[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 175 (Wednesday, December 11, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8719-S8723]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
prayer
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to the order of February 29, 1960,
the hour of 12 noon having arrived, the Senate having been in
continuous session since yesterday, the Senate will suspend for a
prayer by the Senate Chaplain.
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Eternal God, who gives us so much more than we deserve, when the days
are dreary and the long nights weary, we are still indebted to You for
Your generous mercies. May Your blessings provide our lawmakers with
the willingness to see and do Your will. Living by the principles of
Your sacred revelation, may they do nothing to cause them shame. Give
them respect for diverse viewpoints, open their hearts to Your love,
their minds to Your truth, and their wills to Your service.
We pray in Your gracious Name. Amen.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to continue the discourse my
esteemed colleague, the good Senator from Missouri, was engaged in on
the Senate floor just a minute ago, talking about the importance--the
importance--of bipartisanship as we work to craft policy for this
country, policy that all Americans can support and policy that truly
moves our country forward.
So whether we are considering nominations or whether we are
considering legislation, we need to find ways to come together and come
up with solutions that the American people support across the board in
a bipartisan way. So as we consider these nominations, we have to
consider the fact that now the Senate will be approving these
nominations with essentially a 1-party vote, 51 votes.
Right now, the Democratic Party has the majority in the Senate, so
they can put judges on the bench, confirm other nominations without any
Republican support whatsoever. Of course, under that approach, at some
point the reverse may very well be true, that nominees may be
confirmed--whether it is judicial nominees or other types of
appointments--with only Republican votes if the Republicans are in the
majority without any Democratic votes. Why does that matter?
Why it matters is because, again, I go back to my earlier statement
that in crafting policy, crafting laws and making appointments,
nominations to the bench, we need to do it in a way where we garner
broad support across the country.
More than 300 million people's lives are affected dramatically by all
of these things, by who those appointees are, the offices they hold,
what they do with the laws we pass. So if we are going to impact
everybody in the Nation with these laws, with these appointments, we
have to make sure there is input, consideration by and, if you will,
from both sides of the aisle.
That is how we get the kinds of policies and we get the kinds of
nominees and we get the kinds of judges and Justices that truly will
have the support of people across this great country. I believe that is
what we need to truly build the kind of future we want for ourselves
and for our prosperity.
As we talk about nominees, we consider also implementation of the
Affordable Care Act. This is a huge topic of discussion in our country
right now, and it is going to continue to be a huge topic of
discussion. You are talking about one-fifth to one-sixth of our economy
engaged in health care. So this is something that touches every single
American in their daily life in a big way. It is so important we get it
right.
As was the case with my esteemed colleague from the State of
Missouri, he was presenting anecdotes, presenting stories, real
stories, real-life stories, of people who are impacted by the
Affordable Care Act and how they are impacted. It is very important we
do that because we need to know how people's lives are affected by the
Affordable Care Act and what we can do to make sure they have the best
health care possible.
By the way, I think of hopefully building bipartisan support to get
the kind of health care reform we truly need. I am going to present
some of these real-life cases, as my colleague from Missouri just did,
and I am going to start with one that talks about the marriage penalty
created by ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act. This is from someone in
Grand Forks, ND, who writes in about the marriage penalty created by
the Affordable Care Act. This citizen writes:
My husband and I met with the primary health insurance
carrier in ND and were told that our current coverage, under
the guidelines of the Affordable Care Act, will cost us at
least another $400 more a month, and our deductible will
increase from $2,000.00 to $12,000.00, and because we are
married, we cannot choose individual plans, which would be a
much lower deductible. In essence, we are being punished for
being married. We are
[[Page S8720]]
looking at paying more than $1500.00/month in health care,
because we are only 61 years old and not eligible for
Medicare for another 4 years--[that is] $18,000 a year for
health care!
We were told that part of the problem is the provisions in
the law require us to choose a plan that has maternity
benefits. How does this make sense for seniors to be forced
to buy coverage that does not apply to them? We agree that
benefits shouldn't be denied to people but it is not fair to
be forced to buy coverage that does not apply.
Well, let's delve a little deeper into exactly what this individual
is writing about. What is the marriage penalty that is, in fact,
created by ObamaCare? Let's talk about that.
