Floor Statements

Madam President, it is great to see my colleague from Arkansas. We know Senator Boozman tries hard to help our veterans. I thank him for his public service and for focusing on our men and women, whether they are in uniform now or who have served this country.

In the last few weeks I have talked quite a bit about veterans. We have had the veterans retirement cost-of-living fix and a few others which have brought me to the floor to talk about this very important group of people.

In my State of Arkansas we have nearly 255,000 veterans. They have put on the uniform and served their country. They have put their lives on hold for our country. They deserve to return home to a country which is going to honor the commitments we have made to them and a country which will keep the promises we have made, which is why I have been very supportive of these individuals, especially in the context of the Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act of 2014, S. 1982.

Many Senators are working to make this bill better and get it into a posture where it can pass the Senate. This is a commonsense bill which covers a broad range of topics which are important to our veterans, and a lot of work is going on here behind the scenes. Sometimes when the American people visit the Senate or tune in to C-SPAN 2, they sometimes see an empty Chamber. They aren't always aware of what is going on in the back rooms, here and in the hallways, with folks trying to work through a number of important issues, which is happening with this bill.

I have an important provision in this bill which I have been working on for a while. I think it is going to have broad support on both sides of the aisle, as well as a number of military organizations around the country, called the Honor America's Guard and Reserve Retirees Act. It is kind of a long name, but it is a very simple premise.

Under current law, the military definition of a veteran applies only to servicemembers who have served on Federal active duty under title X orders. This means that many of our servicemembers--most specifically our National Guard members--who have not been deployed under proper orders are falling short of this established criteria.

To put this in perspective: I recently received a letter from an Arkansas veteran named Vincent. He served for more than 20 years in the National Guard. He has protected our families from natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. He served our country by protecting our borders in Operation Jump Start. He served our Nation in Operation Desert Shield, Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom, and in Iraqi Freedom. Yet he still doesn't meet the military definition of a veteran of the armed services.

Vincent isn't the only one. There are 300,000 National Guard and Reserve servicemembers across the country who fall into this same category. My bill, the Honor America's Guard and Reserve Retirees Act, would fix this. It would amend the military definition of veteran to give Guard and Reserve retirees with 20 years of service the honor of being called a veteran. And it is an honor. It would allow these servicemembers to salute when the Star-Spangled Banner is played, to march in veterans' parades, and be recognized as veterans by other veterans.

I know Members of this Chamber will ask, as they should: This is a cost-neutral bill. There is no cost with this. It is simple, it is cost neutral, and it is an overdue recognition of these individual servicemembers who served bravely for our country.

It is time we pass this bill so Vincent and hundreds and thousands of others can receive the honor they deserve.

Madam President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to speak about a friend of mine and a Presidential nominee to be on the Federal bench in Arkansas. I will take 3 to 5 minutes. I know there are others who want to speak.

Today I rise to support the nomination of Judge James Moody--whom in Arkansas we call Jay Moody--to be a Federal judge in the Eastern District of Arkansas. Jay has been a phenomenal judge and lawyer for a long time in Arkansas.

One of the things this nomination illustrates to me and I think also brings home to people around the country is that this body should not play games with the third branch of government. We have our own issues. This body can be dysfunctional and highly partisan. Let's not export that to the judiciary. We have a fine man who has offered his services to be a Federal judge.

If you look at what I like to look at, Is he well qualified? Yes, absolutely. Everyone agrees on that. Can he be fair and impartial? That is what you want in a judge. The answer is yes, he can be very fair and impartial. He has demonstrated that as a member of the Arkansas bench for a long time now.

Also, especially in a district court position, does he have the right judicial temperament? I think every person who has ever dealt with Judge Jay Moody will say that he not only has the right temperament, but he meets and exceeds all of these criteria across the board. He is exactly the kind of judge we should all want.

In fact, there is no reason why Judge Moody was not confirmed back in December. He should have been. But for the wrangling here in the Senate, but for the problems we have had in the Senate in the last several months, he would be a Federal judge today, and he should be a Federal judge today. In fact, 2 weeks ago I came to the floor and asked for consent that we go ahead and just confirm him by unanimous consent, but that was not granted.

Since 2003 Jay Moody has served as a circuit judge--that is a trial court judge in Arkansas--for the Sixth Judicial District, which is the Little Rock area. He previously worked at the Wright, Lindsey & Jennings law firm, which is one of the most prestigious firms in the State. It is a very well-known law firm. It is highly professional, has a great reputation. He became a partner there in 1994, just a few years after he joined the firm. He also spent time as an adjunct professor at the University of Arkansas Bowen School of Law, where he earned his J.D. He is also a member of a number of different lawyer groups and associations--at least he was before he entered the bench.

