Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I will quote at length from the Wall Street Journal this morning, because in mentioning this popular piece of legislation, the editorial gets right to the point. It says: . . . the reason [the bill failed this week] tells the real story of Washington gridlock in the current Congress. To wit, Harry Reid has essentially shut down the Senate as a place to debate and vote on policy. I absolutely agree. Additionally, the editorial says: The Majority Leader's strategy was once again on display as the Senate failed to get the 60 votes to move the popular energy efficiency bill co-sponsored by New Hampshire Democrat Jeanne Shaheen and Ohio Republican Rob Portman. Mr. Reid blamed it on Republican partisanship. But the impasse really came down to Mr. Reid's blockade against amendments that might prove politically difficult for Democrats. Once again, the majority leader has made it clear he doesn't intend to let the Senate work its will on amendments. Instead, the new normal is that the majority leader comes to the floor and says: If the bill is worded as I think it should be, if we can come to an agreement with how it should be written, I will bring it to the floor and we can vote it up or down. But this idea of amendments, that is unacceptable to the majority leader, and it is a complete departure from the way this Senate has operated for decades and decades on important pieces of legislation. I would point out that in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, one of the major accomplishments of the Congress in the 20th century, there were 115 amendments called up during its consideration. The leadership didn't know how those votes would turn out. They had probably done a whip count and they had a decent idea, but the idea was the Senate was going to be allowed to vote up or down with the light shining on the process and the American people seeing how their elected Senators felt on that issue. There were 115 amendments called up during the consideration of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. The Panama Canal Treaty of 1978 was another major piece of deliberative work that was done by the Senate. There was a total of 89 amendments offered to the Panama Canal Treaty. Those amendments were called up and debated in the clear light of day. Votes were held and the American people found out how their elected representatives in the Senate felt about those amendments. This week and for the last 52 weeks that has not been the case with the majority leader currently in power in the Senate. The Wall Street Journal goes on to say that the majority leader . . . used parliamentary tricks to block energy-related amendments to an energy bill. This blockade is now standard procedure as he's refused to allow a vote on all but nine GOP amendments since last July. Mr. Reid is worried that some of these amendments might pass with support from Democrats, thus embarrassing a White House that opposes them. I wish to point out that during the time when Republicans--in this supposedly greatest deliberative body in the world--have been given nine amendments over the last year, Republicans, which hold the majority in the House of Representatives, have given their Democratic colleagues 125 minority votes. This is in a House which routinely shuts down debate, has a rules committee, and historically limits the number of amendments and the number of votes. Minority Members in the House have had 125 votes during that same time period. This Senate has allowed minority Members nine votes during that same period of time, and that is an outrage, which the Wall Street Journal continues to point out. The editorial goes on to say: In the case of Portman-Shaheen, Republicans had prepared amendments to speed up exports of liquefied natural gas; to object to a new national carbon tax; to rein in the Environmental Protection Agency's war on coal plants; and to authorize the Keystone XL Pipeline. I believe these amendments were good amendments. I would have voted for them. The case could be made on the other side of the aisle that they were bad policy. But make the case. Let elected Senators from North Dakota, Mississippi, and all across the United States of America be heard and vote the wishes of their particular constituencies on these issues. Instead, the majority shut down these amendments. The editorial