[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 14, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S300-S309]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION EXTENSION ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 1845, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1845) to provide for the extension of certain 
     unemployment benefits, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Reed) amendment No. 2631, relating to extension 
     and modification of emergency unemployment compensation 
     program.
       Reid amendment No. 2632 (to amendment No. 2631), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Reid motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance, 
     with instructions, Reid amendment No. 2633, to change the 
     enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 2634 (to (the instructions) amendment 
     No. 2633), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 2635 (to amendment No. 2634), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12:30 
p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or 
their designees, with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and 
the Republicans controlling the second 30 minutes.
  The Senator from Vermont.


                    Consolidated Appropriations Act

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I should first note I am pleased to see the 
Presiding Officer. It is a pleasure to share the podium with him today.
  I ask unanimous consent that upon the completion of my remarks, the 
Chair recognize the senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, after many long days and nights of four-
party negotiations across a dozen subcommittees over the past month, on 
Sunday night the Appropriations Committee completed work on the fiscal 
year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act.
  I commend Chairwoman Mikulski, without whom this would not have been 
possible. It was, above all, her relentless pursuit of this goal and 
her unmatched ability to rally her subcommittee troops together to get 
us to this point.
  I would also note that she was helped by some of the most hard 
working members of the Senate staff one can imagine. I want to 
especially commend Tim Rieser of my staff, and Janet Stormes and Nikole 
Manatt who worked with him. I could not keep track of the number of 
times I received emails or calls at midnight or 1 a.m. from Tim as we 
worked through all the difficult parts of this bill.
  And it could not have been done without the cooperation of my friend 
from Alabama Senator Shelby, the committee's ranking member, who knew 
how important it was to pass appropriations bills rather than put the 
government on autopilot.
  This means there will be no sequester in fiscal year 2014, and there 
will not be another disastrous government shutdown that achieved 
nothing, disrupted the lives of millions of American families, and cost 
the taxpayers some $24 billion and private industry tens of billions of 
dollars more.
  As Chairman of the Department of State and Foreign Operations 
Subcommittee, I want to thank Senator Lindsey Graham, who brings a 
level of energy and knowledge to our subcommittee few can match. He and 
I

[[Page S301]]

agree on an awful lot more than we disagree.
  I want to mention a few things in the bill. But first, the big 
picture. For the Department of State and foreign operations, the bill 
provides $49 billion in discretionary budget authority to protect a 
wide array of U.S. security, humanitarian, and economic interests 
around the world. This total is $2.2 billion below the fiscal year 2013 
enacted post-sequester level.
  Of that amount, $6.5 billion is for overseas contingency operations 
in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq and other areas in political 
transition, including the Middle East and North Africa, and to respond 
to humanitarian emergencies, particularly in Syria, the Middle East, 
and Central Africa.
  If anyone should question why these funds are important, look at what 
is happening in Syria, and Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey, where 2 million 
Syrians have fled, and in South Sudan and the Central African Republic, 
where hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced because of an 
explosion of ethnic and tribal violence. The bill provides significant 
increases in funding for refugees and other humanitarian programs.
  The bill provides funding above the President's request for security 
at U.S. embassies and other diplomatic facilities; it fully funds our 
commitment to key allies such as Israel and Jordan; it substantially 
funds our contributions to the United Nations and other international 
organizations and for U.N. peacekeeping; and it fully funds the U.S. 
contributions to the Global AIDS Fund.
  Many Senators care about global health, for good reason. HIV/AIDS and 
other infectious diseases threaten millions of Americans who travel, 
live, study, and serve in the Armed Forces overseas as well as here at 
home. Many of the diseases we work to eradicate are only an airplane 
trip away from our own shores. Billions of people in the poorest 
countries, especially children, die or suffer from illnesses that can 
be easily prevented or treated. Our children and grandchildren will be 
immunized, but many children born in the poorest countries die before 
the age of five because of these diseases.
  We provide a total of $6 billion--the highest amount in history--for 
programs to combat HIV/AIDS, including $1.65 billion for the Global 
Fund. We provide historic levels to combat polio, malaria, 
tuberculosis, and neglected tropical diseases, and $175 million for the 
GAVI Alliance which provides lifesaving children's vaccines.
  For Egypt, which many have been asking about, the bill provides up to 
the amounts requested for fiscal year 2014--$250 million for economic 
aid and $1.3 billion for military aid. But the military aid is only 
available to pay current defense contracts, and the goods and services 
may not be delivered to Egypt unless the Secretary of State certifies 
there is a national referendum and the government is taking steps to 
support the democratic transition and there are democratic elections 
and a newly elected government is taking steps to govern 
democratically.
  These are the same commitments the government of Egypt made to the 
Egyptian people. Contrary to some inaccurate press reports, there is no 
waiver if the Egyptian Government reneges on these commitments. These 
are the toughest conditions the Congress has imposed on aid to the 
Egyptian military.
  We want to see the restoration of democracy and respect for 
fundamental freedoms in Egypt, including the rights of women, civil 
society, and religious minorities. This is discussed in the explanatory 
statement accompanying the bill. If the military continues its 
repressive tactics, arresting democracy activists, and does not hold 
free and fair elections, the certifications will not be possible and 
U.S. aid will be cut.
  The bill cuts aid for Afghanistan by 50 percent from the current 
level. It has become abundantly clear that as U.S. troops withdraw, the 
security environment is worsening. This reality, coupled with the 
refusal of the Karzai government to sign a bilateral security 
agreement, widespread corruption in that government, and the 
diminishing ability to monitor how U.S. funds are spent, compel a more 
targeted, sustainable approach.
  I am pleased we were able to include the amounts requested for the 
Clean Technology Fund and the Strategic Climate Fund, and to protect 
tropical forests which are being destroyed at an alarming rate, and to 
combat poaching and trafficking of wildlife.
  There are some things I wish were not in here, particularly a House 
provision which would weaken limits on carbon emissions from projects 
financed by the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment 
Corporation. We should be using public funds to support exports of 
clean, renewable technology, not to fund polluting projects that worsen 
global warming.
  I am also very disappointed that a Senate provision to bring the 
United States into compliance with the Vienna Convention on Consular 
Relations was rejected by the House of Representatives. By not 
including this provision we jeopardize the essential rights of consular 
assistance for Americans arrested in foreign countries, and we also 
weaken our credibility as a nation that respects the rule of law.
  I would point out, the next time a constituent of a House Member is 
arrested overseas and denied access to the U.S. embassy, they should 
ask why they refused to support bringing the U.S. into compliance with 
the treaty that requires that access. It is hard for us to insist on 
consular assistance when Americans are arrested abroad, when we don't 
provide the same right to foreigners arrested here.
  I do appreciate, however, the way the House--particularly Chairwoman 
Granger and Ranking Member Lowey and their staffs--worked with me, 
Senator Graham and his very able staff, and others. And, we all owe a 
debt of gratitude to the printing and editorial staff of the Government 
Printing Office who worked day and night, week after week and on many 
weekends, to produce draft after draft of the documents. It was a 
collaborative effort from beginning to end, and the outcome is a 
balanced bill that deserves bipartisan support.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. About 20 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that I be given 10 minutes and 
that Senator Schumer be given the remaining 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, pending before the Congress now is debate 
about unemployment benefits.
  On January 1 1.3 million Americans got a notice that they were not 
going to receive any more unemployment benefit checks. These are people 
out of work through no fault of their own who are required, under law, 
to be actively pursuing additional employment and regularly reporting 
to the government. For that, they receive average unemployment benefits 
of about $300 a week. Three hundred dollars a week is not a generous 
amount in this day and age. It is very difficult for any family to get 
by. They are going to have to dip into their savings to make rent 
payments, utility payments, put gas in the car to look for a job, and 
pay for the cell telephone they need in order to go looking for work. 
So we are now debating as to whether we should extend those 
unemployment benefits which were cut off on January 1. I think we 
should. Historically we have. Even with lower unemployment rates in the 
past, we have extended unemployment benefits.

  Think about this for a second. The average person unemployed in 
America takes 38 weeks to find a job. However, we are cutting off 
unemployment benefits at 27 weeks in most places. That means people 
will have 10 or 11 weeks on average without any support.
  What happens to a family under those circumstances? Awful things 
happen. They cannot make their rent payments or their mortgage payment 
or the utility payments or their health payments, and they find 
themselves literally facing bankruptcy. Losing a job is bad enough. 
Making it worse by cutting off unemployment checks is unacceptable. So 
we are debating it.
  Historically, we have extended these unemployment benefits on an 
emergency basis, which means we do not pay for them because we 
understand this is an unusual time in our economy when we need to give 
a helping hand. We also understand the money that we

[[Page S302]]

give to these families is frequently spent immediately. They have to 
spend it to get by. As they put money back in the economy, it helps 
other people go to work. So it is a bit of an accelerant. It is a 
catalyst for more economic growth. It is good for the overall economy.
  However, we have run into something new. The Republican side of the 
aisle has now said if you want to give unemployment benefits to 
Americans, you have to pay for them. In other words, you have to cut 
spending in other areas to pay for them.
  Listen to what the Republicans have suggested we should do in order 
to provide unemployment benefits for 1.3 million people who were cut 
off on January 1. Mitch McConnell, the senior Senator from Kentucky and 
Republican leader, came to the floor and suggested last week that the 
way to pay for the unemployment benefits was to eliminate that section 
of the Affordable Care Act which creates a personal responsibility for 
people to buy their own health insurance and a tax to be paid if they 
do not, about $95 a person per year. He says eliminate that.
  The problem with eliminating it is you do raise some revenue, but on 
the other hand you cut off the pool of uninsured people who are now 
buying insurance. By doing this, you eliminate the protection we built 
into the law for every American family that has someone in the 
household with a preexisting condition. You cannot say to insurance 
companies and others cover everyone, even those with preexisting 
conditions, unless you expand the pool of people insured. Senator 
McConnell wants to cut that off. Senator McConnell's proposal would, in 
fact, eliminate this protection in our bill against discrimination 
because your child has asthma, your child has diabetes, your wife is a 
cancer survivor.
  That was the reality of insurance before this bill. The Republicans 
believe that eliminating that protection is the way to pay for 
unemployment benefits. They would penalize 300 million Americans and 
their families in order to take care of 1.3 million unemployed on a 
temporary basis. That is a terrible tradeoff.
  Then comes Senator Portman from Ohio. He has a little different 
approach. He suggests that if you are disabled in America, adjudged 
disabled in America, you should never draw unemployment benefits. 
``Double dipping'' is what they call it.
  Wait a minute. You are getting a government check that says you are 
disabled, and you are getting another government check that says you 
are unemployed? What is wrong with this picture?
  I invite him--and I am sure the Presiding Officer has done this--to 
the sheltered workshops of his State. If you have ever visited a 
sheltered workshop, here is what you will find, and I found it in 
Decatur, IL: Profoundly retarded people and people with serious mental 
challenges are given a chance to work a little bit. They can make only 
about $1,000 a month maximum. What kind of work do they get? Much of it 
is very simple manual labor. In my State they make license plates at 
this facility in Decatur.
  They told me the story about a person who was brought in there who 
had suffered from serious mental illness his entire life and was 
nonfunctional. He just stood there. They brought him in and put him on 
the line with the license plates and showed him a simple task. He 
blossomed. His life opened. He became a different person. He started 
accepting more and more responsibilities. There came a point when there 
was a blizzard in Decatur, IL, and they closed the sheltered workshop. 
He was not going to miss a day of work. He walked in the snow and stood 
outside, ready to go to work.
  The people working in that sheltered workshop are only paid a few 
dollars an hour, but for him it is the most important part of his life, 
and while he is being paid, his unemployment benefits are building up 
to protect him. The day may come when the sheltered workshop can't find 
a job for him or closes down. He would then be eligible for 
unemployment benefits. Senator Portman of Ohio says no, we should cut 
off his unemployment benefits to pay for the temporary unemployment 
benefits of others. I invite Senator Portman to go to a sheltered 
workshop in his State to meet these people, and I bet he changes his 
mind on that Republican pay-for.
  Then comes Senator Ayotte of New Hampshire. She says we have a 
terrible situation with the child tax credit. The child tax credit is 
available for wage earners who can claim a credit on the tax they owe 
and a refundable credit as well, in some circumstances, for their 
children. In other words, if you are low-income in America, we reduce 
your tax burden based on the number of children you have. The obvious 
reason is to give you $1,000 more a year for your child, $20 a week for 
your child. That, to me, is not unreasonable. It alleviates poverty for 
literally millions of Americans. Senator Ayotte says for those who are 
filing a so-called I-10; that is, those who do not have a Social 
Security number but work in America and pay taxes as they are required 
to do, she would cut them off so they could not claim this child tax 
credit for their children even if their child is a U.S. citizen, and 
that is the requirement under the law. So she would cut off child 
benefits for citizen children to pay for temporary unemployment 
benefits.
  We can clean up the child tax credit situation, and I think there are 
ways to do it in a reasonable fashion, but to cut off millions of 
children who are legally here in the United States, eligible for this 
child tax credit--is that what we have come to? Cut off a child tax 
credit? Eliminate the help for those who are working in sheltered 
workshops, disabled people cross America? Eliminate the protection 
under the Affordable Care Act for discrimination against people with 
preexisting conditions? Those are the three Republican alternatives? 
Does that define the difference between the parties?
  I am afraid it does. It tells you from our point of view that helping 
folks who need a helping hand in this country is just part of who we 
are. There is a compassion gap here when you believe the only way you 
can help some is by hurting so many others who are struggling to get by 
in life, and that is all we heard from the other side of the aisle.
  I commend those who want to work on a bipartisan basis to solve this, 
but let's get it done. Let's extend these unemployment benefits. Do it 
as we did 5 different times, without paying for it, under previous 
Republican Presidents. Let's do it in a fashion that speaks well of our 
country. Let's give those folks who are searching for jobs a helping 
hand so their families can stay together during these winter months, 
these challenging months, so they can get back to work and pay their 
taxes and be right where they want to be, a part of the workforce of 
the future.
  I yield the floor to Senator Schumer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague and friend 
and roommate from Illinois--we are going to miss our landlord deeply--
for his articulate enunciation of where we are here. We have always 
extended unemployment benefits, and we have done it, in most instances, 
in a bipartisan way and not paid for it. Under George Bush, 2007, 
unemployment was only 5.6 percent. Now it hovers around 7 percent. He 
moved it forward. It had bipartisan support.
  Things have evolved. I guess we do not have that bipartisan support. 
As Senator Durbin outlined, a lot of the amendments to try to pay for 
this sort of rob Peter to pay Paul. I have heard a lot of my Republican 
colleagues say let's talk about how we deal with poverty. These 
amendments that we have heard talked about are kind of punitive and do 
not really deal with the issue.
  I would like to address another issue, and that is how we come to an 
agreement here and get this place working again. On both sides of the 
aisle, there is a great deal of consternation that we are not 
legislating. We have had this problem for a while. Thursday it came to 
a head. There were some harsh words that were issued by some. The 
question is how do we get things working again.
  First, I remind my colleagues there are instances when this place, 
the Senate in particular, is still working. We had a farm bill, an 
immigration bill, the WRDA bill. They all had one thing in common and 
that is the chairman and ranking member agreed on a proposal. When the 
chairman and the ranking member agree on a proposal,

[[Page S303]]

or a large group of Democrats and Republicans agree on a bipartisan 
proposal--in immigration we had great help from the chairman, but 
Senator McCain and I--neither chairman nor ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee--came to an agreement with the help of Senators 
Menendez, Durbin, Bennet, Graham, Flake and Rubio. But we can get 
something done, and we can shepherd even the most controversial and 
difficult legislation through the floor.
  But there are many instances--these days more than ever because the 
parties are further apart than they used to be and there is less 
overlap--there are instances where the chair and ranking member can't 
or there does not seem to be a bipartisan agreement. What do we do in 
those instances?
  I have discussed this with many on the other side of the aisle. There 
is a tradition here. I am here sort of a middle level amount of time, 
about 14 years. The general theory has been whichever party is in the 
majority, whichever is in the minority, that the majority gets to set 
the agenda and the minority gets to offer amendments. There is a lot of 
discussion as to why that is not happening anymore, and there are 
different explanations on each side of the aisle. There will be a 
discussion in our caucus, and I think in the Republican caucus, at this 
lunch, as to how to try to break that logjam. That is a good thing.
  I will just make one point here that has been largely forgotten and 
that is this. There are two parts to this sort of agreement, deal, 
arrangement. The first part is the ability to offer amendments. Should 
it be unlimited amendments? Should it be all nongermane amendments? 
That has to be discussed and worked out. But certainly the minority 
should get to offer amendments. There is a general theoretical 
agreement among everybody about that.
  But the other side is that the majority should be able, once the 
amendments are disposed of, to get an up-or-down vote on the final 
passage of the bill--that the bill not be filibustered--not just the 
motion to proceed, but once we go through the amendatory process, the 
bill itself.
  If friends on the other side of the aisle say I want to offer my 
amendment but unless it passes I am going to vote to block the bill 
from coming up for an up-or-down vote, that does not seem right. My 
purpose for a brief few moments, coming to the floor, is to remind both 
sides of the aisle, but particularly my Republican colleagues, that to 
get this place moving again requires two things. One, an ability to 
offer amendments. But second, an ability to vote on final passage, have 
an up-or-down vote on final passage once those amendments are disposed 
of one way or the other.
  We know that our colleagues will offer tough amendments sometimes. 
That is the nature of things. Many times the amendments are just 
offered with an idea to improve the bill or have a different idea. 
Sometimes they are amendments that just make it very difficult to vote 
against, but so be it. That is how this place has always been run. I 
think most of my colleagues on this side of the aisle are willing to 
accept that. But at the same time, we do not want to go through an 
amendatory process and then, because we are 55, not 60, never be able 
to get an up-or-down vote on final passage of the legislation.
  There are two sides to this story. There are two sides to an 
agreement to get the floor of the Senate working again--particularly 
when the majority and minority cannot agree on an overall bill. One 
side is an ability to offer amendments; the other side an ability for 
an up-or-down vote once those amendments are disposed of. I don't think 
you can have one without the other.
  Just as we could not ask our Republican colleagues for an up-or-down 
vote, if they were not able to offer amendments, I don't think it is 
fair for our Republican colleagues to ask us to go through the 
amendatory process, some of which will be difficult, and then not get 
an up-or-down vote on final passage.
  That is the little piece I wanted to say here. I hope it will help 
bring us together because the greatest fun I have had in this place and 
the greatest effectiveness I have had in this place is when I worked in 
a bipartisan way on bill after bill. It happens less frequently now. 
Although, as I said, the immigration bill is an exception to that, and 
other bills are an exception to that. But maybe we can get back to 
working together if each side tries to understand the grievances and 
the gravamen of the position of the other.
  I hope we can do that on this bill and on many other bills in the 
future.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                              Health Care

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, it is no secret that every Republican in 
this Chamber, every Senator on this side of the aisle voted against the 
President's health care law. We said it would do great harm to the 
American people, and we are finding out that is true. It is also no 
secret that every Democrat in the Senate voted in favor of the health 
care law. It was partisan, it was a bad idea, and it has failed the 
country in many ways.
  People know about the health care Web site. The Web site was a 
spectacular public failure, and that was just the tip of the iceberg. 
When we look under the iceberg, we see that people are being hit with 
higher premiums and canceled coverage. Five million people lost their 
coverage around the country. People were not able to keep the doctor 
they had and liked in spite of the President's promise that if you like 
your doctor, you can keep your doctor. There are concerns about higher 
copays and deductibles, and fraud and identity theft is also an issue 
that is plaguing all of America. I believe the health care Web site is 
a spot where we are going to see more problems in that area. Americans 
know that fraud and identity theft are big concerns. It has been clear 
from the start that the health care exchange was vulnerable to con 
artists and hackers. Information from the government actually went out 
telling people to be careful with their information because of the 
concerns about con artists and hackers. So that is a problem, and it is 
something Washington and this body need to take seriously.
  Whenever President Obama talks about the health care law, he says 
that if Republicans have good ideas, please bring them forward, share 
them, and he will support them. Republicans have offered a lot of ideas 
on how to give the American people the health care reform they wanted 
all along. We passed bills in the House of Representatives. We tried to 
bring up bills here in the Senate. Democrats won't even allow us to 
vote on those bills in the Senate.
  As a doctor, I can tell you what people are looking for with health 
care reform. They want access to quality, affordable health care--care 
they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs. They didn't get 
that with the health care law the President and the Democrats shoved 
down the throats of the American people. Every time the majority 
leader--at that desk--blocks reform, I believe he is making things 
worse for millions of Americans.
  We are trying again to take the President at his word that he will 
support good Republican ideas. Senator Johanns of Nebraska and I have 
introduced a commonsense bill that will help protect Americans who use 
the government insurance exchange. Our bill, called the Health Exchange 
Security and Transparency Act, requires the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services to notify Americans within 2 business days if their 
personal information has been stolen due to security breaches on the 
exchanges. We are not saying it is going to happen, but it sure could 
happen, and if it does people need to be informed.
  The House passed a version of this bill last Friday, and it was 
clearly a bipartisan bill. Sixty-seven Democrats joined Republicans to 
support this good idea. Now I believe it is our turn here in the 
Senate. There shouldn't be anything controversial about this at all. 
This should be the kind of bill we can pass by unanimous consent.
  After forcing so many Americans to buy insurance through this 
program, I