I could spend 20 minutes talking about his qualifications, talking about what a fine nominee and fine selection Jay Moody is to be a district court judge in the Eastern District of Arkansas, but, honestly, this turns out to be a no-brainer, so I am not going to belabor his qualifications and why we should do this other than to say that I know I am tired--and I think people all over the country are also tired--of the gridlock here in Washington. They look at a State such as Arkansas where we have eight Federal district court judges and we have two vacancies. These vacancies should have been filled back in December. There is no reason why they should not. But they have been working under 75 percent horsepower now for months. We could have fixed that back in December, but because of the wrangling here in the Senate and in Washington, that was not done.

Today is the day we can rectify that. Today is the day we can confirm Judge Moody to be on the Federal bench.

I think we can all be very proud of this nomination. Again, he is exactly what we would all want in a Federal judge. That is confirmed by talking to lawyers in Arkansas. It does not matter if you are a criminal or civil lawyer; it does not matter if you are a plaintiff's lawyer or a defense lawyer; everybody agrees he will be a great Federal judge.

One of his old law partners, the managing partner of Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, Ed Lowther, told me one time--I said: How is Jay Moody on the bench? Of course, we all knew him as a lawyer. How is he on the bench? He paid one of the best compliments a lawyer can pay to a judge. He said, ``He gets his work done.'' Can we really ask for any more than that? He gets his work done. He takes care of it.

In fact, it is almost uncanny when you look at the very difficult, high-profile, complicated cases that come to the trial court level in Pulaski County Circuit Court. Again, that is our trial court there in Little Rock. Almost always, he is the one who ends up with the case. Not only do the lawyers love him and appreciate him, but also his colleagues obviously have a lot of respect, and they often hand off the more difficult cases to Judge Moody.

In fact, I heard a conversation here on the floor just 2 or 3 weeks ago. My colleague, Senator Boozman of Arkansas, is supportive of this nominee and has been helping push this nominee through the process. He went to the Judiciary Committee--by the way, this nomination has come through the Judiciary Committee not once but twice. Senator Boozman helped push him through the Judiciary Committee, helped get him to the floor, and has talked to his Republican colleagues. I overheard a conversation the other day where Senator Boozman was talking to Leader McConnell. John Boozman turned to Senator McConnell and said, ``Mitch, this guy is great.'' He said, ``You could not have picked someone better had you picked him yourself.'' That is really Jay Moody in a nutshell.

With that, I would like to ask my colleagues to vote for this nomination today. I believe we will vote in about 30 to 45 minutes. I am not sure exactly what time we start. But I ask my colleagues to support this nomination.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 360, which was submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, February 25, 2014; that following the prayer

and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business until 11:05 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final half; that at 11:05 a.m., the Senate resume executive session to consider the nomination of James M. Moody to be U.S. District Judge in Arkansas, with the time until 11:15 a.m. equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that following disposition of the Freeman nomination and the resumption of legislative session, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings; that at 2:15 p.m. there be up to 30 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees prior to the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 1982, the veterans' benefits bill.

Mr. President, there will be five votes at 11:15 a.m. tomorrow and a sixth vote at 3:15 p.m.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, I rise to encourage my colleagues to support the nomination of James M. Moody to be a Federal judge in the Eastern District of Arkansas. He is highly qualified, completely noncontroversial, stellar across the board, and meets every criteria anyone could ever have.

So when the times comes, I would appreciate a great vote for Judge Moody.

Madam President, I ask consent that the Senate resume legislative session.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I have a quick notification.

We have two judges on the calendar from Arkansas, Calendar No. 565 and 570. I just alert the Senate that, at the proper time, I plan to ask unanimous consent to confirm these en bloc, and I have very strong reasons why they need to get done before we go to recess.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 565 and 570; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Madam President, I wish to respond and further explain.

We have two judges pending on the calendar right now. In the sequence of judges to be considered, they are No. 2 and No. 7; one is Timothy Brooks and the other is James Moody.

Tim Brooks was nominated by the White House in June and came out of the Judiciary Committee in October. Jay Moody was nominated by the White House in July and came out of the Judiciary Committee in November.

On the Federal bench in Arkansas district court level, we have eight judges. We now have two vacancies. I don't wish to be dramatic and declare a judicial emergency, but certainly people should understand we are only working at 75 percent horsepower right now and we need to get these judges confirmed forthwith.

Yesterday, I stood at my desk and notified the Senate I was going to make this request. I did not receive an objection, as far as I know-- unless maybe a staff person talked to a staff person. But I never heard of any objection.

It is bad enough to have 25 percent of our judiciary in Arkansas which needs to be filled, but the real urgency for this is a matter of State law. James Moody is an elected State court judge. He is an elected trial court judge. Under Arkansas law, this is a nonpartisan position. Our filing deadline for the 2014 election cycle opens on the 24th of February and it goes to March 3.

So here is the problem: Today is February 12. We are about to have a snowstorm tonight and the next few days and next week we are on recess. We come back on February 24. The filing period will already be open in Arkansas. I wish I could tell Judge Moody:

Don't worry about it; you are going to be confirmed when we get back. The way things have worked around here recently, I can't give him that guarantee. I can't give him my word. I can't tell him: Judge, don't file for reelection. Just go ahead and wait and trust that this is going to happen. I can't do that under the circumstances. So he is in limbo.

There are other lawyers and judges in Arkansas who want to run for his position. There is a domino effect in the local judiciary and local bar about this.

Under Arkansas State law, once he files, he cannot get his name off the ballot. These are nonpartisan elections. If they were party elections, he could go to the State party and they could handle it through their primary process or through their rules or whatever. But that is not the case here. There is no party to go to. Once he files and his name is on the ballot, he is on the ballot, and that is a big problem. This is causing a lot of problems back home.

There is no principle involved here. There is no reason why these two judges should be held over. They should have been done at the end of last year. I asked my colleagues to help me do that; I was told no.

We need to get these judges done now so we don't create this problem in Arkansas. Both of these judges are very well qualified. They have all the credentials the American Bar Association looks at. As far as I know, every lawyer in Arkansas is unanimously for both. In fact, I heard my colleague Senator Boozman of Arkansas tell the Republican leader last week: Mitch, if you were picking these judges yourself, you couldn't pick any two better judges.

That is a paraphrase, but that is in effect what he said, and it is true. These are noncontroversial judges. Both these judges should be confirmed now so we don't cause this problem in Arkansas.

I yield the floor, but I will continue to push for these nominations.

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

Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of notifying my colleagues that later today or tomorrow I intend to ask unanimous consent for two of my judge nominees to be voted on this week. Both are noncontroversial, both have been heartily endorsed by Senator Boozman, my colleague from Arkansas, and basically everybody else who has looked at this. These two judges came out of the Judiciary Committee, one of them on October 31 and the other on November 14.

These two judges are completely noncontroversial, but we have a sense of urgency, not only because we have two vacancies on the Federal bench in Arkansas, which is in and of itself a problem, but we have a real sense of urgency because one of these judges is an elected judge. In Arkansas, those are nonpartisan elections. One of these judges is an elected judge and the filing period for his seat opens on February 24 and closes on March 3.

We find ourselves in a situation where we are here this week, then we will be in recess next week. We will then come back on the evening of February 24, presumably for 5:30 p.m. votes, if things work on that day as they typically do around here. We would presumably have a 5:30 p.m. vote, and at that point the filing would be open, with other lawyers and judges interested in that position, and there is a domino effect that happens in Arkansas because of that.

So I am not going to ask unanimous consent right now, but I wanted to put all my colleagues on notice that I intend to do that either later today or tomorrow.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about S. 1963, which is supported by well over 30 veterans organizations. I want to thank my colleagues for their help and their support of the military retirement pay restoration bill that repeals section 403 of the budget agreement, which unfairly singled out our brave men and women in uniform.

I could spend a long time here, but I do not intend to because I know we have other colleagues who are on the way to speak. But I do want to thank my colleagues for their support. We got a huge vote the other night to move to this measure. I do not think there were any dissenting votes. I appreciate my colleagues voting to move to it.

The bottom line is this bill is about honoring the commitments we have made to our servicemembers. My State is the home of nearly 255,000 veterans--255,000 veterans. We only have a population of 3 million. So if you do the math, per capita we have a lot of veterans in my State--a very patriotic State. These brave men and women have put their lives on the line, and they have also put their lives on hold to serve their country, oftentimes in faraway places, far away from their homes and their families and from their beloved country to protect our Nation and defend our way of life.

They have fulfilled their obligations, and we need to fulfill ours. Day after day we get emails and letters and phone calls from Arkansas veterans and their families. They talk about what the Senate is talking about today; that is, whether we should fix this cost of living adjustment or not and even down to the details of whether we should pay for this or not.