goes on to say: Yet the White House and Mr. Reid's dominant liberal wing won't take the chance that a bipartisan coalition might pass these amendments, most of which the House has passed or soon would. President Obama would thus face a veto decision that would expose internal Democratic divisions. So Mr. Reid shut down the amendment process. As I said, he has shut down the amendment process in every case except for nine lonely votes. The editorial goes on to say: It's important to understand how much Mr. Reid's tactics have changed the Senate. Not too long ago it was understood that any Senator could get a floor vote if he wanted it. The minority party, often Democrats, used this right of amendment to sponsor votes that would sometimes put the majority on the spot. It's called politics, rightly understood. This meant the Senate debated national priorities and worked its bipartisan will. Harry Reid's Senate has become a deliberate obstacle to democratic accountability. And sadly so, I might add. This Harry Reid gag rule is new to the Senate. We have had a number of distinguished majority leaders whose names will go down in history as the giants and statesmen of our time, and they did not resort to this gag rule. This is largely a Harry Reid invention. I will give the facts. Mr. Reid has used the gag rule to fill the amendment tree--which is a parliamentary term. He has used his gag rule to cut off amendments 85 times, more than twice the number of the previous six leaders combined, and these were Democrats and Republicans. Senator Dole invoked the procedural tactic only seven times. Senator Robert Byrd, a giant, a historian, and an expert in the use of Senate rules, invoked it only three times. Senator Mitchell of Maine invoked it 3 times; Senator Lott, 11 times; Senator Daschle, 1 time; and Senator Frist, 15 times. Yet time after time--some 85 times--this majority leader has decided that the Senate doesn't have a right--that the people of Mississippi and the people of North Dakota don't have a right--for their Senators to come up and offer an idea and let it rise or fall based on whether it is good policy or not. This is an outrage that the people of the United States need to understand. It seems past majority leaders, when entrusted with protecting this institution, recognized that the gag rule should be used sparingly. Its current abuse undermines the Senate's ability to address pressing national issues and to carry on the tradition of debate that has always defined this body. That really cannot be denied. Senator Robert Byrd, who I alluded to earlier, called the Senate ``the last bastion of minority rights.'' That was true during Democratic majorities when Senator Byrd was the majority leader. Sadly, it is not the case any longer. The Wall Street Journal editorial--I would commend it to the attention of anyone within the sound of my voice--concludes this: The lesson for voters is simple: If they want anything meaningful done in the last two years of the Obama Administration, they will have to elect a Republican Senate. Those are the words of the Wall Street Journal and not my words. What has become of the Senate under this Harry Reid gag rule is unconscionable. It should be reversed and Senators of both parties should stand in resistance to the idea that we cannot offer amendments and have them debated as they have always been debated in the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I sorrowfully rise this morning to take note of the sad state to which this great deliberative body has fallen, and I do so reluctantly because I must specifically criticize the majority leader of the U.S. Senate for bringing this body to what many historians observe is a new low in terms of our ability to move legislation and our ability to have open debate and open amendments in the Senate. We see what has become a new normal in the Senate. Earlier this week a bipartisan and popular piece of legislation on energy efficiency was derailed by the majority leader's resistance to the open amendment process. Certainly, it is not only members of my party, it is not only persons on my side of the aisle who have concluded this. There was a very scathing opinion piece on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal this morning entitled ``Harry Reid's Senate Blockade.'' I ask unanimous consent to have this opinion piece printed in the Record.