The ObamaCare tax subsidies actually create a marriage penalty. They
create a disincentive for individuals who are cohabiting to become
legally married. From the standpoint of marriage, the subsidies
represent a hidden tax on marriage whereby married couples purchasing
their coverage on the exchanges will be subsidizing similarly situated
but cohabiting single adults who earn the same or more income.
In 2011, the House Oversight and Reform Committee held a hearing on
the topic of ObamaCare's penalty against marriage. But since then
little has been devoted to this topic in the House or the Senate.
So how does it work? It works through the requirement of household
income when calculating the ObamaCare tax subsidy.
For those persons not eligible for Medicare earning up to 400 percent
of the Federal poverty level, the law entitles them to a tax subsidy in
the form of a refundable credit so long as they purchase their coverage
on the ObamaCare exchanges.
To calculate income, however, the law requires the reporting of
household income rather than individual income. Household income
includes the income of any family member residing in the household,
such as a spouse, but not that of a cohabiting unmarried partner.
So when a person shops on the exchange's Web site for a plan, he or
she must first provide the financial information and identity of all
family members in the household, even if none of those persons intend
to purchase their insurance on the exchange because that information is
required to calculate subsidy eligibility.
Subsidy eligibility is then calculated using a complicated formula
involving household income in relation to the poverty line, family
size, and the price of plans offered through a State's marketplace.
The value of the subsidy awarded to an eligible person adjusts on a
sliding scale in proportion to household income, up to 400 percent--up
to 400 percent--of the Federal poverty level. Above 400 percent of the
Federal poverty level, no tax credit. Right.
The marriage penalty results when a spouse's income causes an
otherwise eligible individual to no longer be eligible for the subsidy
and could cost a married couple in their household in excess of $10,000
a year in lost subsidies versus two individuals who are cohabiting but
not married.
So let's go through an example.
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation's health reform subsidy
calculator, a 62-year-old individual in a high-cost area who earns
$46,000 a year, which is equivalent to 400 percent of the Federal
poverty level, would be entitled to $7,836 in a government tax credit.
However, if that same individual earns an additional $22 or $46,022 a
year--just over $46,000 a year--which is now 401 percent of the Federal
poverty level, they lose the entire credit. They lose the entire $7,836
credit.
Similarly, any married couple that earns more than $62,040--400
percent of the Federal poverty level for a family of two--earns too
much to qualify for a subsidy. But that same couple if unmarried and
cohabiting could earn up to $45,960 each--or $91,920 total--and they
are still eligible for subsidies in a high-cost area such as New York
State, for example.
So the limit for a married couple is just over $62,000. OK. So for a
married couple, you can earn up to $62,040 before you lose the credit,
but it is almost $30,000 higher for two people living together who are
not married. They can earn $91,920 for an unmarried cohabiting couple.
So if you have two people living together, they each get the individual
exemption, which is more than $45,000. So they can earn $91,000-plus
together--they still get the credit--but for a married couple, just
over $60,000. Mr. President, $62,000 is the limit. So you can earn
$30,000 more if you are living together and still get the credit than
you can if you are married. That is the marriage penalty. So why would
we design a health care program that discourages or penalizes marriage?
Further, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the tax
subsidies are projected to be the biggest deficit-increasing component
of ObamaCare, and CBO estimates they will add $100 billion to the
deficit by 2018 and grow even more thereafter. By 2019, CBO estimates
that about 19 million people will be receiving the subsidies to
purchase their insurance through the exchanges.
As I say, I became aware of this problem when I was contacted by a
North Dakota couple. I read that short vignette. We looked into it, and
it is, in fact, true. This is just one of the many problems created by
ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care Act, which is why Republicans have
said: Look. We need to replace this with a comprehensive, step-by-step,
market-based approach that truly is focused on competition and choice,
that empowers individuals, empowers people across this great Nation to
choose their own health care insurance and their own health care plan.
We can absolutely do that. That is why I am here on the floor and
others are here on the floor continuing to talk about Americans and
their everyday lives and the challenges they face because of ObamaCare.
I have more of these stories from North Dakotans, people in my State
who are facing real challenges because of ObamaCare.
So often we hear: Well, wait a minute, if we are not going to do the
Affordable Care Act, if you do not like the Affordable Care Act, then
what is your solution?