Let me just read a few. I have eight Arkansans here who have written in recent weeks.

MAJ Adam Smith of Sherwood said:

When I signed on twelve years ago, I swore an oath to

defend my country, one that I have upheld through four combat

deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Horn of Africa. It

pains me to see that my government is not keeping its faith

in my oath. I have served and will continue to serve

faithfully, but I want my government to properly compensate

me for all the times I nearly made my wife a young widow.

The second one is from Therese Wikoff of North Little Rock. She is an employee of the VA, and she is married to someone in the military. She says:

I see [our veterans] every day struggling. They served and

it is our duty to respect and take care of them.

John Barnwell of Fort Smith says:

I spent a career in the U.S. Air Force defending this great

country from all enemies . . . How could [Congress] even

consider cutting veterans benefits when our sacrifices are

the reason we are even able to live in a free country?

SMSgt John W. Smith of Cabot writes:

I served my country for 28 years with the promise that once

I completed my part, I would be given a retirement for the

rest of my life to include the cost of living increases.

However, it appears the government has decided to change the

promise made and not honor their part of the bargain.

Sam Garland of Jacksonville says:

When I enlisted I was told if I did my time that I would

receive retirement . . . [Don't take away] this hard worked

promise.

Marshall Harmon of Vilonia wrote:

This is a military retirement that I worked extremely hard

for and in fact earned! The documents I was provided at the

time of retirement assured me that my buying power would

remain strong and consistent . . . It seems that is just not

the case.

Chadwick Cagle of Sherwood wrote to say:

I am a military veteran of almost 15 years, including two

deployments to Iraq. I was an Infantryman in the Marine Corps

. . . I find it very frustrating that the reductions in

benefits were taken from the very men and women who have

served and protected this country.

The next will be the last one. I could go on for a long time. As people can tell, I have a lot more where these came from.

Bill Patrick of Mountain Home says:

As a veteran of the U.S. Army, I am saddened by the

provision in this bill that in essence penalizes those that

have given the most for this great country of ours. Although

I do realize the importance of keeping the government funded

and running, I am opposed to the fact that we are doing it on

the backs of those who have served honorably, and long.

I want those words to sink in for my colleagues in the Senate today. These are men and women from my State. The Senators have the same types of folks in their States. They put on the uniform and they serve our country. This is not how we should repay them.

I know that on this floor and out in press conferences and in press releases and all of that, people say: Well, we need to pay for this.

This bill, S. 1963, has no pay-for. The way I feel about it is this cut to their benefits, this cut in their COLA, the 1 percent adjusted downward, doesn't take effect until 2015. We have all of this year to find a pay-for if that is what we decide we are going to do.

But the way I feel about this is they have already paid. They have paid for this with their service. This was something that was added to a budget deal, and it is something I think probably came in and was put in by the House Republicans. In effect, we are trying to solve this problem for them.

But, regardless, I have a list that I did not fabricate for this speech. This stands in my office in Washington every day. I have a similar poster identical to this poster in Little Rock. It is there every day in our lobby, in our entryway for anyone and everyone who comes to the office to see the sacrifice that Arkansans have made to this country. These men and women--there are over 100 listed.

As much as I hate to say it, this list grows all the time. We change this list out frequently. There are over 100 listed. In fact, there are over 110 listed. These are troops from Arkansas or based in Arkansas who paid the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan. These people paid for this benefit.

All of the veterans who will receive this benefit were in the exact same situation that these men and women were, but by the grace of God they made it home. We need to honor the commitments we have made to our veterans.

This is no laughing matter. This isn't politics, this isn't a Democratic thing or a Republican thing, this is an American thing.

Do you know what. When we make commitments to our veterans, if we cannot honor those commitments, we never should have made them in the first place.

I know a lot of people in Washington make all kinds of promises, but we have made these commitments to our veterans. Some of them mentioned when they signed on in the very beginning or when they take their retirement in the very end, it is very clear the type of retirement benefits they will get. Just because it is hard now, because it is expensive, doesn't mean we back out on the commitments we have made to our men and women in uniform. We don't back out on the commitments we have made to our veterans.

But now what we have is we have people in Washington who are saying: We like our veterans, but they need to pay for this. They need to pay for this. I disagree. We have all this year. If we make that decision later to find a way to pay for this change, we have time to find the pay-for later.

I am always reminded when I think of our folks who served this Nation in the military, of this one verse that is found in John 15:13. It says: ``Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.''

I have been to a number of funerals, and I have made a number of calls to these families. I don't know how many people I have talked to who have lost a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan--or in some other military operation somehow, some way--and that is the verse I always remember because they laid down their lives for their country.