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I wish to speak as in morning business for 1 minute.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I simply want to take a moment to say a few words about the devastating storms that swept through my home State of Mississippi yesterday. My prayers are with the families of those who lost their lives, those who were injured, and the communities across the State that are now hard at work to pick up the pieces. We are grateful for local officials, weather forecasters, and first responders who saved lives by getting the word out that people should seek shelter from the storm. This is government at its best, when State, local, and Federal forces, alongside the news media and private businesses, work together to keep people out of harm's way. There is no doubt this cooperation and communication saved hundreds of lives across the South yesterday. Both will be instrumental in preparing for additional storms in the forecast today. Mississippians are known for being resilient in the wake of tragedy. We have overcome unprecedented challenges in the past, and we will do so again. Nature's wrath may be fierce but the spirit of fellowship and perseverance of my fellow Mississippians--as well as all Americans-- will move us forward. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I do not know if I need to seek recognition to be in a colloquy, but I do appreciate the remarks of the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Alaska. I rise this afternoon to join them in wholehearted support of these four important measures. They are an important step in combating--the term we use, as the Senator from Alaska said--is illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, IUU fishing, but I will also join my colleagues in saying that it is nothing short of pirate fishing. It has broad economic, social, and ecological consequences. I am glad to join in support of these four measures. They have been hotlined. For those within the sound of our voices today that do not understand that, it is an expedited way to move things on a unanimous basis. I have every reason to believe that it will only be a matter of time before we have these hotline requests cleared on both sides of the aisle. Alaska and Rhode Island have their interests in this. I can assure you that Mississippi does too. Mississippi is home to many hard-working fishing communities. They depend on the oceans for their livelihoods. We are the sixth largest seafood-producing State in the country. Many people might not realize that. We are second in the Gulf of Mexico to the State of Louisiana. Pirate fishing hurts our fishermen. Our fishermen abide by the law. Pirate fishing puts them at a competitive disadvantage, as the Senator said. These fishermen who are small business owners, for the most part, should not be penalized for playing by the rules. International cooperation and standards are needed to protect local commerce and the environment. That is what the Agreement on Port State Measures would do. Under the agreement, vessels carrying illegally harvested fish would not be allowed to enter our ports and thereby dilute the market with fraudulent product. In this way, the agreement would protect U.S. fishermen, seafood buyers, and consumers, while also supporting marine habitat, coastal economies, and coastal communities. Estimates show that pirate fishing costs as much as $23 billion per year globally and poses a serious threat to the sustainability of marine habitat. In parts of the world it accounts for up to 40 percent of the wild marine fish caught. Other treaties under consideration address high seas fisheries resources. As the Senator from Alaska said, one in the North Pacific, yet another in the South Pacific, as well as amendments to the 1978 Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Convention. These amendments simply update the conventions with standards similar to those that we in the United States use for our domestic waters. These treaties can serve as powerful tools for showing that the United States is committed to enforcing fisheries laws and encouraging other countries to follow suit. Like other fisheries treaties that the Senate has ratified, they would protect America's interests, and they would protect American workers. Our commercial and recreational fishing industries are responsible for 1.7 million American jobs and countless more at docks and facilities for processing and distribution. In summary, these four measures are good for the economy, they are good for the seafood industry, they are good for consumers, they are good for small business people, and they are good for our commercial fishermen. It is an opportunity for us to strike a blow for bipartisanship and internationalism. I am glad to see the widespread support. I look forward to the measures being cleared on both sides of the aisle. I see my other distinguished colleague from Alaska here. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. With the Senate's permission, I propose to speak, along with Senator Manchin, as in morning business on another matter.

Mr. WICKER. I rise today to speak about a recently introduced bill regarding the future of Puerto Rico's political status. Known as the Puerto Rico Status Resolution Act, this legislation would call for an up-or-down referendum on Puerto Rican statehood, excluding the option of Puerto Rico's current status of Commonwealth. The President and Congress would have to proceed with legislation if statehood receives a majority of votes. I support Puerto Rico's right of self-determination. This is an issue I have closely followed and been involved in for the better part of two decades. Concern about the way we do statehood determination votes in Puerto Rico is an issue that has crossed party lines in the Congress. I would say to my colleagues, Congress needs to make sure, at a minimum, that any process used to measure the intent of Puerto Rican voters is objective; otherwise, the outcome will be neither fair nor a meaningful test of public opinion. That is why it is so important not to exclude the option of the current Commonwealth status. The status resolution act does not rise to the threshold of fairness or a meaningful test of public opinion. There are two reasons: First, legislation has already been enacted that calls for a plebiscite on Puerto Rico's political status. The 2014 omnibus already includes funding for a plebiscite that would include all available options for political status. Allowing Puerto Ricans the opportunity to choose a status besides statehood is in keeping with a recommendation from the White House Task Force Report released in 2011. Second, the referendum proposed by the status resolution act would have the same shortcomings as the plebiscite held on November 6, 2012. The results of that referendum were widely criticized, as well as the tortured ballot designed by the pro-statehood party. Of the 1.9 million Puerto Ricans who participated in the referendum, only 834,191--or about 44 percent--favored statehood. Only 44 percent favored statehood. Close to half a million voters declined to respond to the second question on the ballot, evidencing their dissatisfaction with the choices offered. We need to offer better choices. The percentage of statehood supporters has not changed significantly over the past 20 years and certainly does not serve as an impetus for Congress to entertain yet another admissions process now. Elsewhere on the November 6 ballot that I referred to, public support was clear for the pro-Commonwealth Popular Democratic Party and the election of pro-Commonwealth and anti-statehood candidate Alejandro Garcia Padilla as Puerto Rico's new Governor. In fact, the Commonwealth's legislature, as a result of that election, is now controlled by the pro-Commonwealth party, as is the mayorship of San Juan, the capital of the Commonwealth. Statehood advocates may attempt to manipulate ballots and election results to support their preferred outcome, but they do so at the expense of the democratic process and the right of every Puerto Rican to have a say in the island's political future. The referendum process should be conducted in a fair and transparent manner that reflects the true will of the people. In the past, I have introduced legislation that would recognize Puerto Rico's right to convene a constitutional convention--a process that could help build consensus rather than advance the exclusive agenda of one political party over the other. For Commonwealth supporters, Puerto Rico's current status is instrumental to preserving the island's rich heritage and maintaining the authority needed to address specific needs. The status resolution act not only has the potential to trample on people's rights, but it also distracts from the island's pressing economic and security concerns. In conclusion, Congress and the Obama administration should continue to strengthen the partnership between Puerto Rico and the United States in constructive ways instead of encouraging a shortsighted and flawed referendum. Puerto Rico faces economic, energy, and public safety challenges that have a direct impact on the quality of life of its residents. Joint efforts to restore economic growth, modernize energy resources, and reinforce strategies for combating drug trafficking could have a big impact. I am encouraged by proposed reforms, and I wish the best to Gov. Garcia Padilla in the early days of his term in office. I hope the Senate will not attempt to impose a solution from Washington, DC, on Puerto Rican voters--a solution that would be contrary to the public opinion of inhabitants of the island. I am glad my colleague from West Virginia, who serves on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee which exercises jurisdiction over matters relating to Puerto Rico, has joined me on the floor, and I would now yield for him--Senator Manchin--to comment on a recent study by the GAO on Puerto Rico's economy and the potential effects of statehood. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, are we in morning business? What is the pending business?

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, if I might, let me congratulate my colleague from West Virginia on his remarks and in closing make three observations. Despite the economic hardships of the region, the economy of Puerto Rico is the strongest of any of the Caribbean islands, and this has occurred under Commonwealth status--the special relationship that Puerto Ricans have with the United States as U.S. citizens but with their separate identity on the island. Secondly, I would point out that some of the most vocal pro- Commonwealth voices in this Congress are Puerto Rican Americans who happened to have been elected to the Congress from the States, and they speak also and have spoken also with authority in favor of the Commonwealth concept but also in favor of a fair and accurate election. Finally, I wish to just drive home a point Senator Manchin and I have made. On election day in 2012, 1.9 million Puerto Ricans showed up to vote in that election. The pro-Commonwealth candidate for Governor was elected, the pro-Commonwealth candidate for mayor of San Juan was elected, and a majority of the legislature of the island that day turned out to be pro-Commonwealth. As flawed as the plebiscite was, the fact remains, of the 1.9 million American citizens in Puerto Rico who voted--who showed up to vote--only 44 percent of them cast a ballot in favor of statehood. That is a figure that cannot be controverted: 1.9 million people showed up to vote--American citizens in Puerto Rico--and only 44 percent of them checked the box for statehood. So as we go forward and as we implement the provisions of the omnibus act, let us make sure that whatever we do we have the facts, as Senator Manchin has pointed out, and also we have a process to accurately reflect the will of the Puerto Rican people. I thank the Chair, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise briefly this afternoon to join my colleagues in expressing deep disappointment with yet another decision by the Obama administration to undermine the health care options of millions of Americans. As we all know, the President promised, ``If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.'' But his law's drastic cuts to Medicare and Medicare Advantage are creating an impossible environment for Americans to keep their insurance plans or to keep their doctors. Even more troubling is that funds raided from Medicare will be spent on the President's flawed health care law. In particular, Medicare Advantage serves more than 15 million American senior citizens, including some 56,000 Mississippians. It is a program that incentivizes market-based competition and patient choice. These are two elements that have made it both popular and successful. Nearly one-third of all Medicare patients voluntarily enroll in this type of health care plan, and 95 percent of Medicare Advantage members rate their quality of care as ``very high.'' Independent reports show that seniors will see their plans canceled. They will see higher premiums and fewer choices because of these severe cuts to Medicare and Medicare Advantage. I have heard from health care professionals in Mississippi who are concerned about the law's negative impact on patient care. I came to the floor earlier this week to speak about the profound human cost of the President's health care law. It is past time for the President and his allies in Congress to recognize the devastating consequences of ObamaCare. Delaying and changing the law, which the administration has done some two dozen times--with questionable legal authority, I might add--will not fix the damage. This is a law that just doesn't work. The solution is to repeal and replace ObamaCare with market-driven reforms that empower Americans to decide which health care options are best for them. We can do better than this law, and we owe it to the American people to do so. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, does the Senator yield the floor?

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. We talk a lot about the failures of the Affordable Care Act. Because of ObamaCare, 7 million people are expected to lose their employer-sponsored health insurance by 2024. Another 5 million Americans have seen their health care plans canceled, and one of them is Mrs. Blackwood. I say again to my colleagues and everyone within the sound of my voice, I don't know the politics of the Blackwood family. They had an insurance policy that worked for Mrs. Blackwood. It covered a vital drug--Sandostatin--that kept her alive from the disease of carcinoid cancer, and she has lost that coverage because of the very act that was supposed to help people. Mr. Blackwood says, ``We can do better,'' and I suggest we can do better. We need to repeal this ill-considered law which has caused so much pain for millions and millions of Americans and still left 31 million people uninsured. We need to work together across the aisle in a bipartisan way to fix this system and have a system that doesn't throw innocent and sick people out of their insurance coverage and threaten their health and their very lives. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Iowa talks convincingly and persuasively about so many times when Members are shut out of the process. Certainly chief among those would have been in 2009, when we could have used the expertise of Senator Grassley, had our colleagues across the aisle been willing to work with him in a bipartisan fashion to write a bipartisan health care bill which employed market principles and competition. Instead, just as he mentioned in his remarks, he was shut out of the process, as were all Republicans. So we have an ObamaCare law on the books now supported by every Democrat in the Senate and supported by no Republicans, some 18 percent of our gross domestic product turned on its head by this legislation, and it was not done in a bipartisan fashion as anything this big should be done. The Senator is correct, and I appreciate him mentioning the larger sense in which Members feel they are being shut out of the process. I rise tonight particularly to call Members' attention to an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal, Monday, February 24, page A-15, entitled ``ObamaCare and My Mother's Cancer Medicine,'' by Stephen Blackwood. I have no idea about Stephen Blackwood's politics. The article at the end says Mr. Blackwood is president of Ralston College, a planned liberal arts institution in Savannah, GA. So I know he comes from academia, and I know he loves his mother and is concerned with what ObamaCare has done to his mother's cancer coverage. The story Mr. Blackwood tells about his mother Catherine reflects the very real life-or-death consequences of the President's health care law. Many of us who oppose the law often point to the financial costs, the delays, and the flawed implementation. But the human aspect is much more tragic. In relaying his family's current situation in this op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today, Mr. Blackwood depicts the law's devastating effects on individual Americans. He begins by saying: When my mother was diagnosed with carcinoid cancer in 2005, when she was 49, it came as a lightning shock. I know it would to any family. He goes on to say later: Anyone who's been there knows that a cancer diagnosis is terrifying. He explains later on in the op-ed that: Carcinoid, a form of neuroendocrine cancer, is a terminal disease but generally responds well to treatment by Sandostatin, a drug that slows tumor growth and reduces (but does not eliminate) the symptoms of fatigue, nausea, and gastrointestinal dysfunction. My mother received a painful shot twice a month and often couldn't sit comfortably for days afterwards. As with most cancers, one thing led to another. There have been several more surgeries, metastases, bone deterioration, a terrible bout of thyroiditis (an inflammation of the thyroid gland) and much more. But my mother kept fighting, determined to make the most of life, no matter what it brings. She has indomitable will and is by far the toughest person I've ever met. But she wouldn't be here without the semimonthly Sandostatin shot that slows the onslaught of her disease. And then in November, along with millions of other Americans, she lost her health insurance. She'd had a Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan for nearly 20 years. It was expensive, but given that it covered her very expensive treatment, it was a terrific plan. It gave her access to any specialist or surgeon, and to the Sandostatin and other medications that were keeping her alive. And then, because our lawmakers and the president thought they could do better, she had nothing. Her old plan, now considered illegal under the new health law, had been canceled. Because the exchange website in her state (Virginia) was not working, she went directly to insurers' websites and telephoned them, one by one-- This is a woman with carcinoid cancer whose policy has been cancelled because of ObamaCare --over dozens of hours. As a medical office manager, she had decades of experience navigating the enormous problems of even our pre-ObamaCare system. Even with her experience, she had trouble with the repeated and prolonged phone waits, which Mr. Blackwood described as Sisyphean. In the end, she was told she could purchase a Humana policy. The enrollment agent said that after she met her deductible for all her treatments and medications, including those for cancer, she would be covered 100 percent. However, the enrollment agents did not have access to the coverage formularies for the plans they were selling. They said the only way to find out what was in the plan in detail was to buy the plan. Does that sound familiar? It sounds like what the former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, famously told us in 2009. We have to hurry up and pass the bill so we can find out what is in it. In this case, Mrs. Blackwood needed to hurry up and buy the insurance plan--pay the premiums--so she could then find out whether she was covered, and it turns out she was not covered. The cost of the Sandostatin alone, since January 1 of this year, was $14,000, and the company was refusing pay. To quote Mr. Blackwood further: The news was dumbfounding. This was a woman who had an affordable health plan that covered her condition. Our lawmakers weren't happy with that because . . . they wanted plans that were affordable and covered her condition. So they gave her a new one. It doesn't cover her condition and it's completely unaffordable. Though I'm no expert on ObamaCare (at 10,000 pages, who could be?), I understand that the intention--or at least the rhetorical justification--of this legislation was to provide coverage for those who didn't have it. But there is something deeply and incontestably perverse about a law that so distorts and undermines the free activity of individuals that they can no longer buy and sell the goods and services that keep them alive. ObamaCare made my mother's old plan illegal, and it forced her to buy a new plan that would accelerate her disease and death. She awaits an appeal from her insurer. Will this injustice be remedied, for her or millions of others? Or is my mother to die because she can no longer afford the treatment that keeps her alive? Like every American, I want affordable health care, and I'm open to innovative solutions of all kinds--individual, corporate, for-profit, nonprofit and public. It will take all of these, and all the intelligence, creativity and self- discipline we have, as well as everything we can offer one another as families, neighbors, friends and citizens--and it still won't be perfect. But it is precisely because health care for 300 million people is so complicated that it cannot be centrally managed. Mr. Blackwood concludes: The ``Affordable'' Care Act is a brutal, Procrustean disaster. In principle, it violates the irreducible particularity of human life, and in practice it will cause many individuals to suffer and die. We can do better, and we must. At this point, I ask unanimous consent that this opinion piece by Stephen Blackwood be printed in the Record.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I see that S. 1963, a bill to repeal certain reductions made by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, is on the calendar. I didn't vote for the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, and my no vote was cast for one reason--this so-called CPI-minus-1-percent injustice done to military retirees. Military retirees under the age of 62--according to this newly passed bipartisan budget bill signed by the President--will not be able to keep up with the cost of living because their annual cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA, would be reduced each year by 1 percent. I think we have clearly pointed out to the American people the injustice of this provision in the Budget Act. An enlisted person would lose approximately $80,000 out of his or her pocket over their lifetime. These military retirees have fulfilled every part of their bargain. After they have done their share and subjected themselves to worldwide duty--perhaps serving in a war zone any number of times--the government comes along in the form of this bill and says: We have changed our minds. We are not going to give you your full cost of living. We are going to take a percent of that each year. For officers it is even more than $80,000 over their lifetime. I believe most Americans now realize that it was a mistake to do this. It needs to be corrected, and we need to go back and keep our promise to military retirees. We have an obligation to do this for our military retirees. At the same time, we have an obligation to future generations not to go back on the budget savings that were so hard fought in this budget act. I supported the level of budget savings, but I didn't like the way they were done. Time and time again I, along with Senator Ayotte, Senator Graham, and others came to the Senate floor and pointed out that there were other ways to pay for the savings that needed to be made in the budget. There are better ways to do that than taking it out of the hides of the people who volunteered to serve their country in the military. We have a bill, S. 1963, that we will be considering, and it is authored by Mr. Pryor, Mrs. Hagan, Mrs. Shaheen, and Mr. Begich. I like the idea of addressing the problem. There is only one fault in the bill. It does not have a pay-for. So of the budget savings that we made last December, some $6 billion of that would simply go away and we would end up spending that $6 billion we were planning to save. Our obligation needs to be to the military people and to future generations. Why do we need to cut $6 billion? Why do we need to stay with the $6 billion in budget savings? Because we have an obligation to do something about the debt. That was the whole reason for the budget bill last December. We are drowning in a sea of debt to the tune of $17 trillion-plus and growing every day. We need to rectify the wrong done to military people, and at the same time we need to find the budget savings elsewhere. Today I will vote to proceed to the bill. I will do so in the hope that Republicans and conservatives will be allowed to offer amendments in the regular order and find the $6 billion in savings needed over a 10-year period to pay for this bill. There is a proposal by me, Senator Ayotte, and Senator Graham that would use an Obama administration pay-for to pay for the cost of rectifying the wrong to the military retirees. It is a closing of a loophole in the U.S. Tax Code. The loophole I am referring to allows people to improperly claim an additional child credit. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that this change could save approximately $20 billion over the next decade. This was an issue identified by the Obama administration's Treasury Department and their inspector general. We are not taking something from the Heritage Foundation. This is something by the Treasury Department of the Obama administration and their inspector general. I simply submit this to my colleagues. Let's rectify the wrong done to the military retirees and also admit we have an obligation to future generations and not add to the debt any more than this Congress has already done. We can fulfill both of these obligations today, and the way to do it is to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed, which I, and I believe many of my Republican colleagues, will do. In return, we ask for regular order on this important bill. Allow amendments and pay-fors through the Ayotte-Graham-Wicker legislation or perhaps through another amendment. If there are Members on the other side of the aisle who have a better pay-for, bring that to the floor, offer it, let the sun shine on these suggestions, and let the American people know where we stand on righting the wrong and protecting future taxpayers. I say to my colleagues, vote yes on cloture on the motion to proceed. I say to the leadership, don't lock it down this time like it has done in the past. Don't fill up the amendment tree. Allow Republicans and Democrats--who have other ideas about how to protect our future generations from a sea of debt--to bring those ideas to the floor, vote on them, and let the American people see that we can correct this wrong to the military without adding $6 billion to the debt. I hope we will have a bipartisan consensus and begin this new year with regular order and allow the elected representatives of the States to work their will rather than having deals cut behind closed doors. I thank the Presiding Officer and note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I wish to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I rise today to commemorate a special occasion for the Tennessee Valley Authority and the city of Tupelo, MS. Eighty years ago, on February 7, 1934, Tupelo, MS, became the first city to receive electricity from the Tennessee Valley Authority. If you visit today, you will see the sign at the intersection of Gloster and Main Streets proclaiming Tupelo as the ``First T-V-A City.'' Tupelo's connection to TVA power has had a tremendous impact, improving the quality of life and economic well-being for residents of Tupelo, the State of Mississippi, and across the South. The success helped Northeast Mississippi become a pioneer of rural electrification. As a resident of Tupelo myself, I am proud of the partnership Mississippi has built with TVA over the past eight decades. Anyone who has experienced a power outage can attest to our reliance on electricity today. It touches almost every aspect of our lives. But imagine a time when access to electricity was confined to major cities and densely populated areas. Luxuries such as the radio, the washing machine, and the refrigerator were known only to those who lived in cities because it was not profitable for energy companies to provide electricity to rural areas. In those days, the difference between life with electricity and life without it was so great that a large migration was taking place from rural to urban areas. Already impoverished regions of the country were at risk of lagging even further behind. Like much of the rural South, Mississippi struggled with restricted access to electricity and the economic limitations it perpetuated. It became clear that improving rural life depended on access to electricity. By 1930 nearly 85 percent of homes in large urban areas had electrical service, but barely 10 percent of rural homes had the same access. In Mississippi, only 1.5 percent of farm homes had electricity--the lowest in the country. The creation of the TVA was a game changer. As America spiraled into a devastating depression, Mississippi Congressman John Rankin worked with Nebraska Senator George William Norris to improve and expand rural electrification. The result of their efforts was the TVA Act, passed by Congress on May 18, 1933. TVA began serving Mississippians in 1933 and powering Tupelo in 1934. The goal was simple: to improve the living and economic conditions of seven Southeastern States. By providing affordable electricity to rural communities, TVA was an important economic boost, delivering a needed commodity to one of the country's poorest regions. Tupelo's proximity to the Wilson Dam on the Tennessee River enabled it to become the first TVA city in 1934, allowing its residents to purchase electricity at some of the most affordable rates in the country. This completely revolutionized life for the citizens of Tupelo and even more Mississippians as TVA expanded. About 50 miles north of Tupelo, the town of Corinth, MS, was also at the forefront of rural electrification, proving that an electric power cooperative could work. In McPeters Furniture Store, ``The Corinth Experiment'' led to the creation of the Alcorn County Electric Power Association--the first electric power cooperative in the United States. In November of 1934 President Franklin Delano Roosevelt came to Northeast Mississippi, stopping in Corinth and Tupelo. We still talk about that visit today. The effort and dedication of the communities in Northeast Mississippi paid off. From 1930 to 1940 the number of farm homes in the State with electricity skyrocketed from 4,792 to 27,670. Today TVA provides reliable, clean, low-cost energy to more than 332,000 households in Mississippi. The TVA of 1934 is much different from the Tennessee Valley Authority of 2014. Eighty years ago hydroelectric dams provided TVA's power. Since then, TVA has developed coal, nuclear, natural gas, and renewable energy--all of the above serving approximately 9 million customers in seven States. I look forward to TVA's continued success, and I congratulate the many Mississippians who have contributed to the legacy of TVA over the past 80 years. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two legislative fellows on my staff, Errol Robinson and Brandon Elsner, be granted the privilege of the floor during the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER. 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

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