Making Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2014--Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Florida is correct. That is absolutely our intention. There is nothing in law that prevents the continued public release of the Death Master File while the Commerce Department sets up the certification program. This act simply exempts the Social Security Administration's death records from freedom of information requests under section 552 of title 5 of the United States Code, subsection (b).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I will object, first, as many of my colleagues here know, I have dedicated much of my career to fighting for our Nation's veterans and our military families. I am the daughter of a World War II veteran. I am the first woman ever to chair the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. I have worked tirelessly time and again to safeguard the health care and the benefits and services that those in our uniforms have sacrificed for. So obviously any provision that impacts them or the benefits our servicemembers have earned is of great concern to me.

As is true with any very difficult compromise, there are certain policy changes in this bill I would never have made on my own. Thankfully, though, we wrote this bill in a way that will allow 2 years before this change is implemented--2 years--so that Democrats and Republicans can keep working together to improve this provision or find smarter savings elsewhere. In that time I know there is an armed services-mandated military retirement commission due to report their findings, which would give both Chambers time to legislate a solution before any COLA change is ever implemented.

I also know the senior Senator from Michigan, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has indicated he is going to move forward with efforts to review this change before it takes effect, and I support that effort. I am quite sure other Members of the Senate will look for ways to replace these savings in a different way. In other words, we can and we will look at other hopefully better ways to change this policy going forward.

But opening this bill to changes today, after the vast majority of Congress has voiced their support for a deal that ends the repeated crises we have faced in this Nation, is not the solution. In fact, jeopardizing this deal right now only threatens our national security, and it will force layoffs of those very servicemembers and civilian military personnel so many Members have come out here to speak on behalf of.

As with any bill, the oversight process in Congress will move forward the moment we pass it, and there is no doubt that improvements will be made where they are needed. But this motion, I say to my colleagues, is an effort to bring down this bill, to stop us from moving forward, and for that reason alone it should be voted down. Therefore, Madam President, I object to the unanimous consent request.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I would suggest that the Senator ask that question to Chairman Ryan. But I would say again, as many of us have talked about here today, this is not the deal Democrats would have written on our own. It is not the deal Republicans would have written on their own. Nobody got everything they wanted, and we each had to give up some things to get to where we are today, again, to bring us back to a time of certainty because without a budget moving forward today, we would be facing a time in a few short weeks where there would be dramatic changes and cuts to, in particular, our Department of Defense, meaning furloughs and layoffs and a threat to our national security, as so many Members of the military have told us.

So I hope we can move forward. I know we are going to go through some parliamentary inquiries and a motion here in a minute. But I hope our Members would take the time to say, ``What is the end process here.'' and vote with us to not change this at this point and to allow us to go forward and bring certainty to so many families across this country at this holiday season time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, Section 401 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 creates a new category of employee called a further revised annuity employee and would require further revised annuity employees to contribute additional amounts into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. It is the intent of Congress for the Office of Personnel Management to create a new normal cost for the further revised annuity employees, and to ensure that the retirement plan not be underfunded.

Additionally, it is the intent that for the new further revised annuity employee plan that the only determinant of whether an individual is a Federal Employee Retirement System, FERS, employee or Member, as opposed to a FERS revised annuity employee or FERS further revised annuity employee, is through application of the FERS revised annuity employee test. And that the new further revised annuity employee test only differentiates between FERS revised annuity employee coverage and new FERS further revised annuity employee coverage.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator for his question, and I appreciate his leadership as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I understand his concerns and can assure him that the language in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 was not intended to alter or negate the Foreign Relation Committee's jurisdiction.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It is quite clear by the extensive work the committee has done on the U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreement that the committee has an expertise in international agreements and should play an integral role in the oversight of future transboundary hydrocarbon agreements. The language in the Bipartisan Budget Act was not intended to undermine the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's jurisdiction with respect to any matter that would be properly before it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont is correct. It is my intent that existing contracts to use the services of not-for-profit servicers are not terminated by this bill and that they will be permitted to compete with the Department of Education's title IV servicers for additional accounts. I know several of my colleagues also feel strongly about this issue. I would like to recognize the following Senators to also join in on the colloquy: Senators Leahy, Harkin, Alexander, Hatch, Shaheen, Begich, Grassley, King, Baucus, Tester, and Murkowski.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source