We continue to put solutions forward, solutions such as expanded
health savings accounts, which, combined with high-deductible policies,
can create tremendous incentives for young people to purchase health
care; more competition across State lines, which can help give citizens
more choice and reduce costs; tort reform, which can help bring down
cost; reforming Medicare to create the right incentives; giving States
more control over Medicaid. The list goes on. We will continue to
advocate for those types of solutions--real solutions that empower
Americans to choose their own health care insurance and their own
health care providers.
Let me read some more letters from North Dakotans who talk about the
challenges they are facing because of ObamaCare, the Affordable Care
Act.
This individual from Hankinson writes:
I am writing about the health care mess ObamaCare is
creating. I am a retired teacher running a daycare with my
wife. Hence, I am self-employed. I buy my own health care
through Medica. Under the new ObamaCare rules, my monthly
premium is going from $302 to over $500 per month.
I am 58 years old, not on any medications and have no
illnesses. Because of this forced health care, I am supposed
to pay a 60-percent increase in health care coverage. If I
drop my health care coverage, the government will hunt me
down and fine me. Please stop this ObamaCare boondoggle.
From Harvey, ND, a disgruntled grandpa who has to pay for maternity
care:
The Affordable Care Act is an excellent example of an
oxymoron. Since the Affordable Care Act was passed, my
insurance rate has escalated an additional $4,000 per year,
not the $2,500 reduction that President Obama speculated. I
have yet to find anyone whose health care costs have
declined. Oh, yes. I just received my cancellation notice
from Blue Cross Blue Shield. Thank you very much. I was happy
with my Blue Cross Blue Shield plan. I had a low deductible,
prescription and hospital coverage, everything that I needed.
Now, as a grandfather, I will be paying for maternity,
pediatric dentistry, contraception, drug, alcohol recovery,
et cetera. The government has bloated my policy with useless
fluff so my premiums will support others' subsidized
policies.
The President said, ``If you like your health care plan you
can keep it. Period.'' The truth is, if you can't afford
health insurance, you can afford ObamaCare if someone else
pays the premium for you. Also all of these years I have paid
taxes on things that I possess or purchase. Please explain
why I have to pay a tax if I choose not to purchase
ObamaCare.
[[Page S8721]]
From Fargo, ND, a retired couple faced with canceling their own
wellness center membership to pay for ObamaCare. This individual
writes:
Last week Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota sent my
wife and I a letter stating that the health insurance
coverage we carry is no longer acceptable or allowable under
the new health care law. It was a health insurance package
that we had selected after retiring from the field of
education 2 years ago. It was a great package for us since we
are both in good health. It offers us lower premiums, a
higher deductible, which, by the way, we wanted, and more
than adequate coverage for us.
Now, we have to look at other more expensive health care
packages which we do not want, some of which will include
wellness center coverage. Well, we go to a wellness center
here in Fargo, pay for it ourselves, and it costs us
considerably less than any of the new packages that include
it.
So if I have this right, the following needs to take place
for us. 1. We can no longer keep our present insurance that
we wanted to begin with. 2. We can, however, select another
package that will cost us, at the very least, an additional
$1,800 in premiums per year. Remember, this is being paid for
out of our retirement check. 3. The plans include a wellness
center option, which we currently have at our own expense at
a cost of $600 a year.
So based on the law's requirements, it will cost us another
$1,200 if we discount our current $600 wellness cost over and
above what we now pay. All of this for insurance we do not
want. There is an old saying from our neck of the woods: If
you want something screwed up, give it to the government.
Sorry, but this new law makes that old saying prophetic.
From Bottineau, ND, a couple faces cancer treatment and tripling
costs with ObamaCare. This individual writes:
Here is my story on ObamaCare. I have a Blue Cross Blue
Shield policy that I have had for many years.
In 2008 my wife was diagnosed with a very aggressive breast
cancer. We did all of the treatments, surgeries, et cetera.
The insurance paid all but the deductible and the
coinsurance, just as it was supposed to. We had no problems.
Our deductible has been $500, with an 80/20 copay up to an
out-of-pocket maximum of $5,000.
Now my wife's cancer has reoccurred and we are starting all
over. On the Affordable Care Act policy, to keep my premium
close to what we have had, our deductible will be $4,000
each, and our out-of-pocket maximum will be $12,500 per year.
