[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 122 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6243-S6258]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
VETERANS JOBS CORPS ACT OF 2012--MOTION TO PROCEED
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3457,
which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 476, S. 3457, a bill to
require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a
veterans job corps, and for other purposes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the next
70 minutes will be evenly divided and controlled between the two
leaders, with Republicans controlling the first half.
The Senator from Tennessee.
Making Tough Choices
Mr. CORKER. Madam President, this is a great Nation.
I was interested to hear the comments of our two leaders today, and I
am saddened, as are all of us here, regarding the news of Ambassador
Stevens and three other hard-working public servants who represent us.
We are a great Nation. This is a great Nation. People such as those
individuals demonstrate the exceptionalism of Americans all around the
world.
That is why it saddens me to come to the floor today, on the eve of
hearing about whether the Federal Reserve, which will decide tomorrow,
is going to print more money. Our markets are volatile each day, trying
to figure out and read the minds of what our central bankers are going
to do. Two days ago I spoke with one of our leading administration
officials--someone whom I respect greatly--who had just attended a
meeting in the Asian area where Christine Legarde was speaking to a
small group of folks. She is the head of the International Monetary
Fund. She stated that the real difference in how the world is going to
evolve over the next short term and how the economies of the world are
going to react is based upon whether people in Europe and people in the
United States of America are going to rise up and deal with the
problems they have internally.
I look at what is happening on both sides of the Atlantic, with
central bankers printing money to buy debt of great nations--nations
that have evolved, that are sophisticated, that are democracies. They
pave the way for other cultures to evolve and develop economically
themselves. Yet we wake up in a world where because politicians in
Europe and politicians here in the United States of America have not
risen to deal with the fiscal issues within their own countries, the
central bankers are left in a situation where they are printing money
and buying debt in order to move a crisis further away from the day we
now live in.
I know the majority leader talked about negotiations that are taking
place regarding sequester and I know everybody in this body has been
involved in some meeting of some kind to deal with the fiscal issues
our Nation faces. I realize that over the next 60 days there is likely
nothing that we as a body are going to do. I understand that. I don't
think anyone in America expects that is going to happen over the next
week and a half. We will figure out a way to move out of here and
hopefully not do any damage to our country.
What I hope will happen is when we come back after the election,
during a lameduck session or shortly thereafter, all of us will get
serious about dealing with our Nation's fiscal issues. The majority
leader spoke to the economy. I want our economy to do well. I want
citizens in Tennessee and New York and all across our country to do
well. Yet what we have done over the course of the last year and a half
or so is passed silly little bills that have nothing whatsoever to do
with sustaining a long-term economy, and we find ourselves again waking
up on the eve of finding out whether the Chairman of our Federal
Reserve is going to print more money to buy our debt to make it less
painful for us and cause us to be in a position where we put off making
the tough decisions. I hope the Federal Reserve Chairman tomorrow is
going to show the humility he needs to show, that monetary policy has
its limits, and it is up to us now to do our job.
So I am saddened today about the news of some wonderful public
servants having lost their lives. I wake up every day with a tremendous
sense of privilege to serve in this body and to represent people such
as those who died, who are living in tough circumstances around the
world, to make sure that all of us here are safe. I hope what will
happen in this body is that Republicans and Democrats alike will honor
the sacrifices, as we honored them yesterday and we today solemnly
think about, that people make around this world on our behalf to keep
us free and safe, and that we as a body, Republicans and Democrats, are
going to rise and do the things we need to do to put in place a real
fiscal reform package that will not rely upon the sugar of the Federal
Reserve, but that we will do the things we need to do to create a
sustained economy.
I believe--and I think most people in this body know it when they
think about it--we are one fiscal reform package away from being able
to focus on being a great Nation--we are a great Nation--but to be able
to focus on that. When we look at where we are as a country, with the
tremendous energy resources that 2 years ago we didn't even realize we
had in this continent; when we look at the technology breakthroughs
that are happening in this great country; when we look at the
pharmaceutical breakthroughs that are happening and saving lives around
the world, we are one reform package away from putting this problem in
our rearview mirror and focusing on the greatness of this Nation.
So, again, I know we are not going to do anything over the next week
and a half and we are not going to do anything over the next 60 days.
But I hope Senators from all around this country and House Members from
all around this country will come back after this election and have the
courage that has been demonstrated so often by so many Americans to
make the tough choices that are necessary to put our fiscal woes behind
us, to cause this economy to grow, to allow the standard of living of
Americans to rise and, candidly, to help lift hundreds of millions of
people around this world out of poverty. That is what people are
depending on. It is an embarrassment to find ourselves in this position
where we are being diminished around the world, because people are
looking at us--the great example to the world of free enterprise and
limited government and democracy--and knowing that we don't have that
courage today.
So I am hopeful we are going to come back and deal with these issues,
we are going to do it in a bipartisan way, and then as a Nation we can
continue to focus on our greatness and we can help not only uplift our
own citizens through economic growth but help continue to be a beacon
to the world.
I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Honoring Our Foreign Servants
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I have been coming to the
Senate floor on a daily basis to talk about the importance of the wind
production tax credit, and I intend to do so today. But before I bring
up that important topic I want to speak to a situation, an incident,
that is on everybody's mind; that is, what happened in Libya earlier
today.
I think all of us in the Senate adhere, or should adhere, to the
concept that politics should cease at the water's edge. I hope in this
terrible tragedy that philosophy will hold fast. I, along with all
Coloradans, absolutely condemn the murders--and that is what they
were--of Ambassador Stevens and other U.S. State Department personnel
today in Libya.
I am a member of the Senate Committees on Armed Services and
Intelligence, and I know the men and
[[Page S6244]]
women of our diplomatic corps do absolutely vital work under difficult
conditions every single day. Ambassador Stevens was a dedicated public
servant who was working in Libya to advance freedom and democracy, and
we will continue undeterred in our pursuit of those goals.
We salute the service and sacrifice of all those who were taken from
us today, and their families are in our thoughts and prayers.
Wind Production Tax Credit
Madam President, as I mentioned when I first rose, I am here again on
the floor of the Senate to urge all of us to take action on an issue
that already has broad bipartisan support; that is, the renewal of the
production tax credit for wind energy.
I was back in my home State of Colorado for the August work period,
as I know the Presiding Officer and all my colleagues were, and I saw
firsthand the very positive effects wind energy has had on my State of
Colorado. I also saw the sobering effects of congressional inaction,
which only strengthened my resolve to have extended the production tax
credit.
I want to share some specific insights and developments in Colorado
and then move to the State I am going to discuss today in a little bit.
Xcel Energy operates in my home State. It has a wide area in the
upper Midwest as well, but it announced it had set a record for the
amount of electricity generated from wind resources. At one point
Xcel's Colorado customers got over half--to be precise, 57 percent--of
their electricity generated from wind power. This is a huge success,
and it highlights in so many ways the potential that wind energy has to
fill a larger and larger portion of our energy portfolio as this
industry fully matures.
Sadly, though, I also saw the negative effects of our failure to
renew the wind PTC. Vestas Wind systems, which the Presiding Officer is
familiar with, does business in Colorado. It announced layoffs last
month affecting 2,300 workers worldwide who are manufacturing the
turbines themselves, including about 100 workers at Vestas' facilities
in Pueblo and Brighton, CO.
This was both predictable and predicted, and it is time for us to act
to protect American workers in the wind energy industry. Each day we
fail to act to extend the production tax credit, more American jobs are
put at risk, and we further cede more of our clean energy leadership to
foreign competition. Look no further than Colorado for both the promise
of wind energy but also the peril of congressional inaction.
Of course, these effects are not limited to my State. I am biased. I
think I represent the best State in the Nation, but every day I come to
the floor and I highlight a different State and the positive impacts
wind energy has had there. Literally every State in the Nation has a
stake in this crucial wind industry space. Today, therefore, I would
like to talk about the great State of North Carolina where wind energy
has literally boomed in recent years.
North Carolina--as have a lot of States--has seen a tremendous growth
in its wind manufacturing sector. What are the numbers? Well, as of
2012, there are at least 17 wind manufacturing facilities in North
Carolina that provide jobs to their local communities, and at least one
more facility is scheduled to come online soon. The facilities produce
everything from steel to lubricants and bearings.
We can see all the green circles which designate where these
facilities are all across the great State of North Carolina. Let me
focus on one manufacturer in North Carolina. It is PPG Industries. PPG
is a major supplier of fiberglass to the wind industry, and there are
hundreds of jobs linked to its activities. Their fiberglass facilities
are in Shelby and Lexington, which are outside of Charlotte and
Greensboro, respectively. Their growing role has been good for not only
the company but for North Carolina. In 2010 PPG expanded its presence
and brought online an additional furnace and created another 1,800
jobs. In sum, across North Carolina there are over 2,000 good-paying
jobs, and those jobs then create a ripple effect.
If we want to look more broadly at North Carolina, they are
manufacturing but they also have very significant wind energy potential
in the State itself. Offshore wind resources are abundant. The American
Wind Energy Association estimates that wind energy could provide enough
electricity to power some 800,000 homes. That is not all: Onshore wind
resources could also provide a substantial amount of power for the
State.
If we look at these numbers, this is an important industry in North
Carolina. It certainly has made a difference. But if we do not extend
the wind production tax credit, this strong growth in the manufacturing
sector plus the potential to harvest the wind in North Carolina is at
risk and the years of strong progress we have seen here toward a clean
energy future in North Carolina could be literally dashed if the wind
production tax credit expires at the end of the year.
Here is the bad news. The wind industry in North Carolina, because
they are anticipating the expiration of PTC, is beginning to downsize
and shelve expansion plans, predictably. This story is being repeated
potentially all over the country. It is heartbreaking. I remain
hopeful, however. I am dedicated to extending the PTC. I know the
Presiding Officer has been very helpful and very supportive and
understands its importance.
A little bit of good news. The Senate Finance Committee passed a
bipartisan tax extenders package as we left for our August State work
period and it did include an extension of PTC. I want to stress an
important point about that effort: The package was bipartisan. I want
to see the Senate take up the Finance Committee's legislation
immediately and pass it immediately.
In a few hours the House is going to see an interesting discussion.
The Presiding Officer served in the House. So did I. They are an equal
partner of ours in the Senate. Over a dozen Members in the House are
going to take the floor today and express their strong support for
American jobs and the extension of the PTC. I am pleased these members
of the House Sustainable Energy and Environmental Coalition will be
adding their voices to what has become a bipartisan and now bicameral
push to extend the PTC.
As I begin to close, let me also talk about the support that is out
there in the country. It is a broad array of groups that have stood and
said we think the PTC ought to be extended. The U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, the National Governors Association, the Governors' Wind
Energy Coalition, the American Farm Bureau Federation and many major
national newspapers have all weighed in saying this is important to our
country's future.
Members on both sides of the aisle, as I have mentioned, have said
the PTC should be extended because they know and they have seen the
positive effects of the PTC on their communities and across the
country. They also know that wind energy--and renewable energy more
generally--is the future. It is the wave of the future. There is no
question. All you have to do is look at the rest of the world--look at
China, look at Spain, look at Denmark, look at every developed country
and the developing countries in Asia and India. They are all investing
in clean energy. This is not something they are doing just to feel
good. It is where economic growth will occur.
In sum, extending the PTC is a no-brainer. It is common sense. We
ought to be doing the job we were sent here to do. We ought to be
extending the PTC as soon as possible. PTC equals jobs. We ought to
pass it as soon as possible. I am going to continue coming to the floor
every day until we finish the job. I will not stop until we vote to
protect American jobs. Failure to act has already hurt this vital
industry. Continued inaction will result in the loss of thousands of
American jobs which then has a ripple effect on the rest of the
Nation's economy.
Colleagues, stand with me, stand with the Presiding Officer, stand
with American workers. Let's extend the production tax credit now, as
soon as possible.
I thank the Chair for her support and her interest.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 10 minutes
to address the Senate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
[[Page S6245]]
Honoring Our Foreign Servants
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, last night when I went to sleep I was
going over in my mind the speech I wanted to give here today--which is
an important day in the history of the American space program. It is
the day that President Kennedy challenged us to go to the Moon, to land
safely on the Moon and to return safely as well.
When I woke up this morning I woke up to terrible news, to learn that
our Ambassador in Libya had been killed by a mob. We've lost Ambassador
Chris Stevens. We lost three others at the American Embassy in Libya.
It is a terrible tragedy.
At the same time yesterday our Embassy in Cairo was stormed. Thanks
to the vigilance of its leadership and our wonderful Marine Corps
defending the Embassy, we lost no one in Cairo.
Madam President, I first want to extend to all of the families who
lost someone in Libya overnight my extreme and definite condolences and
sympathy. I am a little bit at a loss for words because these tragedies
that happen to our men and women who serve at our Embassies happen all
too frequently and then we say: A grateful nation never forgets; and
then we go on to bash our Federal employees and our State Department
people, saying: Oh, they have these cushy jobs in exotic places and
they must be out eating brie somewhere.
We lost, at the Nairobi bombing, Consul General Bartley, head of our
consulate service, who was serving there, one of the highest serving
African Americans in our Foreign Service. His son interned there that
summer, wanted to be like his dad. They died there. They died there.
But he was at his duty station.
It has been almost 15 years. These men and women were serving the
United States of America. They were at their duty station. They were
trying to help Libya to rise up now to be able to create a government
and be able to create opportunity for its own people, and they gave
their lives. Ambassador Chris Stevens had already served two tours in
Libya but wanted to go back again at this new moment in history, to
stand up, to help Libya stand up a true government that was free and
would give their people a chance at democracy and participating in a
new Middle East.
And then there was Sean Smith, who was a 10-year veteran of the
Foreign Service. He was an information management officer. He had
served in Iraq. He is a father of two children, a devoted husband. We
know what happened to them.
So we must continue our strong partnership with Libya after the fall
of Qadaffi. But I call upon the new leadership: Call for calm, call for
tolerance. If you are angry, there are ways to do protests and so on.
You don't have to go around killing the American Ambassador when our
Air Force flew over Libya and our President and our Congress worked to
support this new government coming up.
And then there is Cairo. Because of anger over a video--I do not know
about this video. I don't know its content but I do know the outcome--
that our Embassy in Cairo was stormed. They tore down our American
flag. They replaced it with another flag. But it is the flag of the
United States of America and our flag is in Egypt. Our flag is in Egypt
because we are great allies to the Egyptian Government and great
supporters of the Egyptian people as they come through the Arab
spring--again, trying to create a new day and a new way.
I say to Ambassador Patterson and the entire staff, again: Our
thoughts and prayers are with you. I was in Cairo. I know what they do
every day. I know how, during the Arab spring many of them were locked
in the Embassy, trying to keep our government functioning while their
own families had to be evacuated. Some did not see their families for 3
weeks because they were inside, they couldn't leave, and we had the
most massive evacuation of civilian employees in our history since,
really, the beginning of some other armed conflicts.
So I say to those embassy staff, both our wonderful Ambassador, Anne
Patterson, but to a lot of the little people who work at the Embassy,
the people who keep the commercial commerce office open, the people who
are doing the wonderful work with NGOs to show them how to build a free
and new kind of society, and also to the foreign nationals who work in
our Embassy--we think about you.
I say to the leadership in both countries again: Call for calm, call
for tolerance. But I say to my colleagues here, we have to call for
calm and tolerance right in this institution. We have to support our
men and women in the State Department, our men and women in the
military. All who serve overseas are representatives of the United
States of America. Whether you are the Peace Corps or the Marine Corps;
whether you are the Foreign Service or the commercial service or
whatever--you are in the service of the United States of America,
promoting our values, trying to help promote democracy and also trying
to have economic and strategic cooperation.
I thank our Foreign Service staff. Many of them live in Maryland but
that is not the point. They live in the United States of America. So I
say to all, when you point your finger and say we don't need a
government--I think we do need a government. And when we talk about
standing up for our military now, in these tough budget times,
absolutely we should. But remember there are others overseas who also
carry our flag in very dangerous areas.
Let's start respecting the people who work for our government. Let's
make sure they have the right resources to do their job and then let
our President, our talented Secretary of State, help work with the
other world leaders to do something to bring about stability.
I feel very strongly about this. I guess what you are hearing from
Senator Mikulski is grief for what has happened in Libya, worry about
what has happened in Cairo, tension about what continues to happen in
the Middle East, and then frustration about what goes on here. When all
is said and done--more gets said than gets done and what is said is
often not very good.
The world is watching us here. We are supposed to be the greatest
democracy in the world. Not only are we supposed to be, I believe that
we are. But democracy begins with us. Democracy is not only something
written on a piece of paper which are our founding documents but we
have to live what is in those founding documents. We have to, first of
all, start with civility, start with respect, start with conversations
among ourselves about how we could truly work together to help our
country and to help our country help the world.
50th Anniversary of President Kennedy's Space Flight Speech
This is what it was all about 50 years ago when a young President
went to Rice University. The Russians were pounding their chests. They
put something up in the air called Sputnik. President Eisenhower had
responded. We were going to do something called the National Defense
Act. We were promoting math and science to catch up with the world.
Does it sound familiar? Then, also, though, our President wanted to do
more and he went to Rice University. During that speech he rallied the
Nation on why, as part of his vision of the New Frontier, why we should
travel into space. That historic day he said:
We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in
this decade, and do other things, not because they are easy,
but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to
organize and measure the best of our energies and our skills.
That is how in a robust way we took a nascent space program and
transformed it into a space superpower. It literally took us to the
frontier of space and took us to a new frontier.
For those 50 years, America continued to lead the way in space and to
keep space a peaceful area. Not to militarize space, not to colonize it
for a single country, but to explore and along the way in exploring the
universe to get to invent science and technology that would help
transform our lives here.
America continues to lead the way in space. As an appropriator for
the space program I am so proud of what we continue to do--what we
continue to do in the area of space exploration, space and space
science.
Look at where we are now. We are right up there in the space station.
We have completed its development. We are going to do new research that
has never been done before and we are part of our wonderful, gallant
astronaut
[[Page S6246]]
program. At the same time, we have invented new technologies to explore
the universe. The work for the Hubble Telescope is located in Maryland
both at Goddard and the Space Telescope Science Institute.
Most recently, we landed Curiosity on Mars, a robot the size of a
Mini Cooper, that will tell us so much about our nearest neighbor. As
President Kennedy might have said, I sent Curiosity to Mars not because
it is easy but because it is hard and we are very curious.
Over the summer, we lost two of our great people--two of our great
astronauts. We lost Dr. Sally Ride, the first woman to go into space,
whom we so admired, and then we lost astronaut Neil Armstrong, who on
July 20, 1969, took that giant step for mankind.
Tomorrow at the National Cathedral we will honor Astronaut Neil
Armstrong, and later this year at the National Space Museum we will
honor Dr. Sally Ride. We not only want to respect our astronauts of the
past, we want to respect the astronauts of today and our astronauts of
tomorrow. We want to respect all those wonderful young men and women
who want to study space and aeronautics, who want to explore the new
frontiers of today and will come up with new ideas that will lead to
new jobs tomorrow.
We keep asking NASA to do the hard jobs, such as explore the
universe, protect the planet, make airplanes safer and more reliable,
look beyond the reach of Earth, develop those new technologies, and
search for extraterrestrial life out there. Maybe it is out there,
maybe it isn't--study Earth as if it were a distant planet. Maybe there
is intelligent life on Earth. Let's look for that, and let's look for
it right here. We need to continue to broaden our reach, to go beyond
low-Earth orbit and also continue our research.
This year, there was a unique, bold partnership when a private
company, SpaceX, sent cargo to dock at the International Space Station.
No private company and few nations have accomplished that. This year,
SpaceX will be joined by another private company, Orbital Science,
which will launch from the east coast Spaceport Wallops. They are
located in Virginia. It is a Maryland-Virginia cooperation. How
exciting.
Our future in space will be built on innovation and discovery,
whether it is the commercial rocket industry, the James Webb Space
Telescope that will take us well beyond the work of the Hubble, new
technologies, including fixing satellites or, again, that mission to
planet Earth. New technologies don't just happen; they come from
American ingenuity, but they are built through investments. They made
America great and they made the missions of the United States worth
imitating.
In the last couple weeks the Presiding Officer talked about an
exceptional America. America is exceptional because of the daring and
the do of people such as our astronauts, because of talented people who
think and study and come up with new ideas and because their government
backed them.
I wish to conclude by saying I am proud of what President Kennedy
announced. Right here in this body two people teamed up. Actually, it
was one person in this body and the other was a Vice President. It was
an odd couple. Their names were Vice President Lyndon Johnson and
Margaret Chase Smith. Margaret Chase Smith was once the longest serving
woman in Congress. I now hold that record. Margaret Chase Smith, from
Maine, was a devotee of the space program. President Kennedy set the
goal. He gave it to Lyndon, his Vice President, to make the goal into a
reality. The Vice President turned to Congress, and Margaret Chase
Smith helped carry the weight of the Congress to put in the right
policies and the right funding. Isn't that a wonderful story? It is a
wonderful story we need to take with us, that when we work together
with our President and both parties work across the aisle, that is the
new frontier which takes and keeps America an exceptional Nation.
God bless our President Kennedy, all the astronauts who risked their
lives, and everyone who worked to create these new frontiers.
I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I rise today to express my strong
support for the Veterans Jobs Corps Act. I am proud to be a cosponsor
of the bill. I would like to thank Senator Nelson for introducing the
bill, and I would like to thank Senator Murray, chair of the Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committee, for bringing this bill to the Senate and
for all she has done for our Nation's veterans.
Veterans have done so much for our country, serving courageously in
the military, and they have been tested so profoundly and so many times
over the last decade. These men and women have done everything for us.
We owe them. That means they deserve the best health care and other
benefits they have earned from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
And that means a home. Last weekend I was back in Minnesota for
Habitat for Humanity, making critical home repairs for a Minnesota
Guard veteran, SGT Brian Neill, and his family. Brian is a 23-year
veteran of the National Guard, is part of the Minnesota National Guard
unit, the legendary Red Bulls, who had their deployment in Iraq
extended so that it was one of the longest, if not the longest,
deployment in U.S. history.
While Brian was in Iraq, his son was hit by a drunk driver while
returning home from his junior ROTC training. He sustained a severe
brain injury and is severely disabled.
In Iraq, Brian, who mentored younger soldiers, saved the life of one
of those solders. Brian, being a 23-year vet, mentored these young
kids. They were in a convoy, and he saw one of them get out and
collapse. He recognized the heatstroke and saved his life.
Sergeant Neill himself returned from Iraq suffering from very serious
physical and psychological wounds that leave his wife Jane as a
caregiver for both Brian and their son. I have to tell you, they are
the most wonderful people. It was an amazing experience to help them
with home repairs to make sure they will have the home that meets their
needs.
But when I talk to veterans in Minnesota these days, the thing I hear
most about is jobs, about employment. Jobs mean money, of course, but
it means much more. It means a new mission. Without a job, you really
cannot reintegrate into your community and start a new phase of your
life.
Veterans unemployment in Minnesota, as I am sure it is in the
Presiding Officer's State of New York, is way too high. My message to
employers in Minnesota is simple: These are the people you want to
hire. They have skills. They have discipline. We all have a role to
play in making sure veterans have jobs--employers in the private
sector, State government, colleges and universities, municipalities,
and also the Federal Government.
This is how we do it in Minnesota. Let me give an example. We had
several thousand Red Bulls deployed to Kuwait. The Minnesota National
Guard recognized that a large number of them were not going to have
jobs when they came back, so the Guard and Minnesota's outstanding
Department of Employment and Economic Development went upstream, as
they say, to Kuwait to get ahead of the problem. They brought corporate
leaders from Minnesota, businesses such as Target and Best Buy, and
they also brought folks from MNSCU, which is the Minnesota State
Colleges and University System, to Kuwait to provide training for the
Guard members on entering or reentering the workforce. They were able
to share valuable information with the Red Bulls on writing resumes,
getting ready for an interview, and doing it well.
One of the problems is that very often soldiers coming back from
Afghanistan, coming back from Iraq, from Kuwait, very often in a job
interview will say: We did that, we did this, we did that. That is how
you think in the military. Employers want to know what you yourself
individually did. So it was simple. The employment guys from Target
said: Say ``I''--you know, little tips like that. And it has been very
helpful.
[[Page S6247]]
So we all have a role to play. At the Federal level, last year we
passed the VOW to Hire Heroes Act that expanded and created new tax
credits for businesses that hire veterans. I have been spreading the
word in Minnesota--I know the Presiding Officer has been spreading the
word in New York--so our businesses know that for every unemployed
veteran they hire, they can get a tax credit for up to $9,600. That is
$9,600 for hiring a veteran who has a service-related disability and
then ratchets down a little bit. But this is a good incentive for
businesses to be hiring our veterans.
The legislation we are considering today, the Veterans Jobs Corps
Act, is the next step that we can and should take at the Federal level.
The bill creates a Veterans Job Corps through the Department of
Veterans Affairs, in cooperation with other departments, where
thousands of veterans will be able to work on conservation and resource
management in our Nation's public lands. Under this bill, veterans will
have the opportunity to restore and protect parks, forests, and other
public lands, whether they be national, State or tribal. Veterans will
be hired to maintain the infrastructure and facilities on these public
lands. It will also provide funding for veterans to become firefighters
and law enforcement officers. It will also provide licensing and
certification for certain skills veterans had when they were deployed--
emergency medical, nursing assistants, and also drivers. Many men and
women drive in these theaters, and to ease their getting certification,
this bill does that as well so they can work in our Nation's parks and
these national lands that are so treasured.
This is really based on the Civilian Conservation Corps, the CCC from
the New Deal, which was created through a combination of actions by
Franklin Roosevelt and legislation, of course, by Congress. It was very
successful. It was the most popular program of the New Deal. In fact,
at that time veterans were specifically included among those who could
be enrolled in the CCC. As I said, the CCC was one of the most
successful programs to help us get through the Depression.
My wife Franni's uncle James, who died not long ago at the age of 96,
worked for the post office, the Postal Service, and served with the
U.S. Army postal service in England, France, and Germany during World
War II--a ``greatest generation'' guy. But before that, during the
Depression, he joined the Civilian Conservation Corps. He was part of
the crew that built the road through Evans Notch, a beautiful,
mountainous area at the border of Maine and New Hampshire. My wife is
from Maine. This was one of James' proudest achievements in life. If
you read his obituary, it was one of the most prominent parts, along
with his service during World War II.
That is the kind of thing the Veterans Job Corps can be. We have to
do this work on our public lands, our parks, our forests. Our public
lands need to be maintained and preserved and improved. Why not put our
veterans to work doing it? They have the skills, they have the
experience, and they have the discipline. For instance, if you spent a
lot of time on duty outside and you work in teams, which is obviously
true of a huge number of those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, you
are going to be very well suited for this work. If you built roads in
Iraq or Afghanistan, you are well prepared to maintain or manage
resources in Minnesota's beautiful parks, forests, trails, and other
public lands--under a little less pressure, by the way.
Minnesota has over 227,000 acres of land in 73 State and national
park and recreation areas. That does not count our innumerable public
lands under more local jurisdiction. Those are some of the most
beautiful places in the country--the Boundary Waters Canoe Area,
Voyageurs National Park, Superior and Chippewa National Forests, or the
trail along the Mississippi and St. Croix Rivers, just to name a few.
Those need to be protected, maintained, improved, and restored too.
This is important work, and it is dignified work. If you are making
sure it is in your obituary 70 years later, you know it is very
important, dignified work. What better way to preserve the beauty of
these places than having veterans do it, for our heroes to do it.
The bill also incorporates a number of other veterans job provisions
from other bills sponsored by my colleagues from both sides of the
aisle. The one I started to mention before is the certification-
licensure requirements for becoming a nursing assistant or emergency
medical technician--I knew I was looking for a word; it was
``technician''--and for getting a commercial driver's license. This is
also an issue on which my colleague, my senior Senator from Minnesota,
Ms. Klobuchar, has spent a lot of time.
The provision in this bill authored by Senator Pryor also states that
they have to take military training into consideration in issuing
licenses for those jobs if they want to continue getting Federal funds
for some important veteran employment programs that States administer.
This will provide an additional incentive for States to make sure that
servicemembers' highly relevant training and experience in these fields
can be translated into civilian qualifications, eliminating the need
for duplicative training and opening the door to many more jobs for
highly trained veterans.
I can tell you, after seven USO tours, our men and women in the
military are magnificent. They are highly trained and, man, are they
disciplined and, man, are they great. They deserve this. The Veterans
Job Corps is a great idea for employing our Nation's veterans doing the
important work of preserving, protecting, and improving our Nation's
public lands and serving as first responders, police, and firefighters.
It is my strong hope that we will be able to bring debate on this
bill to a close, pass it, and have it enacted into law. Our Nation's
veterans deserve nothing less.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about
the bill that is pending, and I must say: Here we go again. And let me
say that what we are doing today, under the auspices of helping
returning veterans get jobs--and there is nothing wrong with wanting to
do that and there is nothing wrong with trying to pay for that--is
really passing a bill for political reasons so we can say we did
things, because this is not going anywhere in the House of
Representatives.
A couple of points I would make are that, first, yesterday, on the
anniversary of 9/11, we started the consideration of this bill, but
this bill has had no hearings, no committee work, and essentially no
debate until today, despite the fact that it will affect six different
Federal agencies, at a minimum.
Before I discuss the bill itself, though, I want to mention another
anniversary. One year ago yesterday, SPC Christopher D. Horton, Army
SPC Bret D. Isenhower, and Army PVT Tony J. Potter, Jr. were killed in
Afghanistan. They were 1 of 13 Oklahomans from the Oklahoma National
Guard serving in Afghanistan who paid the ultimate sacrifice--a pure
and noble sacrifice. As we debate a bill that will largely benefit
those who have safely returned home after serving their country, it is
important that we not forget those who gave the ultimate sacrifice,
this pure and noble sacrifice for the benefit of the rest of us.
The bill before the Senate provides $1 billion--$1 billion--in
mandatory spending. For the folks at home that means it is not subject
to appropriations; it will be spent, period, regardless of what we do
if we pass this bill and the President signs it--over 5 years for the
creation of a new mandatory program called the Veterans Jobs Corps.
One point I will make is that we already have six veterans jobs
programs and not one of them has a metric on it to see if it is
working. There hasn't been one hearing to see what the jobs programs we
are running now are doing, to measure their effectiveness or their cost
effectiveness and see if they are actually performing for veterans what
we say we want them to do. Yet we have a bill on the floor that didn't
go through that committee, where no
[[Page S6248]]
hearings were held, and we are going to do the same thing again.
Because there is not a metric in this bill.
So what is happening here is we are playing the political election
card to say, How could anybody oppose a veterans jobs corps bill? The
real question to be asked is: How callous is it to put forth a
political bill when we have no idea whether it may or may not work, for
the pure political purpose of an election, without looking at the whole
of the veterans jobs programs? There is not going to be any
congressional oversight on this.
Just 2 weeks ago I released a report on job training in my own State.
I was highly effective in looking at every Federal Government job
training program, veterans and nonveterans alike, in my State. I looked
at every State job training program and then published a report. Here
is what the report found.
And, by the way, we have 47 other job training programs, of which 90
percent don't have metrics on them, and we spend $19 billion a year on
those job training programs.
What we found is that State-run, State-financed, State-supported job
training programs work in Oklahoma. We actually take our own money,
with our own institutions, with our own individuals and our own
employees, knowing what businesses and industry and service industries
and institutions need, and we match job training to what those needs
are and actually put people to work. Consequently, Oklahoma has a 4.7-
percent unemployment rate. So we are highly effective at training
people for the jobs that are available. But we are not very effective
with the Federal programs.
The assessment in Oklahoma--and I am not sure it applies across the
country, but it certainly does in Oklahoma--is that we are very good at
employing people in the job training industry but not very good with
Federal dollars when it comes to training people a life skill to keep
them employed.
This legislation is going to provide $1 billion for the Federal
Government to hire veterans on a temporary basis.
I understand that Senator Burr's recommendations are going to be
incorporated. That is a marked improvement to the bill. His puts them
in line for a career, not a temporary job--which shows the lack of
thinking because Senator Burr, the ranking member on VA, couldn't get a
hearing. We didn't have a markup, didn't have a chance for ideas to
flow through. I am not certain we are going to have amendments. I have
four I would like to offer to the bill that are better pay-fors and
will actually improve the bill. I am not sure we are going to do that
either.
So we didn't have a hearing, and we didn't have a markup. We come to
the floor, and we are not going to have amendments. What is this really
all about? Is this about veterans or is this about politicians? I
suspect it is about politicians. I suspect it is about elections and
not veterans.
The legislation grants broad authority to the Department of Justice,
Department of Defense, Department of Labor, Department of Agriculture,
Department of Commerce, Department of Homeland Security, the Interior
Department, and the Army Corps of Engineers to hire veterans in jobs
such as conservation and first responders.
However, to comply with the pay-go rules, we manipulate the system
again. We include revenue increases to equal the cost of the bill. We
do that by requiring a continuous levy on payments to Medicare
providers and suppliers--which is not a bad idea--and also by denying
or revoking passports in cases of seriously delinquent taxes. I have
heard that is going to be pulled, but nobody knows. Nobody has seen it.
That is why we have committees, so we don't have to play with things
before we have a base bill and we know what it will do.
The bill already violates the Budget Control Act's allocation for
Veterans Affairs funding. It is subject to a 302(f) point of order
because it is outside the bounds of their appropriations.
The bill also states a distinct preference for veterans of the
current war in Afghanistan and the most recent war in Iraq by stating
that these jobs are primarily for veterans who have served since
September 11, 2001.
As with the veterans caregiver bill in 2009, this is blatant
discrimination against our other veterans. One class of veterans is
better than another class of veterans? Tell me how. Is somebody who
died in the Vietnam war less honorable than somebody who has given
their life in Afghanistan? Yet we are making that distinction in terms
of the benefits available to those who served our country honorably.
So we are blatantly discriminating against veterans who served before
9/11. I would also remind us that those veterans didn't have the post-
9/11 GI bill. They didn't have the other significant benefits that have
come along and been passed down, both paid benefits, family transfer of
the post-9/11 bill, or the educational benefits for in-service that the
present veterans have.
Another thing I would remind my colleagues is that right now there is
a preference in every branch of the Federal Government for hiring
veterans. It is already written into law. Since 1944 the Federal
Government has stated that veterans with honorable or general
discharges are preferred for hiring in competitive positions and may
also be hired without competition in many cases. In other words, they
get an absolute preference. Disabled veterans get even a higher
preference over nondisabled veterans. Veterans also have priority in
retention in terms of government downsizing: If you were a veteran, you
don't get downsized; if you are not a veteran, you will.
Senator Burr's bill--which it appears the majority will take and add
to their bill rather than replace their bill--will direct the Office of
Personnel Management to require that each of the 10,000 job vacancies
presently in the Federal Government today should be filled by veterans.
This would actually provide a real career path for veterans, not a
temporary make-work job slot that will go away as soon as the $1
billion runs out.
According to a 2011 GAO report, there are six job training programs,
which I have outlined, already on the books. They are not working, but
they are on the books, and we are spending money on them. We have no
metrics to know whether they are working. We have had no oversight
hearings to know whether they are working. None has ever been held.
There is the Labor Department's Disabled Veterans Outreach Program.
It does job readiness, skills training, retention training, and
employment counseling.
The Labor Department's Homeless Veterans Reintegration Project does
everything the first one I mentioned does.
The Labor Department's Veterans Employment Representative Program
does exactly the same thing as the first two.
The Labor Department's Transition Assistance Program does job search
and job readiness training.
The Labor Department's Veterans Affairs Workforce Investment, again,
does all the same tasks as the first two I mentioned.
The Veterans Affairs' Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans Program
does nearly everything from job training to employment counseling to
job referral to on-the-job training to basic adult literacy.
This bill and those training programs are in addition to the post-9/
11 GI bill and the Tuition Assistance Program, which provides 100
percent tuition assistance plus expenses, plus a monthly stipend salary
for unemployed or any other veterans to attend college, vocational
training, pursue licensure, with fees paid for by the Federal
Government, and allows them to transfer this benefit to their spouses.
The question I have, with that benefit--and we are doing another one
now for political purposes, not because we really care about veterans--
why isn't this one working? We are going to spend billions on the post-
9/11 GI bill, and we are going to pay them at the rate of a
noncommissioned officer all the time they are going to college. Why
isn't that working? Where is the oversight hearing to see why what we
just did 2 years ago isn't working?
Instead, what we are going to do is--which the Congress has done
under both Democrats and Republicans--we are going to throw in more
money and do another one. Instead of measuring what works and measuring
what we are doing, we are going to create another program. Granted,
supposedly it is only 5 years.
[[Page S6249]]
When it comes to 5 years, what will happen whether it works or not?
Nobody will vote against extending the veterans program, will they? How
can anyone be against veterans?
So we would not do the hard work of having committee hearings; we
would not do the oversight. We would not even change this bill to make
sure it has absolute metrics on what it is doing. So we are continuing
down the road to bankruptcy, all in the name of putting a bill--that
isn't going to pass the House--on the Senate floor so two or three
Members of the Senate can go home and claim they did something.
I think it is hypocritical. I don't think it matches the pure valor
of the three individuals I mentioned. It doesn't come close. It doesn't
measure up. Those 13 Oklahomans who died in Afghanistan this last year
from the Oklahoma National Guard, the Thunderbirds, represented the
real value of America. This bill doesn't.
The post-9/11 GI bill pays 100 percent of the highest cost public
school in any State. So veterans can go to the best public school paid
for completely by the government if they are a post-9/11 veteran. They
can get the same equivalent pay as a noncommissioned officer the time
they are going. That is what we have already got out there.
Without this legislation, today any unemployed veteran who can get
into a community college can go for free, receive 3 years' of pay, all
their expenses paid, their housing paid--all of those things paid.
Well, if that isn't working, why isn't it working? Where is the
hearing to find out why that isn't working? No, we are just going to
pass another bill without a hearing, without a committee markup, for
politically expedient purposes. Oh, it is just $1 billion.
Where is our honor? Where is our valor? Where is our sacrifice?
The Department of Defense Tuition Assistance Program, another
program, while you are in the military, is paid for. All you have to do
is make a C or better--online, off line, whatever way you want to go.
So let me summarize: We have the Tuition Assistance Program, we have
the post-9/11 GI bill, we have the GI bill, we have six separate VA job
programs. We have a bill on the floor to do another one, and nobody is
asking the question: What is wrong with what we are doing now, and why
aren't we fixing it?
If what we are doing now isn't working, why aren't we fixing that?
Why aren't we going to allow amendments to fix things? Why are we going
to fill the tree and not allow the process that our Founders for
designed the Senate to work so that all ideas could be considered?
No, this is a political exercise. I am going to call it what it is.
This isn't about veterans; this is about politicians. My hope is that
we wake up before our country fails.
When I came to the Senate, the average family's responsibility for
public debt per individual was $26,000. Within the 8 years I have been
here, it is now 51,400 and some-odd dollars. We are playing a game. We
are thinking short term. We are worried about political careers and
elections, but we are not worried about the country. This is about the
greatest example of the incompetence of the Congress of United States I
have ever seen.
I am for helping veterans, I am for paying for it, and I am for
making sure they get rewarded for their service and their sacrifice.
This bill isn't it. This is a charade. That is exactly what it is. To
call it anything else dishonors the service of those who have defended
and protected our country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Honoring Our Foreign Servants
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, like many of my colleagues, before I
begin my remarks on the subject that brings me to the floor today,
which is the DREAM Act, I wish to take a moment to reflect on the
brutal, unconscionable attacks that occurred on our diplomatic posts in
Libya and Egypt. Like many of my colleagues, I am outraged and saddened
by the brutal murder of four courageous Americans in a cowardly,
unconscionable attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Their
families are in the thoughts and prayers of my family as they are for
many others of my colleagues.
These great diplomats were patriots and professionals, putting their
lives on the line to advance American ideals and interests. Their vital
work is done daily by countless Americans, diplomats abroad who serve
in every corner of the world.
In my own visit to Libya last year with a number of my colleagues,
including Senator McCain and Senator Graham, I saw the vital work and
the accomplishments of such brave Americans on the ground as well as
the great peril and severe danger they constantly face. I also saw
their sense of satisfaction and patriotism in the work they are doing.
I add my voice to that of my colleagues asking for more support for
security, enhanced safeguards, and protection for our diplomats in
these kinds of situations. They go about their work with understated
perseverance and determination as well as constant courage in the face
of often chaotic and unpredictable dangers.
The cowardly attacks on these patriots should not deter the people of
Libya from moving forward. Neither should it deter us from working
together with others abroad who have a common interest in tolerance,
freedom of speech, and democracy.
I commend President Obama and Secretary Clinton for their immediate
response to this situation, their words of encouragement. I wish
Godspeed to the Marine Corps Fleet Anti-terrorism Security Team en
route to Libya.
The diplomats who were killed in this tragic and brutal action
embodied American values and the highest traditions, not only of the
professionals among our career diplomats, but all who serve and
sacrifice for this country in uniform in very similar situations of
danger--the marines who guard our embassies as well as the other
marines and troops who are fighting on foreign soil to uphold our
freedoms.
The DREAM Act
Those American values in some sense bring me also to the floor today
to talk about the DREAM Act and about a young generation of people in
our communities across America and across the country who would benefit
from this important legislation. Our immigration system right now is
broken and is in dire need of comprehensive reform. Any comprehensive
immigration reform legislation must include the DREAM Act. I believe
the DREAM Act is worthy of adoption without that comprehensive
overarching reform because these young Americans in our communities
deserve the opportunity to earn their citizenship by contributing to
our Nation. That is exactly the opportunity the DREAM Act seeks to
afford them.
Over this last recess I was pleased to talk to many of those
DREAMers. I was particularly proud to talk to them about the work a
number of us are doing here, to try to achieve and make possible this
legislation that would enable and empower them to contribute further. I
am grateful to Senator Durbin and others who have championed this
measure at the Federal level, much as I have done in the State of
Connecticut as attorney general. I was also proud to talk about the
Department of Homeland Security's Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals policy. This policy took effect on August 15 when DHS started
to accept applications for deferred action.
Under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DREAMers will have
a temporary reprieve--and I emphasize temporary reprieve--from
deportation. This policy step is a good one. It is in the right
direction. But it affords only a temporary reprieve.
The DREAM Act would afford a permanent path to individuals who
qualify: individuals who have entered the United States before the age
of 16; they have been brought here by parents who may be undocumented--
but young children, many of them much younger than 16, most of them in
fact younger than 5 or 6 years old and who have been present in the
United States for at least 5 consecutive years prior to enactment of
the bill; are here through no fault or action of their own but who want
to be here permanently and contribute and give back. They must have
graduated from a U.S. high school or have obtained a GED or have been
accepted into an institution of higher education. They must be between
the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of application and be of good moral
character.
These requirements establish a path for people who want to
contribute,
[[Page S6250]]
have come here through no fault of their own, know the United States as
the only country where they have ever lived. They usually speak no
other language. Their life and their friends and their future are here.
I want to talk, as I hope to do literally every week that I am able,
about an individual who embodies the DREAM Act. Her name is Zuly
Molina. Her full name, actually, is Zuleyma Molina, but she goes by
``Zuly.'' She is a proud member of our Connecticut community, one of
11,000 to 20,000 young people living in Connecticut who would benefit
from the DREAM Act. Zuly is here with us today through her picture. I
want to talk about her life, which has been full of hardships and
challenges, but also her future.
She was born in Mexico and brought to America when she was 6 years
old. Her family settled in Connecticut--in fact, in New Britain. She
had to learn English, which was not easy for her. In fact, she was
taunted and bullied because of her lack of language skills. But she was
up to the challenge. She learned English. She speaks it absolutely
fluently. She decided to go to the library and translate books on her
own so that she would have a command of English. She went through the
New Britain public schools and graduated from New Britain High School
in 2008, but at that point there were additional challenges.
Zuly wanted to stay in Connecticut and perhaps attend 2 years of
community college before going to a 4-year institution. But she was not
eligible at that point for in-State tuition and the option of staying
in Connecticut was simply too expensive.
What did she do? Endlessly resourceful and determined, she decided to
commute every day to Bay Path College in Massachusetts. There she
worked in many leadership positions outside the classroom. She was
president of Rotaract, which is Rotary's youth service club for young
people. She was vice president of the Bay Path Christian Fellowship.
She was cocaptain of the cross-country team. And she graduated with a
bachelor's degree in biology, becoming the first college graduate in
her family.
She felt discouraged even after graduation because she knew she could
not apply for many jobs that require documentation. She decided to
pursue further education, a master's degree from Bay Path College in
occupational therapy. She understands now life will not be easy, but
her goals of working for a hospital's feeding program and pursuing an
MD are realistic. She hopes she can pursue that profession so she can
work for nonprofits that help families with low income--not altogether
different from the one where she grew up.
It has taken many years for Zuly to accept and thank her mother for
sending her to America. She would be upset--more than upset--if the
land of her life, the land that she loves--America--refuses to give her
the opportunity to stay here. She has that opportunity temporarily with
the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program. It is an
administrative program. It could be ended with a new administration. It
could be ended by any administration virtually overnight. She has
applied for deferred action and she is undergoing the process, but she
deserves more than a temporary reprieve. That is why I stand here
urging my colleagues to enable Zuly to come out of the shadows, to seek
a career that will enable her to contribute mightily and monumentally
to all of us as a doctor, and to raise a family of her own here, as a
proud United States citizen.
To these young people who identify as Americans and who were brought
to this Nation at young ages as children or infants and who are here
through no fault of their own, I urge my colleagues to offer one of the
greatest gifts, one of the greatest privileges one can have, which is
United States citizenship, so that we can say to the DREAMers on some
day soon, ``my fellow American.''
Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
allowed to speak as if in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Ryan Budget
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we are at a moment in time when
Americans across the country are confused by what they are hearing; it
is hard to discern truth from fiction.
One of the proposals that is being talked about is from the
Republican nominee for Vice President, Paul Ryan, who is known for his
budget proposals. We have to look at them squarely and decide what is
reliable, what is true, and what is, as I said earlier, fiction.
Those proposals cut taxes for the rich, raise taxes on the middle
class, while abandoning the sick, the poor, and our children. The Ryan
budget can only be good for one very small group of Americans: the
wealthiest among us.
Now, I was fortunate to succeed in business--succeed in a way that
would have been impossible to dream about when I was growing up in a
poor family. But I was helped by our country's government for my
service in the military during the big war.
But in our democracy, each person gets one vote. So what do you do as
a candidate for national office when your vision for the country is
good for the few and bad for the many? You can pretend it is good for
everybody. You can say it will benefit all Americans. In short, you can
substitute fiction for truth. This approach was on brilliant display at
the Republican Convention when Paul Ryan claimed the Republican plan
would help the middle class--help that, frankly, we believe would take
us downhill instead of Operation Uplift.
An article on Fox News' Web site described his convention speech as,
``an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number
of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political
speech.''
Fox News, a conservative communications organization. Maybe that is
why they call him ``Lyin' Ryan.'' His speech in Tampa was the most
public and extreme example of the smokescreen he has been blowing
around here for a long time. So today I want to look at the numbers in
Paul Ryan's budget because numbers don't lie, even if some politicians
do.
It is obvious Paul Ryan doesn't want us to see the specific programs
he would cut, but let's look at the devastating consequences if his
cuts were distributed evenly.
Under the Ryan budget, 200,000 preschool children would be kicked off
of Head Start rolls in 2014. We have a chart that clearly shows that.
Imagine slashing funding for a program designed to help children learn
how to learn. In our country today there are many situations where
children don't have parental advice or the encouragement of parents to
learn. Head Start is a terrific program because Head Start teaches
these children that learning is fun, so that when they enter school
they are ready to accept learning and they look at it as something that
will be interesting and pleasant and worth doing. Ryan's cuts are
shortsighted and they are cruel and they will only harm America's
future.
As much as $115 billion could be cut from education funding over the
next decade if we follow the Ryan budget. With less support and rising
costs for higher education, young people would be forced to take on
more debt in order to attend college. If we were to talk to college
students today, we would learn how tough it is, so that when they
graduate from college they may have a debt of $50,000 to $100,000. And
here they want the average college student to take on more. It is an
outrage.
Why would anyone put obstacles in front of young people seeking an
education? They are not concerned about those who want to learn or how
they merge into our society.
I never would have been able to attend Columbia University without
help from the government and the GI bill. When we came home from World
War II, this country invested in us--and that investment helped create
the ``greatest generation'' and decades of prosperity. The GI bill
enabled me to cofound one of America's most successful companies, ADP.
That company
[[Page S6251]]
today employs over 50,000 people in more than 23 countries. But instead
of offering a helping hand to this generation's students, the Ryan
proposal closes the door in their face.
Under the Ryan budget, government investments in science, technology,
and medical research could also be shortchanged--cut by more than $100
billion over the next 10 years. Medical research funding alone could
take a hit of nearly $6 billion by 2014. This would delay research on
new treatments for diseases such as cancer, childhood asthma, and
juvenile diabetes. All of these would start to fall by the wayside.
We have a chart that says the Republican budget plan would take $5.8
billion that would otherwise be used for asthma, juvenile diabetes,
cancer, autism, and more. Who would want to deliver a message to a
parent in America that says: Your country cannot provide the funds to
cure your child's illness?
The Ryan budget also wants to add pain to those dependent on health
care programs. Instead of reassuring seniors that they can look forward
to retirement in good health, he adds anxiety with cuts. He has
proposed to end Medicare as we know it, giving seniors a voucher
instead of a guarantee. If that voucher can't cover the cost of needed
medical services, this is the Republicans' attitude: Too bad. You are
on your own. If Ryan succeeds, tell the Medicare beneficiaries that
their costs for medical services can be increased at the will of
insurance companies.
Ryan's plan says: All right, cut Medicaid--that is a program for the
impoverished--cut Medicaid by more than $800 billion over a 10-year
period. Medicaid is there to provide vital resources for expectant
mothers and nursing home care for seniors. We created Medicare and
Medicaid to be there for seniors and the poor when they get sick. Ryan,
with that sharp knife of his, wants to cut funding and break that
promise. It is shameful.
A budget isn't just a collection of numbers; it is an expression of
principles and priorities, and we shouldn't look at a budget like an
auditor. We should see it as a way to fulfill the obligations of our
democracy and to be there for those who need help. A budget sets forth
a vision for our Nation's future and makes a statement about what
counts in America and what are our values.
So when we see the budget authored by Paul Ryan called ``marvelous''
by Mitt Romney--Mitt Romney, candidate for President of the United
States called this budget by Paul Ryan and the budget passed by the
House Republicans ``marvelous''--we should be deeply disturbed. It is
an outrage for Republicans to say we should give the wealthiest
Americans more tax breaks as they increase the burden on a middle class
already struggling to afford the essentials. Who are we going to fight
for, middle-class families or the multimillionaires?
In our country last year, 400 people made over $200 million on
average. Should they carry their fair share of the country's
opportunities and continue to invest in the country rather than
shepherd the funds for their own personal use?
Everybody knows we cannot build a house from the chimney down and we
cannot build a balanced society by soaking the poor to feed the rich.
At a time when our economy is fighting strong headwinds, when too many
Americans are out of work, Paul Ryan and his running mate offer the
same old prescription: tax cuts for the rich and austerity for
everybody else. We will not hear this from him. Paul Ryan likes to
distract and distort. He has been hiding the truth about his budget so
the American people do not truly know what is going on.
The bottom line is this: Paul Ryan knows very well he cannot afford
to tell the American people what his real agenda is because he knows
what would happen. There would be no more buyers for what he is
selling. Americans are now seeing the values the Republican Party and
their new leader Paul Ryan are fighting for.
We let the Republicans have their way for 8 years, and it led to the
worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Very often we will hear them say: Obama has not done what he should
have done. There are 4 million more people working now in the private
sector than there were just two years ago and people are excited about
the health care plan because they know this health plan is going to
help them be better, have wellness in their lives. It ultimately will
reduce costs substantially.
It goes that way. But rather than help those who could use a boost,
could use some support--could use it to make sure their kids get
educated or to help their parents, the people who built the strength of
this country over the years, past generations--rather than help them,
let's protect those, the wealthiest, who do not need the help.
During World War II, there was an excess profits tax. That tax was
there, designed to take some of the excess profits that companies were
making. Now we ought to apply the same logic. We have people fighting
for their lives in Afghanistan and other places. Instead of saying
let's make sure everybody feels like they are included in this great
democracy of ours, they are saying: No, let them take care of
themselves. As a matter of fact, it was suggested by Mitt Romney, the
candidate for President--he said these college students ought to borrow
from their parents. In many cases, the parents are struggling to keep
food on the table or pay the rent or the mortgage.
Enough is enough. There is too much at stake to let ourselves be
fooled by their tricks once again. We have to support the programs that
have been working. Perfectly? Not yet, but they are getting better all
the time. More people are going to work and more people view America as
an opportunity for them to succeed in life.
Honoring Our Foreign Servants
While I have the floor, I wish to pay my respects to Ambassador Chris
Stevens' family and to note that four American heroes were murdered
yesterday at the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya, people who had an
assignment to make sure their country, America, was working in Libya to
try to bridge the gaps that might exist. It is a terrible tragedy that
happened. We all have to note our sorrow.
My deepest condolences are with their families, their friends and
loved ones as they mourn the loss of these patriots. This is a tragedy
about which all Americans are deeply saddened.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Connecticut, Mr.
Lieberman, and Senator Graham from South Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Honoring Our Foreign Servants
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today
to speak about the horrific attack yesterday on the U.S. Consulate in
Benghazi that killed four American citizens. The two confirmed thus far
to be among the dead are Sean Smith, an Air Force veteran turned State
Department information management officer, and Ambassador Chris
Stevens, one of America's finest and bravest Foreign Service officers.
I did not know Sean Smith--I know he was a great American who served
his country--but I had gotten to know Chris Stevens quite well. In
Ambassador Chris Stevens' death, the Libyan people have lost a great
champion and believer in the peaceful aspirations of their democratic
revolution; the American people have lost a selfless and dedicated
servant of our interests and our values, and I have lost a friend.
My thoughts and prayers today are with Chris's family and the loved
ones of his fallen colleagues. May God grant them comfort in their time
of grief.
Our most urgent order of business now is to make sure our citizens
still living and serving in Libya and Egypt and elsewhere across the
region and the world are safe. Americans look to the governments in
Libya and Egypt and elsewhere to meet their responsibilities in this
regard. We also look to the Libyan Government to ensure that
[[Page S6252]]
those responsible for yesterday's attack in Benghazi are swiftly
brought to justice. In all of these critical tasks, we are confident
that our government will provide all necessary assistance and support.
Yesterday's attacks are an important reminder that so many of
America's civilians and diplomats and development professionals are
risking everything--everything--to advance our Nation's interests and
values abroad. We must do everything in our power to ensure their
security.
At the same time, our thoughts turn to broader concerns: the mourning
of our fallen friends, and how we as a Nation should respond to these
tragic events.
One of my most memorable meetings with Chris Stevens was last April
in Benghazi. As U.S. Envoy to the Libyan opposition, Chris had traveled
to Benghazi at great personal risk to represent the country he loved so
much while Libya was still gripped in a brutal fight for freedom. It
was clear there was nowhere that Chris would rather have been than
Libya. We spent the day together, meeting Libyan opposition leaders and
many ordinary citizens, who spoke movingly about how much the
opportunity to finally live in freedom meant to them, and how grateful
they were for America's support. Chris Stevens embodied that support,
and his passion for his mission was infectious.
I kept in touch with him often and frequently after my visit. I was
very happy when President Obama nominated him to be America's
Ambassador to the new Libya. The last time I saw Chris Stevens was
shortly after he had taken his post, during my most recent visit to
Tripoli. I especially remember the lighter moments we spent together,
including when Chris insisted on personally making me a cappuccino, a
task that he carried out with as much pride and proficiency as his
diplomatic mission.
That was on the morning of July 7--the day Libyans voted in their
first election in half a century. Chris Stevens and I spent the day
together again, traveling around Tripoli, visiting polling places, and
speaking with Libyan voters. We met a man whose father had been
murdered by Qadhafi's henchmen. We met a woman whose brothers had
recently given their lives fighting for their country's liberation. We
met countless others, including many older Libyans, who were voting for
the first time in their lives. And everywhere we went, we were greeted
by crowds of cheering Libyans, bursting with pride and eager to shake
our hands and express their gratitude for America's support. It was one
of the most moving experiences of my life, and it was only made better
by the fact that I got to share it with our outstanding Ambassador,
Chris Stevens.
What we saw together on that day was the real Libya--the peaceful
desire of millions of people to live in freedom and democracy, the
immense gratitude they felt for America's support for them, and their
strong desire to build a new partnership between our nations. That is
why I am not surprised that senior Libyan leaders were among the first
to condemn the horrific attack that killed Chris and his colleagues.
And that is why I was not surprised to learn from our Secretary of
State that many Libyans fought to defend our people and our consulate
in Benghazi when they came under attack, that some were wounded while
doing so, and that it was Libyans who sought to get Chris and his
colleagues to the hospital. And that is why we cannot afford to view
the despicable acts of violence perpetrated yesterday by a small group
of fanatics as in any way representative of the country and the people
of Libya. That is not the real Libya, the Libya Chris Stevens knew and
learned to love so well.
After such a heartbreaking loss for our Nation, I know many Americans
are asking whether the United States was naive or mistaken to support
the vast movement for change that is known as the Arab spring. I know
many Americans may feel a temptation, especially with so many domestic
and economic challenges facing us here at home, to distance ourselves
from people and events in Libya and Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle
East. We cannot afford to go down that path.
Yesterday's attack in Benghazi was the work of a small group of
violent extremists, whose goals and actions could not be more at odds
with those of the people and government of Libya. The Libyan revolution
began peacefully and was dedicated throughout to the ideals of freedom
and justice and democratic change. When Libyans turned out by the
millions to elect a new government in July, they gave the plurality of
their vote not to religious fanatics but to a political party led by a
moderate technocrat and committed to friendship with the United States.
Libyans arose last year to free themselves from exactly the kinds of
murderers and terrorists who killed our American citizens yesterday in
Benghazi. Their enemies are our enemies, and they remain as committed
as ever to imposing their evil ideology through violence on people in
Libya and the Middle East, and ultimately on us. They want to hijack
the Arab spring for their own insidious purposes. If we turn our backs
now on the millions of people in Libya and Egypt and Syria and other
countries across the Middle East--people who share so many of our
values and interests, people who are the true authors of the Arab
spring--we will hand our common enemies--the terrorists and
extremists--the very victory they seek.
We were right to take the side of the Libyan people and others in the
region who share their peaceful aspirations. We would be gravely
mistaken to walk away from them now. To do so would not only be a
betrayal of everything Chris Stevens and his colleagues believed in and
ultimately gave their lives for, it would be a betrayal of America's
highest values and our own enduring national interest in supporting
people in the Middle East and the world who want to live in peace and
freedom.
Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my friend from
Connecticut. I know he shares with me the sorrow that we and all
Americans feel at the loss of a brave and dedicated American. But it
will be a long time before we forget Chris Stevens because he will
stand as a shining example of patriotism and love of country.
Chris Stevens was not unaware of the danger he faced. He was privy to
intelligence information, and others. But he went forward and did his
job with a smile, with love of his country, and love of the country
where he was serving. I cannot be more proud of Ambassador Chris
Stevens.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Arizona for his
very eloquent statement. I associate myself with it.
It strikes me, as I listen, that it was no accident that these
violent extremists launched this attack on the American consulate in
Benghazi, Libya, on 9/11, on September 11--a day of infamy in our
history, a day when people across our country and around the world were
commemorating the worst terrorist attack in our history, which was
September 11, 2001.
Those who perpetrated the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, which
resulted in the death of our Ambassador Chris Stevens carried out an
act of terrorism and barbarism that they hope will sow fear and hatred
between Americans and Muslims, just as Osama bin Laden and his
followers hoped that attack of 9/11, 2001, would do 11 years ago. But
we did not let bin Laden succeed then, and we will not let these
violent extremists who killed Chris Stevens yesterday in Benghazi
succeed in dividing America and the West from Muslims and the Arab
world. Good, well-intentioned people in both great communities will
rise and join together to renounce these extremists and killers.
I want to speak for a moment about Ambassador Stevens.
Simply put, Chris Stevens was one of the finest, bravest, most
spirited, most talented diplomats in our Nation's service.
As a volunteer in the Peace Corps, he served in Morocco, where he was
inspired to pursue a lifetime of service in the Middle East. When the
uprising against Muammar Qadhafi began in February of last year, Chris
was the deputy chief of mission at our Embassy in Tripoli, Libya.
He was evacuated, along with other American personnel, from the
country, but returned to Libya within weeks as the Special Envoy of the
United States
[[Page S6253]]
of America to the opposition there--courageously slipping into rebel-
held Benghazi onboard a cargo freighter. It was an act of bravery that
typified Chris Stevens' service to our country and his devotion to our
Nation's ideals and his commitment to build bridges between Americans
and Arabs, Americans and Muslims.
Chris remained in Benghazi throughout the war, standing with the
people of Libya during some of the darkest and most difficult hours in
their struggle for freedom.
He became, in fact, the bright symbol of America, a heroic and
inspiring figure to many Libyans, as Senator McCain and Senator Graham
and I heard during our visits, and was thus the natural choice of
President Obama to become our Ambassador to Tripoli after the Qadhafi
regime fell. This is also why his death at the hands of violent
extremists in Benghazi, which was the seat of the revolution against
Qadhafi, is so tragic and infuriating. Of course, we still do not know
what happened at our consulate in Benghazi yesterday, but what is clear
is that these attackers have to be apprehended and must be punished.
I am encouraged but not surprised by the statements of Libya's
leaders condemning this attack. I say I am not surprised because these
statements of condemnation of those who killed Chris Stevens are
consistent with what I know the leaders of the new Libya to be, what I
know to be their profound admiration and love for Chris Stevens and
their respect and gratitude for the United States of America. We look
now to the Libyan Government to act swiftly and decisively and to our
own government to provide the Libyans whatever support they need to
find the attackers and killers.
While a specific group of individuals was responsible for this evil
act and their target immediately was the Americans in that consulate--
but really their target was the new order in Libya, and they were
animated in this by an ideology that is now all too familiar to us that
we cannot ignore or excuse. This hateful and violent ideology is a
threat not just to the lives of Americans like Chris Stevens and the
three others who died yesterday in Benghazi but to the future of Libya
and the future of the Muslim world. It is the exact opposite of the
ideals that inspired millions of Libyans to rise up last year against
Qadhafi to realize their dreams of a life of dignity, democracy, and
human rights. For that reason, it is imperative now for those Libyan
people themselves to echo their leaders and condemn this violence and
take on the extremists who have taken shelter in their midst and who
threaten to hijack their revolution and imperil the future of their
country, returning them to days as dark as under Qadhafi.
I know the overwhelming majority of Libyans reject this violent
extremist agenda. They want a good education for their children. They
want foreign investment that will create jobs and raise their standard
of living. After 42 years of despair and oppression under Qadhafi, they
badly want again to be part of the world, part of the modern world. The
United States should stand ready and willing to help them on that path.
The fact is that the people who killed Chris Stevens yesterday in
Benghazi do not represent the people of Libya or their elected
leadership. But these killings require confronting the extremist
minority that imperils this future, the fanatics who want a clash of
civilizations between the Muslims and the West and who will try to
justify their violence in the name of Islam. They are wrong. They are
mistaken. They are on the wrong side of history.
Finally, let me come back home and say--to echo what Senator McCain
just said--that I know there will be some here in our country who in
the wake of this attack will be tempted to argue that it shows that
America's support for the Libyan revolution was naive or mistaken, that
the Arab spring will ultimately be defined not by a desire for
democracy and freedom among the people of the Middle East and Arab
world but by the dark fanaticism of al-Qaida and its associates and
that the United States should give up trying to support people in this
part of the world and instead retrench back here at home. That would be
terribly wrong. That would misunderstand the motivations of the people
who have risen in the Arab world to overthrow the totalitarian
governments that dominated their lives. They do not want the fanaticism
of al-Qaida. They want the bright light of a democratic future.
We cannot allow what happened yesterday to be a victory for the
extremists and the terrorists because to do so would be a betrayal of
everything Ambassador Chris Stevens stood for, which is to say a
betrayal of America's best ideals.
I note the presence on the floor of the Senator from South Carolina.
I would yield to him at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. I will be brief. There is not a whole lot to be added to
the eloquent statements of my two friends other than to be here and to
let the family of Chris Stevens know that we saw in their loved one
what you saw--a wonderful man who did great things with a life cut way
too short.
I do not think most Americans can ever appreciate the leadership
Chris provided in Libya and throughout the world at a time when we
needed it the most. So America has lost one of her greatest diplomats,
the Libyans have lost one of their best friends, and the family has
lost their dear loved one.
The one thing I can say for sure--Senator Lieberman just mentioned
it--do not compound this tragedy. The worst possible outcome is to take
the death of this wonderful, noble man and use it as an excuse to
withdraw from Libya and the region and turn it over to the thugs who
killed him. Chris would not want that, it is not in our national
security interest, and Republicans and Democrats do not want that.
To the American people who are war-weary and frustrated, I totally
get it. But the Arab spring--call it what you like--is a historic
opportunity to change things in the Middle East. It will not come
without a fight.
What we are trying to do in the Mideast and what the people in the
Mideast are trying to do is have a better life for themselves. If you
are a young person, you have been exposed to life outside of the
corrupt country in which you live and you see it can be better and,
quite frankly, you are demanding it can be better. You are demanding a
better say if you are a young woman. You are demanding economic
opportunity if you come from a certain class, not available to you
today. And Chris Stevens risked his life because he understood that
those demands were just and in our best interests. The people whom we
are fighting and the people the Libyan people are fighting are the ones
who have no interest in this agenda of being able to choose a better
path for young women, being able to be tolerant, open, accept free
markets, and to have a place where people can live their own dreams.
The world which we are fighting--your dreams are defined by the
Ayatollah. Your aspirations are defined by someone else's view of where
you should go and what you should be based on their interpretation of
God's plan for you. That, to me, is so unacceptable that it compels
people like Chris Stevens to risk their lives. That is what is at
stake.
The good news is that we will beat these folks. The ace in the hole
is that the people in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Afghanistan, and Iraq now
have been exposed to a different way of life. Given the capacity, they
have the will to fight back. But if we think this is going to be done
without a struggle, we are kidding ourselves. Chris knew that. He knew
the fight that was going on for the heart and soul of the Arab spring
in Libya was a fight worth engaging in and, yes, risking one's life
for. What more can you say about a fellow human being, an American,
than the fact that they realized their time on Earth could be best
spent in service of a cause, as Senator McCain said, greater than
themselves. Chris understood what was at stake. He went to a place he
did not have to go. He accepted risks he could have avoided. He did it
for all the right reasons.
The one thing we should all unite around is that what compelled Chris
Stevens to risk his life is absolutely in our national security
interest; that is, to get the Mideast right, have a second opportunity
never known before in the Mideast to live in peace with people who in
the past wanted to kill us all. I am convinced that if we stick with it
and we learn the lessons of Chris Stevens' life, we will eventually
prevail
[[Page S6254]]
because the ones who want to kill us all are really a minority. The
ones who would live with us in peace if they could just need our help.
Let it be said that Chris Stevens was there to help.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend for his eloquent words. I would also
like to again emphasize that there were four brave Americans--four.
Sean Smith was one of them, a truly great American. There are two
others--we do not even know their identity. So I hope the families who
have suffered this loss appreciate that we grieve for all. We had the
opportunity of knowing Chris Stevens. I did meet Sean Smith and the
others. We mourn for them, and we thank them for their service to this
Nation.
I ask my friend from Connecticut, wouldn't the worst legacy of Chris
Stevens' service to this country be a movement of the United States to
withdraw, to fortress America, to renounce our service to the world in
helping these countries achieve the same democracy and freedom for
which our forefathers strived? I do not mean to use his death as any
kind of political agenda, but I remember him well enough to know that
the worst outcome of this tragedy would be for the United States to
withdraw. In fact, I am confident that if he were here, he would be
urging us to get right back in, bring these extremists to justice, and
press on with the democracy and freedom the people of Libya deserve and
have earned at great loss of blood and treasure.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I could not agree more with my friend
from Arizona. It would really dishonor the service of Chris Stevens and
the other three Americans who served us in Libya if their murders by
these extremists led us to retrench and pull out of Libya and stop
supporting the new Libyan Government, democratically elected, pull out
of other parts of the Arab world. That would be exactly the opposite of
what Ambassador Stevens devoted his life to. As I mentioned, inspired
by his experience as a Peace Corps volunteer in Morocco, he devoted the
rest of his life to service on America's behalf in the Middle East. The
last thing he would want this murder to do is to lead us to pull out,
leave the area.
It would also be the fondest hope of the attackers, the extremists.
Why do they attack? They attack to kill individual people, but they
really attack to, as I said before, push America out and create a war
between the Western world, America, and Islam. It is not natural. It is
not the direction in which history is going. History is going much more
toward integration. In fact, the revolution in Libya, which has gone so
successfully when you consider the 40 years of dictatorship under which
they lived--they held a free election. They elected what I would
describe as a moderate rule-of-law slate to run the country. But those
uprisings in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and now in Syria are the most
profound rejection and defeat for the extremism of al-Qaida and its
allies and presumably this group who attacked the American consulate in
Benghazi yesterday. I understand that the results of some of the first
elections are unclear, in some sense unsettled to some people here, but
the fact is they have chosen democracy. People are self-governing, and
they are looking for a better life. That is exactly the opposite of
what bin Laden, al-Qaida, and I would guess the people who killed Chris
Stevens yesterday desire.
Senator McCain is absolutely right. I can almost hear Chris Stevens
saying: Come on. Get up. Stay in the fight. Do not surrender to the
crazies, to the fanatics, to the violent extremists. Stand with the
overwhelming majority, with the people of Libya, who want what we
want--a better future for themselves and their families.
Mr. McCAIN. I wish to say in conclusion that I thank my old and dear
friend from Connecticut and the Senator from South Carolina.
Finally, I would share with my colleagues that on last July 7 I was
in Tripoli with Chris Stevens and it was the first free and fair
election the Libyan people ever experienced. As we went from polling
place to polling place, we met people who had lost brothers, husbands,
fathers, mothers, and sisters at the hands of one of the more brutal
butchers who has ever been on Earth, Muammar Qadhafi.
That night we went to the square, where some 200,000 people were
driving around, honking horns, celebrating, and waving Libyan flags. It
was a really auspicious start. And as Senator Lieberman pointed out, it
was a moderate group who were elected to govern Libya by the people of
Libya. Chris Stevens was recognized by all of them. They knew Chris
Stevens and they knew what he represented--the United States of
America.
So those are memories I will never forget, and I hope his family will
appreciate the magnificent service he provided to this Nation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I would suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, before I say what I originally came
down here to say, I want to join my colleagues in condemning the
senseless, horrible attack at the U.S. Consulate in Libya and pay
tribute to the four Americans, including our Ambassador there, Chris
Stevens, who were killed. I think all of us hope the killers will be
brought to justice quickly, and I suspect that will be the case.
Our country has lost four true public servants in the part of public
service which is the least known and sometimes the most important. It
is a high calling, public service in general, but especially in
dangerous places around the world. Ambassador Stevens was a serious,
dedicated, and highly experienced diplomat with a tremendous depth of
expertise in Libya and the region. He and his colleagues spent their
lives working on behalf of the United States of America and I hope
their proud families and the entire diplomatic corps know we are deeply
grateful as a people.
This cowardly attack is a setback, but it will not stop us from our
mission of promoting freedom and democracy for the people of Libya, and
it should not. It will not keep our diplomats from their important work
overseas.
I remember when I was a student in Japan, the Ambassador there at the
time, back in the early 1960s, was a fellow named Dr. Edwin Reischauer,
who was probably at that time the preeminent Japanologist in America.
He was a gentle, wonderful, marvelous person whom the Japanese loved.
He was stabbed in one of those senseless things that happen. It can
happen on American streets, but it can happen on the streets of other
countries, even with security. Some mad person got in and stabbed him
in a traditional Japanese manner with a Japanese sword. It was a
horrible event, but he survived and it enlarged his legend. There was
no bitterness from his family or his wife, and it didn't set anything
back. The person was brought to justice.
Now I wish to speak also about other ways we must join together to
help those who serve our country, and that is in creating job
opportunities for our unemployed veterans. We have many veterans, and
too many of them are unemployed or homeless. I am now talking about the
Veterans Jobs Corps Act. This is a responsible investment and we should
do it promptly.
Standing for our veterans has been one of my top priorities since I
began public service. You can't help but be that way if you live in
West Virginia. I suspect it is true in Oregon and lots of places all
over the country. By definition it is true, but it is always personal,
and in the Senate it has never waned.
