes on to say:
Reducing working age retiree annual cost of living adjustment by 1 percent until they reach the age of 62 is simply a tax. Servicemembers who retire at the 20-year point would feel the full negative final effect of the proposal by reducing their retired pay by nearly 20 percent by the time they reach the age of 62.
This is the pertinent part of the letter I am having printed in the Record, and my colleagues should hear me on this:
For example, an Army sergeant first class, E-7 retiring this year with 20 years of service would see an average loss of over $3,700 per year by the time he or she reaches age 62, a cumulative loss of nearly $83,000.
That is what this bipartisan budget resolution does to the retired military enlisted people who have volunteered to serve our country for 20 years and who joined under one set of rules--$83,000 lifetime taken from this retired E-7.
For a lieutenant colonel, O-5, the average annual loss would be over $6,200 annually, a cumulative loss of over $124,000.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WICKER. The rules, if this budget passes and is signed into law by President Obama, will be changed on this individual retroactively. The result will be that, instead of the retirement pay he signed up for and agreed to under the law when he did his duty, he will experience an $83,000 loss, lifetime.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WICKER. I can only imagine that it is a severe blow to morale. Also, it has to make people who are willing to step forward and risk their lives, be separated for months and years from their loved ones, it has to make them wonder, what else is being promised to me that is going to be taken away?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WICKER. Right. We do not do anything to any other Federal employee retroactively, only the military in this budget. I cannot imagine how the public could think that is fair.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WICKER. I will tell you who else believes it is discriminatory. I have a list of members of the military coalitions listed in a letter to the Honorable Harry Reid and the Honorable Mitch McConnell dated December 11, 2013. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WICKER. I simply say, in answer to the distinguished Senator from Georgia, here are the groups who are expressing outrage, dismay, and strong opposition to this provision:
The Air Force Sergeants Association; Air Force Women Officers Associated; AMVETS; AMSUS; Association of the United States Navy; Chief Warrant Officer and Warrant Officer Association, U.S. Coast Guard; Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public Health Service, Inc.; Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States; Fleet Reserve Association; Gold Star Wives; Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America; Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America; Marine Corps League; Marine Corps Reserve Association; Military Officers Association of America; Military Order of the Purple Heart; National Association for Uniformed Services; National Guard Association of the United States; National Military Family Association; Naval Enlisted Reserve Association; Society of Medical Consultants to the Armed Forces; the Military Chaplains Association of the United States of America; the Retired Enlisted Association; United States Army Warrant Officers Association; United States Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers Association; Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States; and Vietnam Veterans of America.
This distinguished list of organizations consisting of members and former members of the U.S. military have registered their opposition.
I can only hope at this point that Members of the Senate will listen. This is a so-called savings of $6 billion out of an $80 billion package.
Surely we could find $6 billion without putting an $80,000 penalty on the back of an E-7 retired enlisted person who is not rich, who served honorably under one set of rules and who has been now told sorry.
I have to say when people see the government not keeping its promises, I think it is destructive to our system of government. It is exactly the sort of thing we are seeing with ObamaCare. It is not being overly repetitive to remind my colleagues that the President of the United States, Barack Obama, repeatedly, over and over, promised the American people that they could keep their insurance.
For example, in a speech at the American Medical Association on June 15, 2009, President Obama stated:
That means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.
These are the words of the leader of the free world. Of course, we know from story after story of real people who are being hurt by this law that time after time after time again, in thousands of homes across the United States of America, that promise, just as the promise made to the servicemen, is being broken.
If the Senator from Georgia will indulge me, let me give one example of a family of real individuals, honest, hardworking Americans who feel that another promise is being broken in the form of the so-called affordable health care.
I received an email from a father in Greenville, MS, who is concerned about his 27-year-old son. For the past 6 years his son was covered under a policy provided by Humana. When the healthy 20-year-old first received coverage, the policy protected against a major medical emergency and the cost was only $70 a month.
The President told the American public: ``If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan.''
According to this father in Greenville, MS, this policy is no longer available, and the plan available for his son will now cost just under $350 per month as opposed to $70 a month--a broken promise. The healthy 27-year-old who works in the automotive industry has been working since he was 20. He now questions whether he can afford to insure himself at all because his cost has quadrupled. His discretionary income will now taken a huge hit--as the discretionary income of these retired heroes will take a huge hit--and the higher premiums will cause uncertainty in his family.
I know my friend from Georgia may want to give some examples of some people in his home State. Once again, in this instance, a promise has been made, a very explicit promise. In a very blatant way that promise turned out not to be the case at all.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WICKER. I thank my colleague from Georgia. Let me mention a husband and wife in Hernando, MS. They are small businesspeople. As the Chair is aware, that is how we create jobs in the United States of America. We love it when a big manufacturing plant moves in, but it is the small businesses throughout this great land that create the bulk of the jobs, and we appreciate it.
ObamaCare has hit the small businesses so hard and hurt their ability to create jobs.
This particular small business couple in Hernando, MS, tell me their private insurance plan that they have offered their employees in the past will not be grandfathered and the new plan they are forced to offer their employees will have a 7-percent premium increase in 2014--that is real money--and a 66-percent premium increase in 2015, according to their insurance agent.
Perhaps they believed the President when he said: ``If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period.''
Perhaps they believed Members of the majority party, such as the distinguished majority leader from Nevada who said it not only means making sure you can keep your family's doctor or keep your health care plan if you like it but also that you can afford to do it.