By the way, the premium will be over $1,200 per month, an
increase of over 140 percent. That is not affordable care.
So which policy is more substandard?
A retired couple from Fargo, ND, writes:
Upon visiting with my Blue Cross Blue Shield rep, he
informed me that our present affordable plans--we currently
have two single plans, one for each of us--will no longer
exist under the Affordable Care Act. We will have to switch
over to Blue Direct, which does not allow single plans, but
family plans only. This will then force us to pay $1,200 per
month, or $14,400 per year, compared to our present cost of
$6,000 per year.
Let me repeat that.
This will then force us to pay $1,200 a month or $14,400
per year compared to our present cost of $6,000 per year.
What sense does that make? Why do I want to give up a plan
that is one I selected for us, and is very affordable, and
change it over for one that will cost us another $8,400
per year? I can definitely see where this is headed. It
will send both my wife and I back to the workforce to be
able to pay for a health insurance policy that we do not
want.
So why can't I keep my health insurance policy that I
already have? I like it. I want to keep it. But Uncle Sam
says no. Why? I understand the need to take care of those who
do not have insurance and cannot get insurance for medical
reasons. But why take away from millions of us that do have
insurance and want to keep it?
You have seen that in the numbers, right? I believe Secretary of
Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius testified in front of the
House either yesterday or the day before and indicated that there are
something like 360-some-thousand signups for ObamaCare. But the
statistics are in the range of 4 to 5 million as far as the number of
policies that have been reported as canceled so far since ObamaCare
came into effect. These are the real stories behind those statistics.
These are the real-life stories of people who have been impacted behind
these statistics.
From Bismarck, ND, a young working family has seen their costs
skyrocket.
Dear Senator Hoeven, I am a young pharmacist in Bismarck
who graduated from North Dakota State University in 2011. I
have the job I have always wanted, although it is with a
small pharmacy, so my employer cannot afford health insurance
for the seven employees who work there. So my family and I
went out and did the responsible thing: Qualified medically,
back when you had to, and bought what I thought was the
perfect health insurance plan.
For the whole family, it was this easy. High deductible. No
coverage except preventative, until we paid $2,500 per person
or $5,000 per family. My premium started out at an amazing
$666 a month in 2011, went up a few dollars in 2012, and
increased by 12 percent in 2013 to $762.30 a month. Still
quite affordable.
This year we had our third child, along with experiencing
some health issues with one of our other children. My wife
obviously met her $2,500 maximum and ended up needing surgery
and nearly died from complications, and spent a couple of
nights in the hospital. My insurance worked just like it was
meant to. That meant that $7,000 was paid 100 percent. As of
now, we have only paid $4,100 in out-of-pocket costs. I think
that is pretty darn good coverage for that premium.
My policy does not qualify for the new Affordable Care Act
regulations. So it will end at the end of April, according to
Blue Cross Blue Shield. Fine. Whatever. But what really
upsets me is that my current coverage, which assumes a lot of
responsibility on myself, falls into the ``gold'' category on
the ObamaCare exchange based on the maximum out-of-pocket
limits.
We are a young, generally healthy family. I do not need to
save nickels and dimes throughout the year to cover copays
and whatnot. I need a responsible limit that I know I am not
going to spend over. On the exchange, if I match my same
premium, then I end up with a maximum out-of-pocket limit of
$12,700--$12,700. How affordable is that?
If I want a plan similar to the plan I have now, then I
have to spend over $900 a month, or $150 a month more. That
is $2,000 per year more for coverage I do not like. This is
very frustrating. Please fix this mess.
From Kensal, ND, this is from a family who is unable to afford the
rising premiums.
I just got an insurance letter that said my family's
monthly premium was going from $385 to $840 per month. I
cannot afford that and keep the heat on this winter. That
represents over half of my take-home pay. I am now thinking
that I will have to get divorced just to keep my health
insurance for my three children and my wife. Keep the
government shut down forever if this is how you want to treat
the hard-working class.
From Donnybrook, ND, self-employed family business owners see rising
costs. They write:
My husband and I farm and have three children, ages 4, 2,
and 7 months old. Because we are self-employed, we carry our
own health insurance. Last week we received notice that our
premium will be increasing by 43% due to the Affordable Care
Act. We will also be losing the freedom to cater our health
plan to meet our individual needs. We are very healthy non-
smokers, and our children have yet to see a physician for
anything more than a well-child check-up. Our health history
is spotless. Our previous premiums were anything but
``cheap,'' making this 43% premium increase unbelievable [to
us, and unaffordable].
From Argusville, ND, self-employed face canceled policy. They state:
About a year ago, my husband left his job and started his
own computer software consulting company. Contrary to what we
have been led to believe, we were able to find affordable
insurance for our family. We have three children under 18. We
found a family policy for about $480/month. This past year
(2013), it was moderately increased to about $520/month,
which we thought was a reasonable increase. We were very
happy with the insurance.
However, today, I received a letter stating that due to the
new healthcare law, our insurance premium for the next year
would go up to $918.21.
They are going from $520 a month to $918.21 a month.
Continuing:
This means we are facing a $400/month increase in our
insurance premium. This amounts to a $4,800 tax increase for
our family. We are a middle income/small business-owning
family. This is an outrageous intrusion by the Federal
Government into an area that it had no business going. It WAS
possible for the self-employed to get their own insurance.
There WAS a safety net through state and Federal programs for
people who couldn't get insurance. The Affordable Care Act is
not affordable, and was not ever necessary.
What we are seeing is people in all different walks of life in
different situations, some working for themselves, some working for
small businesses, some working for large companies, some retired, some
with kids, and some elderly, but what is the consistent theme? What is
the consistent theme? Higher costs, less choice, and not being able to
get policies that fit their needs because of this standardization.
From Enderlin, ND, small business loses employee coverage. This
constituent writes:
My husband is a Veterinarian who has been in practice for
over 40 years. We have 5 employees for which we provide the
best health
[[Page S8722]]
coverage that money can buy. We pay all their premiums. Last
week, we received a cancellation letter from the insurance
company. We believed President Obama when he said that
because we had insurance for our employees, and because we
have less than 50 employees, we could keep our insurance. At
no time did we receive information by letter or email or on
the Internet about the fact that if you changed anything in
your policy you would not be grandfathered in. We had one
person retire, hired a new employee, and an employee's
husband came onto the policy, changing the deductible, which
has meant that we have now lost our insurance. This will mean
a much larger premium! We work! We are not happy about this
situation. The President lied! This will mean no raises and
we will not be able to hire anyone.
Park River, ND, rising costs for the young invincibles.
Our family has had health insurance all of our adult lives.
My son, aged 28, also had his own health insurance with Blue
Cross Blue Shield of ND. He is single. His policy was
cancelled because of ObamaCare. His premiums are now tripled
and his deductible will be over $6,400.00. That is
unacceptable. No person can afford to pay a $6,400
deductible. If he fell into the poverty level to be eligible
for the tax subsidy, then he could get better coverage for
less money under this law. That is also unacceptable. We all
have worked to afford health insurance on our own . . . and
now it is not affordable, nor are the deductibles affordable.
He was happy with his own policy, one that he could afford,
and with better coverage for him. And now the government is
mandating what he can afford. How is this acceptable?
I have one more I am going to read from a young family in Thompson,
ND. In this case, the family's policy was canceled just before their
baby was to be born.
They write:
My daughter and her husband are expecting their first child
in January, and on Friday they received a letter from their
insurance carrier stating that due to the new health law
reform they would no longer be covered. So, in January, when
the baby is to be born, they may have no health insurance.
Our president stated on more than 28 different occasions that
if you liked your health insurance, you could keep it. My
question to you is: What are you going to do about it? Will
you hold him accountable to his word?
We listen to all these real-life stories from people in my State--and
they reflect stories from people across this country--and that is why
it is so important that we do get the kind of health care reform that
this country needs and that these citizens so very much want. It truly
makes a difference. As we debate this important issue, I think it makes
an incredible difference.
This isn't me saying ``OK, we need to do it'' or any one of us saying
``OK, this is what we need to do.'' We are hearing from Americans--in
this case, from my State of North Dakota. But as Members come down and
speak on the floor on this issue, we are hearing from 300 million
Americans across this free country. We are hearing real stories about
real hardship and what they are going through.
I go back to where I started this discussion; that is, why it is so
important that as we approach these issues we take a hard look at
ObamaCare and the Affordable Care Act. It was passed with only
Democratic votes, no Republican votes whatsoever.