[[Page S304]]

believe it is the government's responsibility to safeguard Americans' 
private information. Even Senators who voted for the President's health 
care law should agree with this. That should be the minimum we require 
from Washington--keep Americans' private information private. If the 
government fails to keep that information safe, they should have to 
admit it and tell people what happened.
  This bill is a single page. Americans are concerned about their 
safety online, about having their identity stolen, and this bill would 
give people at least the reassurance that they would be informed, that 
if there is identity theft, they would know about it.
  Look at what just happened to the Target stores. It now looks as if 
70 million people had their personal data compromised. Target ran a 
full-page ad in the Washington Post talking about what happened with 
their 70 million customers. They apologized for it. The same ad that 
ran here in the Washington Post also ran in the New York Times, the 
Wall Street Journal, and other papers around the country. Target has 
told people about the security breach so they can take appropriate 
steps and watch for signs of identity theft. Target also said they will 
do free credit checks for a year and addressed the concerns many 
American people have and said: This is how we will take care of it. All 
the bill we are offering today says is that if something happens--as 
happened with Target--on the government's health exchange Web site, 
Washington should do the same. They should tell people that someone has 
had access to their personal information so people can protect 
themselves.
  The health care law was completely inadequate in how it dealt with 
personal security issues. The Web site has been a debacle, and we know 
that. It is a hacker's dream. Even before the Web site was launched 
last March, it was a mess.
  CBS News reported that deadlines for the site's final security plans 
were delayed three times over the summer. So we saw that problem. Final 
end-to-end security tests were never finished before the Web site was 
launched.
  In November, after the Web site was launched, four experts testified 
before the House about Web site problems. They were asked: Would any of 
you advise an American citizen to use this Web site as the security 
system now exists? Not one of the four experts said they would--none.
  By December, one of those same industry experts said that the 
situation was even worse. The so-called fixes caused new security 
patterns and problems. Remember, that was after the White House was 
claiming it had fixed the Web site. What they had fixed was just the 
tip of the iceberg, and these problems under the tip continue today.
  So the House passed a bill on Friday by an overwhelming bipartisan 
majority, and the President still says he opposes it. Why would the 
President oppose this bill? Why would he oppose being honest with the 
American people in helping them protect themselves from identity theft? 
President Obama has dug in his heels so deep on his health care law 
that he won't even consider good bipartisan ideas that will help the 
American people. Senator Johanns and I are going to continue to push 
for a vote and to call on the President to support this bill.