Perhaps they believed that, but instead a 7-percent premium increase is hardly affordable at that and then a 66-percent premium increase, which is a blow. Their small group plan they offered to their eight employees currently costs $491 per month per employee. By 2015 the plan will cost this small business couple over $800 per month per employee.
These are real stories. These are real facts. It is going from $491 per month per employee to $800 per month per employee. I wonder how many jobs they will be adding to that small business. This plan doesn't include dental or vision.
They pride themselves, this small business couple, on providing their employees quality, affordable health care that they help supplement. But with the frequent changes the President is making to the law, they are uncertain whether they will be able to cover the enormous cost.
As small business owners, it is impossible for them to expand. They will not be able to hire additional employees with the uncertainty of the future.
Let me mention one other example and then perhaps Senator Chambliss can have a moment to speak on some Georgians.
The next example is a family of four living in Corinth, MS, in the northeast corner of our State. They are full-time employed parents who currently do not have health care. They spent a month and a half trying to sign up for coverage for themselves and their two children. The least expensive plan they could eventually find after spending countless hours trying to navigate the Web site will cost them just under $800. For a working family in Mississippi with two young children to care for, this cost is an almost impossible burden on this family of four.
It may be that the Senator from Georgia has examples similar to these.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WICKER. I didn't hear any debate during 2009, in the extensive hours I stood on the floor and listened to the other side propose this, explaining that in situations as in Georgia, folks in the metropolitan area would pay half the premium that folks down in rural southwest Georgia would pay. That was never something the majority party, in proposing this so-called affordable act, said: Now, we are going to have to live with this, we just want you to know that.
This is a total surprise, and one of the myriad unintended consequences of this unfortunate law. Did my colleague hear any warning about that to the American people?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WICKER. My friend and colleague has very effectively gone chapter and verse into what this law is doing to families in Georgia, to small businesses in Georgia, to potential job creators in Georgia and all across the United States of America. But it is not just families and small businesses, it is also local governments.
The Senator from Georgia and I came here after the 1994 elections on a promise, among other things, that we would fight against unfunded mandates on local governments. What we are finding out about ObamaCare is that it is absolutely an unfunded mandate on, for example, small towns and small counties that make up the bulk of the population in my State of Mississippi.
Let me just give a couple of examples of what it is doing to municipal governments. A city employee in Batesville, MS, tells me he recently attended a meeting of city workers and their health care provider. They were told their premiums will rise over 9 percent because of the President's health care law. This will be an increased cost of $55,000 to $60,000 that the city will have to cover to provide health care coverage for their employees.
Presumably, they do not have a printing press in the back of city hall, so they are going to have to put an extra tax on the people of Batesville, MS, to cover the additional unfunded mandate the Affordable Care Act puts on the city of Batesville.
I could also mention, and will also mention, at the other end of the State on the gulf coast the city of Ocean Springs, MS, reported it will see a premium increase for their little budget of $47,000 to provide health care under the new improved ObamaCare. This is a 13 percent increase because of the President's health care law. The city currently covers 100 percent of the employee premiums. The mayor of Ocean Springs, who I know happens to be a Democrat, said:
We're going to have to find $47,000 from somewhere.
Presumably, it will come from the taxpayers of Ocean Springs, MS, and other small towns and rural counties around the State of Mississippi.
We are all human. I have made many mistakes during my life, and some of the mistakes I have made have been in my capacity as a legislator. I served in 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WICKER. If I can underscore that, there is no question that because of the Snowden matter and because of other breaches of confidentiality and security, Americans are more and more concerned about this issue.
I note that our colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, said about ObamaCare that it is causing fear, doubt, and a crisis of confidence. And I have to feel that some of the lack of confidence the American people have is the very real concern about security.
It is no wonder that a Pew survey released this week shows that 54 percent of Americans disapprove of the health care law and only 41 percent are in favor of it. Yet my friend mentioned the former Speaker, the current minority leader in the House of Representatives, who just this year said: The implementation of this law is fabulous. Fabulous. She compared it to the Declaration of Independence guarantee of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. According to the former Speaker, this is what this is all about.
I think Americans and more Members of this body are concluding that this law isn't fabulous, contrary to what the former Speaker said; that ObamaCare is not wonderful for America, contrary to what the current majority leader of the Senate said. I hope that we could even yet revisit this.
I think we only have about 5 minutes to go. If I may comment for one brief moment about the breaking of the rules to change the rules that occurred.
One would have thought that hardly any nominations were getting through. To hear our friends on the other side of the aisle justify the reason for changing years and years of precedent and for going back on an agreement we made midyear, an agreement we made back in January, and a Gang of 14 agreement made by some of the most distinguished people ever to have served in the Senate--as a matter of fact, the facts are these: Hundreds of executive nominations on this Executive Calendar have been approved with the slightest blip by this Senate, Republicans and Democrats. Only four nominees were felt to involve such extraordinary circumstances that we were determined to prevent those individuals from taking office for very good reasons, we thought, by the use of the 60-vote rule--only four out of hundreds this year. Yet that was given as an excuse to the American people to break the rules to change the rules.
It was a sad day. It is the kind of overreach we are seeing this week, which gets us back to the matter at hand and is the kind of very unfortunate overreach that has visited so much pain and hardship on the American people in regard to their health care and their health insurance coverage.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT