National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014--Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this week the Senate is considering a couple of fairly big items. We had a vote earlier this week on a budget proposal to fund the government for the next couple of years, and we also are going to be voting on a defense authorization bill that is very important to America's national security interests.

As we brought this legislation to the floor, there has been something conspicuously and noticeably absent; that is, open debate--something that used to be taken for granted in the Senate, a right that was accorded to Senators.

The nice thing about getting to the Senate, when you come from the House of Representatives, is that when you get to the Senate, one person can actually have the opportunity to get amendments voted on and have those amendments debated. In the House of Representatives, those of us who have served there, know there is a rules committee, and the rules committee decides what comes to the floor, what amendments are made in order, and how much time is allowed for debate on each amendment. It is a very structured process.

What the Founders conceived for the Senate was something different. They wanted us to have an opportunity to openly debate the big issues of the day. And there are no bigger issues, I would argue, than the budget proposal which will fund the government for the next 2 years and spend literally billions and trillions of dollars of the American people's tax money; and the Defense authorization bill, which will authorize in this case over half a trillion dollars of spending of the American taxpayers' money.

So these are big, consequential pieces of legislation brought to the floor of the Senate but not open to the debate, not open to the amendment process.

We just heard the Senator from Maryland talk about amendments which, if he had the chance to offer, he would have offered. That applies to a lot of us.

The Defense bill, when it comes to the floor here, will have probably gone through a fairly good vetting process. I served on the Armed Services Committee for 6 years. I think they did then and do now a good job of prioritizing when they come to the floor. But we have to remember, there are only probably 25 or so members of the Armed Services Committee, which means there are 75 Senators who haven't had an opportunity to have their voices heard on such a big piece of legislation.

The same thing with the budget. The budget conference really consisted of a couple people. In fact, I am told by conferees who were members of the Budget Committee and were supposed to be members of that conference, they really didn't vote on it. There was no vote on it when it left the conference. It was negotiated by a couple of people and brought to the floor to be voted on--something that is pretty darned important to the future of this country but not open to amendment, no opportunity for Senators here to have the opportunity to improve upon. Perhaps we could improve upon it; maybe we couldn't. But we at least should have had the opportunity to bring issues to the forefront that rightly should be debated when we are talking about something like a 2-year budget and a defense bill which spends enormous amounts of the American people's tax dollars.

So no debate. Shut down here in the Senate by the majority leader. Why? I guess because it is really critically important we get to some of these nominations that need to be voted on--voted on before the Christmas holiday. Why? Well, because, Lord knows, we couldn't vote on them next year. I guess we can vote on them next year. Now that the majority has broken the rules here in the Senate, changed the rules, they can approve those with 51 votes.

So I don't know what the big sense of urgency is on these nominations that would prevent us from having a full and open debate on something as consequential as the Defense authorization bill or the budget just being voted on here in the Senate. I don't know why these nominations would take precedence over that.

It seems to me that if there was any sense of urgency attached to this, most Members on both sides I think would acknowledge that we need to do that. But clearly these are all nominees who could be voted on next year, and now approved with 51 votes, thanks to the majority breaking the rules in the Senate and making it possible to approve nominees with 51 votes.

So the very notion, as the majority leader came out here and said repeatedly now, that we would be here next week on one of the most important Christian holidays of the year voting on nominees that can be voted on a week later after the first of the year when Congress comes back into session--it seems to me to be really sort of stunning in terms of its audacity.

I think the American people would conclude the same thing; that we would take a defense authorization bill, that we would take a huge budget bill and actually sort of just try and sweep them under the carpet, fill the tree so we don't have an opportunity to debate amendments or vote on amendments, but then have to rush to get these nominations through, nominations which can be considered early next year and approved now with a 51-vote majority.

So think about that. We have had these threats here on the floor. The majority leader has come to the floor and said: We are going to be here Christmas Eve because we have got to do these nominations. Yet we don't have any time to do the important work, such as having a chance to debate and vote on amendments to bills such as the Defense authorization bill.

So that is where we are. Again, I think it is pretty stunning that this is what the Senate has deteriorated into. And it is regrettable. But hopefully--hopefully--at some point people will come to their senses that: Yes, this is an important week next week for a lot of people around this country; that perhaps being able to do the nominations a week later, after the first of the year, when they can be approved with 51 votes, that might make sense and might be a reasonable approach to take with all this.

I hope most Members here, like most Americans, next week at least have an opportunity to celebrate the Christmas holiday with their families. And as they do, a lot of Americans will use that opportunity to reflect upon the past year. In many cases that will mean life changes which occurred in the last year. For many Americans it might be a marriage in the family, it might be a graduation, events that we celebrate. It might be something we look on with reflection and mourn the loss of a loved one. But this is a time when normally people around this country reflect on significant changes in their lives in the last year and start thinking in anticipation about what the next year might bring.

Some things people can't control in their lives. Some changes people don't like and they can do nothing to control. And as they start thinking about last year and start thinking about next year, for a lot of people it is going to be the impact that ObamaCare is going to have on their lives. People are thinking about the fact that they have these skyrocketing premiums that are now coupled with these outrageous deductibles. The sticker shock is forcing millions of Americans to pay more for health care.

President Obama promised the American people:

ObamaCare will cut costs and make coverage more affordable for families and small businesses.

Well, the reality is that family premiums have already skyrocketed since ObamaCare became law. American approval of this law is now in the tank.

According to a recent CBS/New York Times poll:

Most uninsured (57 percent) think the cost of their health care will increase, and just 23 percent expect the quality to get better.

Think about that. Fifty-seven percent of the people who have no insurance--people who are uninsured--think the cost of their health care is going to increase. And a majority in that same poll are opposed to the health care plan. Those are people who don't have health care insurance today, and a majority of them are opposed to this plan.

For many Americans, the holiday season is going to be filled with angst and uncertainty as they look at facing a coverage gap on January 1. More than 10,000 Iowans were told by healthcare.gov that they should qualify for Federal health coverage, but Federal officials have not yet sent complete information on those people to State administrators, who are supposed to then review the applications and enroll people in the program.

My colleague from Iowa Senator Grassley is on the floor. Constituents he represents are going to be filled with a lot of uncertainty as they face the future. According to the Des Moines Register, Percy Smith of Des Moines is concerned about a coverage gap:

I'm losing my optimism, because we're getting close to January, and I don't know if I'm going to be covered or not.

But this problem will affect more than Iowans. According to the Washington Post:

Those facing a potential coverage gap include an estimated 15 million people.

The law's insurance cancellations mixed with the Web site's problems might leave some people who have coverage now uninsured in the new year. These are Obamacare's biggest losers.

Today, George Will has an article in the Washington Post that explores this administration's abuse of executive discretion. The article effectively summarizes the exact abuses of executive power that my colleagues and I have been vocally opposed to.

Under this administration, if they don't like what the law says, even if they wrote that law, they simply ignore it. Example after example exists of how this President believes he is above the law. Look no further than their delay of the employer mandate or their rewrite of the laws governing the work requirements as a condition of receiving welfare. As Mr. Will says in his article:

In 1998, the Supreme Court held that ``there is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes.''

Yet, as Mr. Will further points out, this President often claims:

..... he can't wait for our system of separated powers to ratify his policy preferences.

Unfortunately, that is not how our country was founded and not what our forefathers established in our system of governance.

As the Federalist Paper No. 47, authored by James Madison, says:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

The American people are wising up to this abuse of power, and I believe this President must respect the rule of law, despite his clear self-interest to act otherwise.

I believe it is only a matter of time before the President continues to abuse executive discretion to correct problems with his law. Instead of being forthcoming with the American people and Congress and explaining why parts of this law won't work, he relies on his administrative agencies to issue 11-hour blog posts or leaks to the media to announce delays in portions of his signature law.

Another way this administration is trying to fix problems is to put the burden of fixing problems on others. Last month the President tried to fix the problem of cancelled plans by kicking the can to State insurance regulators to determine whether, in 48 days from the date of his announcement in November, they can change their State insurance regulation policies quickly enough to permit plans to continue to offer those plans available in 2013 and 2014. He expected State insurance commissioners to bail him out to allow Americans to keep the plans they were promised they could keep. He is also expecting insurance companies to bail the administration out of problems as well.

The insurance industry will now extend the deadline until January 10 for Americans to pay for coverage that starts on New Year's Day. This doesn't fix the problem of coverage gaps, but it is a convenient talking point for the administration.

While 2013 was filled with one unbroken ObamaCare promise after another, the President's inability to follow through on making coverage more affordable for families and small businesses was one of the biggest. In a rare moment of candor, Secretary Sebelius was forced to admit:

[t]here are some individuals who may be looking at increases [in health care costs].

A recent Associated Press/GfK poll confirms that more than ``some'' individuals will be facing sticker shock thanks to ObamaCare: Sixty-nine percent say their premiums will be going up, while 59 percent say annual deductibles or copayments are increasing.

A separate poll by the Washington Post and ABC found that just 5 percent of Americans believe that ObamaCare will actually reduce their health care costs.

The reality for many Americans is that dramatically higher premiums, deductibles, and copayments mean they are going to have less money in their wallets to spend on rent, pay for college, or to invest in a small business.

As a result, 67 percent of respondents in a recent Fox News poll say ObamaCare should be delayed and 53 percent of respondents would vote to repeal the law.

This holiday season Democrats should give the American people what they were promised all along: lower costs, while keeping the doctor and plan they have and like.

As we begin 2014, this President and administration should commit to abandoning their power grabs and complete disregard for the rule of law. This law was passed, hurriedly rushed through here on a partisan vote. Not a single Republican Senator here voted for it. We are now seeing the effects of that: one-party rule, one party running roughshod over the other to try to get something enacted into law--which now, as the American people are finding out, they are the ones impacted.

We are seeing all the adverse, harmful impacts which come with it: higher premiums, cancelled coverage, lower take-home pay, higher deductibles, and a less promising future for the American people. We can and we should do better.

I hope that as Americans this Christmas season reflect on the past and think to the future, we will resolve to do what is necessary to give them a brighter future by putting in place policies which will grow the economy,
create jobs, increase the take-home pay of middle-class Americans, rather than give them another gut punch which makes it that much harder for them to provide for themselves and their families.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, a number of my colleagues have come down here, and we have done so on a number of occasions because most of us are getting emails and phone calls and letters in our offices of real-world, real-life experiences that people are having with ObamaCare. It is a reminder that the things we do here have real-world impacts across the country.

As someone who represents the State of South Dakota, I came down here and shared a number of stories of constituents of mine who have been adversely impacted in the form of higher premiums, canceled coverages, higher deductibles--all doing great economic harm to the people in our respective States.

I will quickly share a note I received from a constituent in Rapid City, SD.

As my Congressional representative, you need to know how ObamaCare is harming my life and health care. My insurance company cancelled my policy. I am currently paying over $800 a month for a family of 4. To upgrade my policy I will be over $900 a month. If I sign up for ObamaCare, I would be paying over $2500 a month. I cannot think of any way this is considered affordable health care!

This is just another of many examples that I have from my State of South Dakota and that my colleagues have to point out how this is flawed and the economic harm it is doing to the American people and why it is so important that we here in the Senate take steps to change it and do it soon, before it is too late.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source