Before I was a Senator, the person who held my seat for a long time
was Senator Jennings Randolph. I took his place on the Veterans
Committee and I have been on it now for 28 years. It is a glorious
committee, brilliantly led now by Senator Patty Murray. I was chairman
once myself, perhaps not quite so brilliantly.
So many brave servicemembers, men and women, have fought to defend
our way of life. People say that, and it is true, and they protect us
each and every day. After such courageous and selfless actions, the
least we can do is make sure when they return home they get good jobs,
because they deserve those good jobs.
[[Page S6255]]
Military experience builds leadership, dedication, bravery, and
teamwork, and these traits are learned from working on the frontlines.
Not everything in the military happens on the frontlines, but I just
happen to be talking about that particular aspect in my short remarks.
No experience could prepare these workers better for the jobs they hope
to do after they leave their military service.
I have a nephew who has just come back from Afghanistan. He may be
23, maybe 25, but he is almost unreachable in his strength, his
patriotism, and what has happened to him as a human being internally,
intellectually, and in broad vision. He has grown so large and so
great. He has a job, so I am not talking about him, but with so many
brave servicemembers--men and women--we need to pay attention to them
when they come home.
Political rhetoric and partisanship have no business delaying efforts
to help our veterans. Everybody likes to talk about veterans--actually,
a lot of bills do pass but not as many bills as should. Veterans did
not delay or decline when we called them for deployment, so we should
not delay now.
It is tragic that the unemployment rate for younger returning
veterans is so much higher than the national unemployment rate. In
2011, the unemployment rate for young male veterans was over 29
percent, more than 11 percent higher than nonveterans of precisely the
same age. It is heartbreaking that those who bravely served face
unemployment or homelessness. This bill will not solve all problems,
but it will solve many of them.
West Virginians understand the importance of military service. With
nearly 170,000 West Virginian veterans, we need to be sure they have
our full support: getting a job, getting health care, and getting their
pensions. These words come out of one's mouth easily; getting the job
done is harder.
The Veterans Job Corps Act invests in our veterans and in our
communities. Veterans would have a new opportunity to serve and protect
America by gaining priority placement in first responder positions,
such as police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical
technicians. That makes sense, doesn't it? Our veterans have the
experience and the instinct to do these jobs--they did it while they
served--and our communities need their help.
I don't know what is going to happen to the budget, but it is not
going to be rosy and happy, and we need to have those jobs which help
protect us and keep us safe in play, for our veterans and for others
too. It would create conservation and resource management jobs for
veterans, enlisting them in efforts to rebuild America through
restoration of our forests, parks, coasts, and public lands. I think
the Presiding Officer would agree that is important.
The Veterans Job Corps Act would establish a pilot program to provide
veterans with access to the Internet and computers to assist in job
searches and would offer the military's Transition Assistance Program
to eligible veterans--and their spouses--at sites outside military
installations in order to make it easier to relocate and pursue job
opportunities.
The legislation would also provide veterans in rural areas, such as
West Virginia and Oregon, with greater access to career specialists to
help them write resumes and prepare for interviews and therefore to
find jobs. The programs in the Veterans Job Corps Act are supported by
a fully paid-for $1 billion investment in our veterans' futures. It is
a responsible effort to support our veterans and provide help for
communities across America.
In closing, I would like to especially thank Leader Reid and Chairman
Murray for working with me to protect West Virginian jobs as part of
this bill. The Veterans Job Corps Act is an important investment in our
Nation's veterans and our economy, and I hope we can quickly move this
bill through the Congress.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I want to first join with the many
Senators today who have strongly condemned the violent attacks against
the men and women serving bravely in our diplomatic corps. The
senseless murders in Libya are a reminder of the dangers these public
servants take on every day and the courage they show in furthering our
diplomatic goals all across the globe. We are all so grateful to them.
My thoughts and prayers go out to Ambassador Chris Stevens and the
other victims of the attack, and I stand with the President, as we all
do, in supporting efforts to secure those who continue to serve us
abroad.
I have come to the floor today to respond to the statements that were
made here earlier, that are completely inaccurate, about the bill we
are currently considering on the floor, the Veterans Job Corps bill. In
particular, I want to respond to the baseless and frankly offensive
charges the Senator from Oklahoma made, insinuating that supporters of
this bill don't ``really care about veterans'' and that this bill
``isn't about veterans.''
I have been working on veterans issues in the Senate for nearly two
decades and in all of that time, under Democratic and Republican-
controlled Senates, under administrations of both parties and in times
of war and peace, if there was one issue I have seen that rises above
the day-to-day bomb throwing that often characterizes the debate here,
it has been the care and benefits for our veterans.
We can certainly disagree about policy, of course. We can fight with
all of our hearts for what we think is right. But never--never--have I
seen accusations that one party or one group was not fighting for what
they believed to be right for our veterans. In fact, the accusations
leveled on the floor here earlier today were one of the biggest
departures from the spirit of cooperation around veterans issues I have
seen in my time in the Senate. So I am here today to set the record
straight about the steps this bill takes to put our veterans back to
work.
In doing so, I will not question the motives or the degree to which
those who may oppose this legislation care for our veterans because, as
chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee myself, I see
Republicans' commitment every single day. I will not level allegations
designed to make our veterans political pawns and I certainly will not
mislead anyone about what we have set out to do. I will not because
honestly I believe our veterans deserve far better. What they and the
American people deserve is the truth.
The truth is that caring for our veterans and helping to provide them
with the training they need to find jobs when they return home is a
cost of the wars we have fought for the last decade. The truth is that
less than 1 percent of U.S. citizens serve and sacrifice for the well-
being of the other 99 percent. The truth is that what the Senator from
Oklahoma calls a charade is an effort to give those veterans as many
avenues as possible to find work. It is an effort to give them the
economic security and self-esteem that only a job can provide and that
is so essential to their return home.
I understand it has taken some in the Senate a long time to come to
grips with the fact that our fiscal commitment we owe to those who wear
the uniform does not end the day they are discharged. The truth is, it
is not enough to give our veterans a pat on the back for their military
service. We also have to give them a helping hand in the job market
today. As the jobs report that was released last month reminds us, we
have over 720,000 unemployed veterans across the Nation, including over
225,000 veterans who served since September 11. Despite what the
Senator from Oklahoma may have said, this bill makes the resources
available to all of them. In fact, that is exactly why we brought this
bill forward.
What we need right now is an ``all hands on deck,'' ``all of the
above'' strategy. That is why in fact this bill includes both
Democratic and Republican ideas. This is a bill that will increase
training and hiring opportunities for all veterans, using proven job
training programs from across the country. For instance, it increases
grants under the COPS and SAFER Programs that we have seen work to
train and hire qualified veterans to work as police officers,
firefighters,
[[Page S6256]]
and other first responders. This is at a time when 85 percent of law
enforcement agencies were forced to reduce their budgets last year. It
comes at a time when we face a $10 billion maintenance backlog for our
public lands. This bill will help training and hire veterans to restore
and protect our national, State, and tribal forests, our parks, and our
other public lands.
Because training and hiring veterans has never been and should never
be an effort that divides us, we have included a host of Republican
ideas into this bill. We included a bill from Senator Toomey that gives
veterans increased access to computers and Internet tools to help them
find jobs in in-demand areas in their own communities. We included a
bill sponsored by Senator Boozman that will increase transition
assistance programs for eligible veterans and their spouses. And we
included a very important provision from Senators on both sides of the
aisle that will help force our States to consider the military
experience of our veterans when they issue licenses and
certifications--something we have all heard when we go home.
We figured this comprehensive bipartisan approach would certainly be
enough to gain Republican support, even if it did come as we are, of
course, inching closer to an election. But over the course of the last
48 hours or so we have heard that Republicans, including Senator Burr,
who is the ranking member of my committee, had an alternative version
of the bill that Republicans wanted to push forward. The bill of
Senator Burr includes a system to have States certify military
experience for jobs skills and helps veterans get hired into the
Federal workforce, among a number of other provisions. It appeared to
all of us that this late alternative might derail what I believe can be
and ought to be a bipartisan effort. But again, we are committed to
making this a bipartisan effort. So, instead of showing our veterans
that we are just about gridlock and partisanship, here is what we have
done.
Because, as I said before, this has to be an ``all of the above''
approach, we have, therefore, added every one of the provisions in the
alternative offered by Senator Burr to our bill. Now I believe we have
an even more bipartisan, more inclusive bill on the floor right now
awaiting action. This is a bill that is paid for with offsets that both
Republicans and Democrats have supported. It is a bill unquestionably
that represents ideas from both sides of the aisle, including now from
the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs
Committee.
There is no reason now that Republicans should not join us in passing
this bill and passing it quickly, because this does not have to be an
either/or situation. Neither party has the magic bullet to solve these
problems, so we have to open as many proven opportunities to employment
as we can.
You know, veterans are out there watching and waiting. They are tired
of excuses and they certainly have no stomach for the kind of political
posturing they saw earlier today, that comes only at their expense.
I know some Republicans have pointed to the calendar as the reason
for their opposition to this bill. Honestly, I wish it were not
September and we did not have to deal with the silly season here in
Washington, DC. But who could care less about what month it is or how
many days out from an election we are? Here is the issue: Nearly 1
million unemployed veterans are looking for work today. They are
concerned about what jobs are available in their communities. Their
concern is what training program they can take advantage of and what is
being done to honor their two or three tours overseas.
This is a bill now that offers them new resources to answer those
questions. It is a bill that will help them serve their community and
help them provide honorably for their families. I truly hope now, with
the change we have added to the alternative bill offered by Senator
Burr, we will have overcome our last hurdle before passage.
I come to the floor today to urge Republicans to join us now in
rising above politics as we have done time and time again for our
veterans. Ignore the calendar and the never-ending chatter about who is
up and who is down. That is not what this is about. This is about
making sure our veterans come first this and every week and that we
intend to keep our commitment to them for their services.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here to talk about the important
Veterans Job Corps Act of 2012 that is on the floor of the Senate. But
I did wish to first express my thoughts, as so many of my colleagues
have done on both sides of the aisle, that I strongly condemn the
attacks in Egypt and Libya. I have been deeply saddened by the death of
our Ambassador there as well as several other American citizens, and I
join all Americas in not only condemning these attacks but also in
sending my prayers and thoughts to the families of those killed by
those senseless and horrific acts of violence.
On to the Veterans Corps Job Act. As we all know, as we have seen by
this horrific violence and by what we have seen overseas and in the
Mideast, our troops face that every single day when they are there, as
do our diplomats. They face that kind of threat. When they come home to
this country, we must treat them with great dignity and respect.
I have always believed that when we ask our young men and women to
fight in defense of our Nation, we make a promise that we will give
them the resources they need to complete their mission. We also promise
to take care of them when they come home to this country. When they
signed up to serve, there was no waiting line, and when they come home
to the United States of America and they need a job or they need health
care or need an education, there should never be a waiting line.
As a Senator from Minnesota, fighting for our veterans has been a
major focus. While we do not have an Active-Duty base, we have the
fifth largest National Guard in the country. Given that our population
is only 22nd in the country, we can see we have a lot of people who
want to serve our country and sign up to serve on the frontline. We
have worked to cut through the redtape and streamline credentialing to
help servicemembers transition their military skills into good-paying
jobs at home. To give just one example, right now returning paramedics
are too often unable to count the medical training they receive in the
military toward receiving a license to become a civilian emergency
medical technician.
That is why I introduced the Veterans to Paramedics Act to fix that
problem by encouraging States to give paramedics credit for the medical
training they have already received in the military. Not only does this
help our veterans, it also helps relieve the shortage of emergency
medical personnel, especially in our rural areas, where we have seen
those shortages.
With commonsense solutions such as these, we cannot only fulfill our
commitment to our veterans but we can also help lift our economy and
make sure people who have the skills fill the jobs we have available.
This is what the Veterans Job Corps Act is all about, fulfilling our
promise to our veterans, ensuring training and the opportunities they
need to find good-paying jobs and strengthening our Nation in the
process.
To list just a few of the important provisions in this bill, first,
the Veterans Jobs Corps Act gives veterans a new opportunity to serve
and protect America by granting them prioritized placement in first
responder positions such as police, firefighters, and emergency medical
technicians.
Second, this bill would create conservation and resource management
jobs for veterans, enlisting their help in building a stronger and more
beautiful America through the restoration of our forests, parks,
coasts, and public lands.