Everyone else who puts on that uniform, by the very nature of them putting on that uniform, has made the commitment that they are willing to lay down their lives too. They are in harm's way for us.

I think it is wrong for us to try to lower their benefits. I think it is wrong for us to be having a debate about finding a way to pay for this. We have time to pay for this over the course of this year. I am totally open to talking to people about how to pay for this as we go.

But let's, for crying out loud, not send the message to our men and women in uniform, to our veterans, that we are going to balance the budget on their backs. They are the ones who have made the commitment. They are the ones who have traveled and served overseas.

When it comes to government spending--I just heard a couple of speeches by my friends on the other side of the aisle--everybody who is paying attention knows we can cut unnecessary government programs. We can eliminate duplicative policies. We can do good in the regulatory world to make government more efficient, more effective. We can do that, but we should not use these folks to balance our budget.

I see my colleague from Florida has stepped in. I know he would like to say a few words.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, today I rise in support of S. 1963, the Military Pay Restoration Act.

Last year, the Senate passed the Bipartisan Budget Act--a bipartisan and bicameral agreement that funded our government, provided stability for our

economy, and reduced our deficit by over $22 billion.

I think my colleagues and the American people will agree that last year was tough. We saw the delay of the farm bill, the government shutdown, and the debt ceiling. Needless to say, this budget agreement was a positive step forward.

However, I will be the first to admit--and I think I maybe was the first to admit, possibly--that this wasn't perfect, especially when it came to the harmful budget cuts made at the expense of our men and women in uniform.

There is no question we need to cut our spending. I think almost everyone in this Chamber agrees with that, and I think so many Americans agree with that, but we must do it responsibly. We can address the isues we all talk about, such as cutting waste and fraud and abuse. We can be smart and eliminate items--again, once we think about them and roll up our sleeves and do the hard work and recognize we should--such as unnecessary government property purchases and maintenance, and pursue other cuts such as out-of-date and inefficient programs. All of those issues should be addressed.

But we cannot balance the budget on the backs of our hard-working military members and their families. We are a free nation today because of the sacrifices our men and women in uniform make. They make those sacrifices for all of us. They make sacrifices for the Nation and for the world. They lay their lives on the line for us, oftentimes in places far away from their homes and their families, so we can live in peace right here at home.

Ashley, a soldier's wife from Alma, AR, recently wrote me and said: ``My husband signed up to serve so those that don't want to wouldn't have to.''

We have made a commitment to our servicemembers and we need to honor that commitment today by ensuring they receive the benefits they have earned.

When Aaron of Lake City, AR, signed up for the Army and deployed to Iraq, he counted on those earned benefits to provide for himself and his family. As he said in his letter: ``I held up my end of the contract and I believe the government should uphold their end.''

I agree with Aaron. Singling out our brave servicemembers isn't just unfair, it is wrong.

Dwayne of Drasco, AR, who served in the Air Force, said: ``I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan many times. I left a wife and three kids that depended on me. I fulfilled my obligation.''

The government must right this wrong and fulfill our obligation to servicemembers such as Dwayne.

I have introduced the Military Retirement Pay Restoration bill to repeal section 403 of the budget agreement that unfairly reduces the cost-of-living adjustment benefits for our military retirees under the age of 62 by 1 percent and to ensure that our future military retirees receive their full retirement pay.

Unfortunately, I have heard a lot of back-and-forth here in the Senate and on the Senate floor about this provision. Instead of working against each other, let's work together to get this done. As President John F. Kennedy said:

Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic

answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the

blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for

the future.

We can fix this. Today, we will take an important step forward in fixing it. I am proposing a responsible solution which everyone on this floor should be able to support. In fact, I have even heard Speaker Boehner down the hall here urging his colleagues over in the House to consider supporting legislation that would repeal section 403 of the budget agreement, just as mine does, just as ours does.

Supporting our men and women in uniform is not a partisan issue; it is an American issue. We have seen 30 of the major veterans groups urge us to fix this: the Air Force Association, the Marine Corps League, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the U.S., the Association of the U.S. Navy, the Military Officers Association of America, just to name a few. There are 30 of these organizations that have urged us to fix this. They have told us: ``This provision breaks faith with each individual who has faithfully served their nation for over two decades in uniform.''

So let's fix it. Let's restore America's faith in Congress by doing the right thing today. Let's give our soldiers and their families the unwavering support they have given us. Let's put the partisanship aside, and let's pass this bill. Our military members and their families are counting on us.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.