It is as I said before: If we are going to get the kinds of policies
that truly work for the American people, we have to come up with
policies that can garner bipartisan support, support from both sides of
the aisle. I truly believe they have to be the kinds of policies that
empower our people, that empower our people to choose their own health
care provider, that empower them to choose their own health care
insurance.
I go back to the types of solutions I talked about earlier. These are
the kinds of solutions that we have put forward in legislation, that we
will continue to put forward in legislation, and we ask for Members of
this body and the House to join us on a bipartisan basis and pass
market-based solutions that truly empower people. These are such things
as expanded health savings accounts combined with high-deductible
policies.
Think about young people going out into that market and buying health
care insurance, maybe for the very first time. Maybe they have been
operating without health care insurance and they say: You know what. I
have to get health care insurance.
Think about it. Think about what works for them. If we take a health
savings account, a high-deductible policy, low premium--they are
healthy, don't think they are going to get sick--that is the kind of
thing that will encourage them to buy health insurance. If they have
more choice and more competition, not only are they going to get it at
a more affordable price, but they are going to have more options from
which to choose. Likewise, let's make sure we provide for more
competition across State lines so they are not only then looking at
companies in their State but companies from across the country. More
choice and more competition brings down prices.
As we look at health care costs, let's look at tort reform. There is
no question that lawsuits are driving the cost of health care higher.
We can do something about that.
Affordability is a huge issue we have to address as part of the right
kinds of reforms for health care. When we talk about reforms, we have
to reform Medicare to create the right incentives.
What do I mean by that? Now, under Medicare, if someone lives in a
State where they have high costs, regardless of outcome, the Federal
Government provides more reimbursement under Medicare in that State
than they do in a State that has lower costs even though they may have
better outcomes. Does that make sense? Think about it. Think about that
for a minute.
A person has Medicare--and it is vitally important health care for
seniors across this Nation, but the incentive is not to reduce costs.
The way the program works, it actually increases cost because States
with higher costs, regardless of outcome, get more reimbursement under
Medicare than States with lower costs even if the States with the lower
costs have better outcomes.
Let's reform Medicare to have the right kinds of incentives, to
encourage savings, to encourage better outcomes, and to encourage
preventive care. We can do that. That is a win-win. We get better care
at a more affordable price, and we help address the debt and deficit of
this Nation. Those are the kinds of reforms that work for Americans.
For Medicaid, Medicaid provided for individuals with low income,
let's empower the States. Let's give the States more flexibility, more
control. Rather than a Federal one-size-fits-all, give those States
more control to truly not only improve health care outcomes but to do
so at affordable costs, and reward them for controlling costs.
These are the kinds of solutions that will not only produce better
health care that I believe our providers can get behind and support
because it rewards them for managing costs and good outcomes, which is
what we want, but it also truly is how we address the deficit and make
sure we save these programs--Medicare and Medicaid--and keep them sound
for the future so that we not only can rely on them today but for years
to come. We make sure that we save and protect those programs by
creating the right kinds of reforms. Those are the kinds of reforms
that truly empower people and give them the opportunity--which I think
we all want--to choose their own health care providers and their own
health care insurance.
As we go through these issues, again, I want to emphasize the need--
and I come back to the reason I am on the floor--not only to talk about
the right kind of health care reform but to go back to the issue before
the Senate today: the nominations that we face and determining how we
come together as a Senate, as a body, and we get Members on both sides
of the aisle who come together and say: OK, how do we make sure that we
have bipartisan solutions, that we create a bipartisan Senate where we
are making sure that, as we look at confirmation of these nominees,
there is an investment from both sides in getting it right and that
there is input, deliberation, consideration, and debate on getting it
right for the American people?
Whether it is health care, whether it is energy, whether it is good
ag policy, whether it is law enforcement, whether it is support for our
military, whether it is anything else, how do we make sure that all of
us--because it is incumbent upon all of us--how do we make sure we have
protected what this institution has provided for since the inception of
our country; that is, bipartisan consideration, deliberation, and
debate that produces the best outcome for the American people.