  The President needs to keep his promise to support good Republican 
ideas and to protect the American people from identity theft. As I 
said, this is just the tip of the iceberg with the Web site. All one 
has to do is go to this morning's newspapers.
  The Washington Post, above the fold, front page: ``Insurance sign-ups 
by young adults lag. Key measure for health-care law. Premiums could 
jump if more don't enroll.'' Higher premiums, that is what I am hearing 
from home in Wyoming.
  Today's Wall Street Journal: ``Health Sign-ups Skew Older, Raising 
Fears of Higher Costs.'' That is not what the President promised. The 
President came to the floor of the House of Representatives in a joint 
session of Congress and said: If you like your coverage, you can keep 
your coverage. If you like your doctor, you can keep our doctor. He 
said insurance premiums would drop for people. He made statements over 
the past years that under his plan insurance policies would drop $2,500 
per family. Why is the New York Times saying premiums could jump? The 
President says one thing; the rest of the world sees another.
  The New York Times today, again, front page, above the fold: ``Older 
People Lead Sign-Ups For Insurance. Pattern Could Result in Higher 
Premiums.'' There are questions about the law's financial viability.
  The President put together a program, and those of us who actually 
read the bill ahead of time had great concerns about its success, its 
viability, its ability to deliver what it promised. The President's 
promises, one of which has now been called the lie of the year, 
continue. It has been called that by a group that looks at statements 
and is somewhat of a referee as political statements are made. To get 
that kind of an accomplishment for the President just shows how 
misleading the efforts have been on the American people.
  The American people see what they are getting in their mail--
cancellation notices. They see what happens when they go to the Web 
site: higher premiums, sticker shock, and now this threat of ongoing 
security concerns, especially in light of what is occurring throughout 
the rest of the country.
  It is time for the President to keep his word that he does want to 
work with Republicans for good ideas, and he could do so by adopting 
this measure passed by the House on Friday that Senator Johanns and I 
have presented to the Senate for approval today.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                              TPA Renewal

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate my colleagues 
on the recent introduction of legislation to promote trade promotion 
authority.
  Increasing free trade levels the playing field for U.S. companies. We 
all know that. It increases competition. We know that too. It also 
increases access to foreign markets, with all the attendant benefits. 
U.S. businesses stand the best chance to see gains in accessing foreign 
markets through bilateral and regional free-trade agreements. Given the 
complexity of these agreements, the consultation process and the 
expedited consideration provided by TPA is really the only way to go.
  According to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the United 
States is ``the world's largest economy and the largest exporter and 
importer of goods and services.'' We exported more than $2.2 trillion 
in goods and services last year.
  For those of us who represent border States, the issue hits very 
close to home. In recent years Mexico has become America's third 
largest trading partner and our second largest export market. According 
to the Arizona-Mexico Commission, Arizona's ports of entry serve as 
gateways for $26 billion in U.S.-Mexican trade annually. Arizona 
benefits from more than $13 billion in bilateral trade with Mexico 
every year.
  Given the benefits of vibrant export markets and access to low-cost 
imports, it is difficult to overstate the importance of getting trade 
agreements in place. A U.S. Chamber official recently noted in Roll 
Call that nearly half of U.S. exports go to our free-trade agreement 
partners and that these countries make up just one-tenth of the world 
economy. Let me repeat that. Half of our exports go to those countries 
with which we have free-trade agreements. Yet those countries represent 
just one-tenth of the world's economy. That tells us the importance of 
getting these free-trade agreements in place.
  In a recent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, former U.S. 
Trade Representative Robert Zoellick noted that ``on average, in the 
past five years of a new free-trade agreement, U.S. exports grew nearly 
three to four times as rapidly as U.S. exports to others.''
  This is great news given that negotiations on the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership, or TPP, are ongoing. Its successful approval would yield 
the largest free-trade agreement the United States has ever been a part 
of. Approval of the TPP agreement would provide increased access to 
critical Asia-Pacific markets for U.S. businesses at a critical time. 
It is difficult to see how this agreement will be concluded without TPA 
reauthorization.

[[Page S305]]

  Given that a 2010 study prepared by the Business Roundtable found 
that 38 million jobs--1 in 5 jobs in the United States--are supported 
by trade, the introduction of TPA renewal legislation couldn't be more 
timely.
  Again, I congratulate my colleagues for the introduction of this 
legislation. I look forward to its consideration.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                             OSHA Policies