Third, the Veterans Jobs Corps Act would establish a pilot program to
provide veterans with access to the Internet and computers to assist in
job searches, a key bipartisan provision first introduced by my
colleagues across the aisle.
[[Page S6257]]
Fourth, the Veterans Jobs Corps Act would especially help rural
veterans find employment by granting them greater access to career
specialists who can help them write resumes, prepare for interviews,
and find jobs. We know all too often the amazing experience and
leadership experience they have had overseas fighting for our country
does not always translate the terms and the words and the ways
described by the resume into truly explaining what it is to a potential
employer. That is why this skill training is so important.
This would also allow eligible veterans and spouses to enroll in the
military's innovative Transition Assistance Program at sites outside
military installations so they can relocate or return home in pursuit
of job opportunities. This is a key benefit in my State of Minnesota,
as I noted, which is very rural and also has no military bases.
The fact is, our returning veterans have battle-tested skills that
are available to employers in all kinds of fields. This is something
companies in my State have recognized. In fact, our business community,
small and large, is already leading the way in reaching out to
servicemembers before they have even begun the process of transitioning
home. In April of this year, when Minnesota's 34th Infantry Division,
known as the Red Bulls, was still deployed in Kuwait, representatives
from several major companies in Minnesota actually flew into Kuwait to
help the soldiers spruce up their resumes and prepare them for job
interviews. All across Minnesota, large and small companies are
targeting their recruitment efforts on returning servicemembers. This
is the type of initiative we need.
In recent months, the unemployment rate for Minnesota veterans who
have served since 9/11 has hit nearly 23 percent, almost double the
national average for veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan war. An
unemployment rate that high among the men and women who have served and
sacrificed for our Nation is unacceptable, especially when our State's
unemployment rate is, in fact, at 5.8 percent.
I truly believe that with initiatives such as those launched by
private sector companies in our State, with training programs such as
those created by this critical legislation, we are going to turn this
situation around. That is why I am calling on all my colleagues to
support the Veterans Jobs Corps Act. This important bill, which is
fully paid for, goes a long way in providing our returning veterans the
leg up they need in transitioning to the civilian workforce.
Minnesota has always been a State that understands the debt we owe to
men and women who have served and sacrificed for us. I call on all my
colleagues to vote for this bill and to take a step toward fulfilling
that debt. This is the least we can do for the people who have fought
and died to protect our values, freedoms, democracy, and human rights.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Veterans Jobs Corps bill, properly
written, could be a positive piece of legislation. And I am not
speaking about the intent of the bill, whether it can be done
effectively, but as ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, I have
to point out that this bill violates the budget. It violates the
principles of common sense and good management, and it is the typical
reason this government is on an unsustainable financial path. It is the
typical reason of why we are going broke.
This bill will cost $1 billion over 5 years in spending on a new
program. It claims to be offset by new taxes and new revenue sources,
but my staff has worked on it and has confirmed there is a 302(f)
Budget Act point of order against this Veterans Jobs Corps Act and the
managers' amendment, and I am confident that if and when it is raised,
the Parliamentarian will agree. There is a budget point of order
against this bill because it violates the Veterans Affairs Committee's
allocation for budget authority and outlays for what was agreed to in
the Budget Control Act.
There was a limit to how much we would spend on the Veterans Affairs
Committee. They had a limit on the number of dollars they got. It was
part of the August agreement--the Budget Control Act--of a little over
a year ago this past August. This is serious. We told the American
people we would raise the debt ceiling by about $2.1 trillion but we
were going to cut spending. We would immediately raise the debt ceiling
and allow $2.1 trillion more in spending, but we promised we would
reduce spending over the next 10 years by that same amount. That was
the agreement. The President signed it, our Democratic colleagues
supported it, and it passed. The debt ceiling was raised, so the
government continued to go forward. We were borrowing 40 cents of every
dollar we spent in the U.S. Government. If we had not raised the amount
of money we could borrow in this country, the entirety of government
expenditures would have been reduced immediately by 40 percent. So that
is how big a hole we are in.
What this new bill does, with good purpose, is it spends $1 billion
more than we agreed to spend. So then what occurs? What occurs is, if a
person objects to that and raises the budget point of order, the Senate
has to waive it openly, publicly, before the American people. We have
to say we can't find money within our budget to spend $1 billion more,
but we are going to spend it anyway, and every penny of it either has
to be borrowed or will be paid for by increased revenues somewhere. So
that's what we are going to vote on. I intend to raise the Budget Point
of Order.
But it is even worse than that. Some say, ``Well, over 10 years we
promise to raise enough money to pay for this, that over the 10-year
period we will raise the $1 billion. Don't worry about it. These tax
increases and revenue enhancements will pay for it. Count on us.''
I hate to say it, but it is not so. We have in this bill at least
one-third the amount of money that would be spent by the jobs corps
bill coming from a well-known gimmick, a manipulation of an accounting
system around here that allows us to spend more money than we have, and
it scores not as an expenditure but as being a proper, valid pay-for.
And it is as bogus as a three-dollar bill. I say without danger of
contradiction that this is a gimmick. If a private company were to do
this and utilize this method to manipulate and mislead stockholders,
they would have a lawsuit against the officers of the corporation. They
would. It is totally bogus.
Let me explain how this is done. This has been done before. I have
offered a bill called the Honest Budget Act. Senator Olympia Snowe
joined me in that, and that would have eliminated a number of
misleading gimmicks and fraudulent activities, including this one. Now,
to explain, there is a certain corporate tax revenue we get from
corporations, and the drafters of this bill cleverly got the idea that
they could just accelerate the amount of money from fiscal year 2014
into fiscal year 2013. They would bring that money back into 2013 and
collect it just a little bit earlier, and they could then say: We have
another $135 million in revenue in 2013, so we can spend that money,
and it doesn't cost anything because we have this new money and it is
paid for.
So this new Veterans Jobs Corps bill will be partially paid for.
About one-third of its total cost will be paid for by collecting
corporate revenue taxes sooner. But think about that, if the
corporation pays its taxes a few months earlier--it pays it in fiscal
year 2013--then it won't owe them in 2014, will it? If they were
planning on paying them in 2014, now, they don't have to pay them in
2014. So the hole has moved from 2013 to 2014. We moved the money over
here, but we won't have the revenue the next year that we would
normally have had. And that is to be done over 5 years.
In the fifth year--which is where our colleagues wanted the number to
fall--it shows as if we had a $392 million total increase in revenue.
The money, added up each year over 5 years, plus increases, totals $392
million. Isn't that great? We didn't raise taxes. All we did
[[Page S6258]]
is call in a little money a little earlier, and we have netted $392
million, right? Wrong. Year 6 is where the revenue doesn't come in, and
in year 6 it shows that we will bring into the U.S. Treasury $392
million less because that money was collected early in the previous
year--$392 million less in year 6. It never is a net increase to the
U.S. Treasury, although it might appear to be, according to the
conventions of accounting the CBO uses around here. And CBO knows this
is true. They would tell anyone the same thing if they were to ask
about this. They know exactly what this system is. But they follow
their rules, and in the fifth year it suggests we have a $392 million
surplus from this advance collection of corporate taxes, and that is
not so.
So, my colleagues, this is a problem for us. We do not need to
continue down this pathway. We need to be honest with the American
people. The President of the United States should be objecting to this
kind of stuff. He should say: No, you can't play that game. The
majority leader, Senator Reid, should be saying: No, that is a
manipulation. The budget chairman, Senator Conrad, ought to say: No, it
violates the Budget Act. This isn't the way to do it.
Now, the alternative bill authored by Senator Burr is an honest piece
of legislation and would do much of the same thing; however, it does
not violate the Budget Act and is therefore not subject to a budget
point of order.
This legislation could have been crafted that way, too. But being as
greedy as I guess we are, rather than having to face up to a little bit
of the difficulty of finding a couple of hundred million dollars, out
of $3.7 trillion we will spend next year, we would rather manipulate it
this way.
So what did we mean in August a year ago when we said we were going
to cut spending by $2.1 trillion over 10 years? Was that just a joke?
Is this the kind of thing we are going to do every time a bill comes
along that has some appeal to it and we wish to support? Are we not
willing to stand up and pay for the legislation? Is there no waste,
fraud, and abuse in this government that we couldn't work on? There
certainly is.
This government is mismanaged, it is out of control, and the Chief
Executive spends his days getting on an airplane going somewhere to
make a speech. What we need is somebody in the shop managing the
taxpayers' money. And when Congress tries to play these gimmicks, we
need a President that says, No. That is what this country needs. Until
we get that, we are never going to bring spending under control.
What do my President and my Democratic colleagues in the Senate say?
Send more money. We can't cut anything. We have no ability to find
savings. We need more money, American people. Send more to Washington,
private sector. It doesn't make a whole lot of difference in an
economic sense where it comes from. It is all a further drain out of
the private sector, so the public sector can spread the money around
and maybe solicit some votes in the process.
This is how we got into this fix. I am concerned about it. I do not
think we should go forward with the legislation as drafted. Perhaps
some compromise can be reached. Senator Burr has worked hard on it.
Maybe our Democratic colleagues can get together and put up a veterans
jobs bill that is honestly paid for. I know they could. And if it is
worth it and we can find ways to make the tough choices that we are
paid to do and set priorities, and help veterans find jobs through some
sort of mechanism such as this, then let's do it. But let's pay for it,
and let's don't use these gimmicks. Let's don't go about it in a way
that misleads the American people about how much the legislation is
truly costing.
I feel strongly about it. I am getting frustrated about it. It is
always: Well, it is just a few hundred million here and a few hundred
million there, and the bill needs to pass, and don't raise these
problems now, we are slowing down the machine, we have a lot of things
to do. It doesn't look as if we are so busy right now, but people think
we have things to do and they don't want to have to wrestle with the
minutiae of a few hundred million dollars a year. But we should do
that. If we do that every day and if we stay within the budget amount
we agreed to last August, we will have made some improvement in the
overall debt course of America.
To make clear, the Budget Control Act agreement called for a
reduction of $2.1 trillion in spending over 10 years. During that time,
we were projected to spend $47 trillion. So the net reduction would be
from $47 trillion to $45 trillion. Surely the Republic is not going to
sink into the ocean if we reduce our spending from $47 trillion to $45
trillion. Surely we can find that. It is not enough. We need to do
about three times that much at a minimum, and we can do that, too. This
is still a substantial increase in spending. This is not a cut in
spending over 10 years. At the current rate of spending, we spend about
$37 trillion. So we are going from $47 trillion to $45 trillion over 10
years instead of $37 trillion over 10 years. It is still a major
increase in spending over 10 years, but we are told that is impossible;
all we can possibly do is $2.1 trillion in reductions.
The President was claiming credit for reaching this agreement, but
the budget he submitted this year wiped out the entire $2.1 trillion.
It wiped out the entire sequester and raised taxes by $1.5 trillion in
increased spending and about $1.8 trillion in increased taxes; no cuts
at all under his budget; actually a spending increase over the
trajectory we were already on, which is an unsustainable trajectory.
I know I am being frank about this. Some can say this is a political
argument. Well, we are in a political season, and I believe what I have
said is accurate. I believe what I have said is true. I believe a
budget point of order lies against this bill because it spends more
than the Veterans' Affairs is allocated to spend, and we need to vote
on it. It is this kind of breaking the budget and spending more than we
agreed that has helped put us in this fix, and we need somebody to help
bring order out of chaos.
We are on an unsustainable path. This Nation is on the wrong track.
We are on the track to decline and debt and financial crisis, not the
road to prosperity. We cannot continue in this path.
Erskine Bowles and Senator Simpson before the Budget Committee told
us that we have never faced in this country a more predictable debt
crisis. That was their joint statement, ``never faced a more
predictable financial crisis.'' What they told us was: We are on an
unsustainable path. If we stay on this path, we will have some sort of
debt crisis, another 2008 or 2007 recession caused by a financial
bubble. And for the U.S. Government, what a disaster that would be if,
as we are struggling to get people back to work and get the economy on
the rise, we have a financial crisis again putting us back into
recession. We need to avoid that. We have got to be mature and honest
about our money. We have got to get our debt under control.
This bill violates the deemed allocations included in the Budget
Control Act. It violates sound principles of financial policy. It
contains a major gimmick, really a bogus allocation of over $300
million that claims to exist that does not exist at all. We need to fix
that.
Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to share these remarks.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________