[[Page S8723]]
We have nominations that we are going through now and that we will
continue to go through. We have important policy matters we need to get
done now for the American people, such as a budget, Defense
reauthorization for the defense of our Nation, a farm bill that needs
to be passed, and an energy policy that we need to address--all things
that can truly move our country forward. As we do that, we need to come
forward with solutions that will truly be bipartisan. To do that, we
need to have a very sincere and direct dialog as a body and Member to
Member to come up with solutions to determine how we are going to make
sure we are doing the very best job for the American people. That is
what this is all about. We are here to do the work of the American
people.
And you know, we look across this vast, wonderful Nation, and there
are people who are Democrats and people who are Republicans and people
who are Independents, and we serve that whole spectrum. We serve them
all. We are faced with a real challenge right now to make sure that
bipartisanship continues in this Senate and in this Congress.
I am going to turn to another matter before us that is incredibly
important. It is a matter that is truly bipartisan. It is bipartisan,
and I am going to use this as an example of how bipartisanship can and
does work in this body and in the House. It is a matter we should be
voting on right now, and I sincerely hope we will be voting on it in a
few short weeks when we return, and that is the farm bill.
I am a member of the Agriculture Committee, a member of the
agriculture appropriations subcommittee, and I am also a member of the
conference committee that is working to reconcile the differences
between the farm bill that has been passed in the House and the farm
bill that has been passed in the Senate. I bring up this example
purposely, because we are focused on how we operate in a bipartisan
manner to meet the challenges this Nation faces, and we are at a point
where we need to redo the farm bill. We need to put a new long-term, 5-
year farm bill in place. Right now we are operating under an extension.
I use this as an example of a truly bipartisan approach.
I use the farm bill for another reason too. As we go through this
process, where confirmation of nominations are now being done
essentially on a partisan basis--not a bipartisan basis but on a
partisan basis--and as we talk about ObamaCare, which was passed on a
partisan basis--not a bipartisan basis--I want to bring up an example
of how things should work on a bipartisan basis.
When we look at the farm bill, the breakdown in terms of how the
votes have gone, it hasn't been Republican and Democrat. We have had
both. We have had some Republicans and Democrats voting against it and
some Republicans and some Democrats voting for it. It really is focused
on what is the policy and what best serves this great Nation.
Here is the other reason I bring it up right now. We are trying to
address the deficit and the debt this country faces; right? This year
CBO says the deficit is going to be somewhere between $650 billion and
$700 billion--the deficit. The debt is $17.3 trillion. We must address
the deficit and the debt. So as we work on a new farm bill, we are not
only reforming the current farm bill, which is operating under an
extension, we not only make reforms that make for a better farm
program, but we are going to save on the order of $25 billion to $30
billion to help reduce the deficit and the debt.
Isn't that what we should be doing across government on a bipartisan
basis--coming up with better policy that actually reduces the deficit
and the debt, controls spending, reduces spending and helps our economy
grow? That is what we are doing with the farm bill, and that is what we
should be doing in these other areas as well.
So as we continue to work on the farm program, I had hoped we could
be to the point where we would be voting this week or next on the
Senate floor and in the House as well. It doesn't look like that is
going to happen, but we are very close. We can have a framework in
place this week or next so that we can vote on it as soon as we return
in January, and that is what we need to do.
The current farm bill, the current extension, expires at the end of
the year, meaning we need to get a new farm bill in place--not an
extension but a new farm bill. We have put the framework in place. We
are there. We now just need to get people to agree and we need to get
the bill to the House and to the Senate floor. I believe we are
absolutely there. We just have to have the will to make it happen and
to make it happen on a bipartisan basis. Not only is it vitally
important we pass this farm bill, but it truly can be an example in
terms of how we approach other policy as well on a bipartisan basis.
At this point, Mr. President, I see the leader is here and I would
ask of the Chair as to my time allotment and also the time for the next
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has now expired.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of Landya B. McCafferty, of New Hampshire, to be United States District
Judge for the District of New Hampshire.
Mr. WICKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) and the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Kirk).
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 19, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 262 Ex.]
YEAS--79
Ayotte
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cruz
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Isakson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--19
Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Coats
Cornyn
Crapo
Enzi
Fischer
Hoeven
Inhofe
Johanns
McConnell
Risch
Roberts
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Vitter
NOT VOTING--2
Cochran
Kirk
The nomination was confirmed.
____________________