  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to acknowledge 
my colleagues in the Senate for standing up for family farms. I am also 
here to issue a very straightforward warning to OSHA: The Senate makes 
crystal clear in the new appropriations bill that OSHA policies and 
inspectors better get in line with the law.
  Since 1976 Congress has included specific language in appropriations 
bills very specifically prohibiting OSHA from enforcement action on 
farms with 10 or fewer employees. However, this did not stop the agency 
from distorting the definitions of farming practices in sending 
inspectors to small family-owned farming operations anyway.
  In my home State of Nebraska, OSHA targeted a family farm that grows 
corn and soybeans and has just one nonfamily employee. It is clearly 
within the scope of the congressional exemption. As do most American 
farms, this farming operation includes grain bins for crop storage 
after harvest. But according to OSHA's absurd logic, grain storage, 
they say, is not part of farming operations, so it is not exempt from 
the regulations. I can't make this stuff up. While OSHA made no claim 
that anyone on the farm had been injured, the agency said the grain 
bins failed to comply with OSHA regulations, and--get this--they 
slapped the farm with fines totaling $132,000.
  This is not an issue that is confined to one farm in Nebraska. A 2011 
memo from OSHA's enforcement chief to regional administrators 
acknowledged that the law prevents the agency from regulating small 
farms. They got that right. However, the memo proceeds to recategorize 
farming operations that happen after harvest, and OSHA said those are 
not exempt. Under this recategorization, OSHA claimed that its 
inspectors had the authority to regulate small family-owned farms and 
their grain storage facilities. This is a blatant overreach and yet 
another example of this administration's backdoor rulemaking.
  Whenever I meet with farmers and ranchers in Nebraska, they 
oftentimes raise concerns about Federal regulatory overreach. It is 
absolutely no wonder farmers and ranchers feel as though they have a 
target on their backs. OSHA's twisting of the law serves as evidence 
that farmers' concerns are legitimate.
  In response to OSHA's regulatory overreach, I wrote a letter to 
Secretary Perez, joined by a bipartisan group of 42 of my Senate 
colleagues. We requested that OSHA immediately stop its unlawful 
regulation of family farms. We also directed OSHA to issue updated 
guidance correcting its obvious misinterpretation of the law.
  I am pleased that the Omnibus appropriations bill further reinforces 
our position through report language specifically addressing OSHA's 
overreach while continuing the long-standing small-farm exemption. The 
report language calls on OSHA to work with USDA before moving forward 
with any attempts to redefine and regulate post-harvest activities such 
as storing grain. It also makes it clear that the exemption applies to 
those activities that occur on the farm. That includes the entire 
farming operation.
  I thank my 42 colleagues who joined me in signing the letter, as well 
as my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for sending a clear 
message that Federal agencies are not above the law. As I stated 
earlier, small family-owned farms have been exempt from OSHA 
regulations for the past 35 years. This is not a new concept. Simply 
put, this language reaffirms the commonsense ideas that Federal 
agencies cannot and should not bypass the law by redefining it to 
expand their jurisdiction.
  Let me be clear that we all want farms and ranches to be safe. In 
fact, a safe working environment is especially important for small 
farmers and ranchers whose families are oftentimes the only ones who 
work the farm or the ranch. Small family farms and ranches in my home 
State and across this country should be able to continue their work to 
feed and fuel the world without fear of being targeted by this 
administration in direct violation of the law. If the administration 
believes the law should be changed, they should come to Congress and 
make their case. They should not ignore the law as if it does not 
exist.
  Again, I thank my colleagues for affirming the law of the land and 
supporting our Nation's farmers and ranchers.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Military COLAs

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to discuss my growing concern about 
the effects of our actions--or in this case inaction--in Washington on 
our military families and veterans in Virginia. As we all know, the 
Senate and House passed the Bipartisan Budget Act last month, which 
hopefully will be a first step toward getting us back on the right 
track toward a functioning Congress. But I was disappointed--and I know 
many of my colleagues were disappointed--that in that legislation was 
included a reduction in military pension cost-of-living adjustments for 
retired and medically retired servicemembers. Our service men and women 
deserve much better than seeing their pensions arbitrarily cut by 
lawmakers in Washington. What was particularly disappointing was that 
this action singled out our military families and veterans 
disproportionately.
  Yesterday evening, the appropriations committees released their 2014 
budget. I was pleased their omnibus budget proposal repeals the COLA 
cuts for a portion of those military families--for those disabled 
military retirees who are medically retired and for survivors of 
military retirees who elected to pay survivor benefit annuities to take 
care of their families after their deaths. This is progress. But I hope 
we can finish the job and pass an amendment I have been working on with 
Senators Shaheen and McCain and a series of other proposals to make 
sure we fully roll back this unfair cut to our military families and 
veterans.
  We know over the last two decades our military has fought two wars. 
Their families have made unprecedented sacrifices. Unfortunately, this 
sacrifice was again brought home last week when a Navy MH-53E 
helicopter crashed off the coast of Virginia Beach. Our thoughts and 
prayers are with the families of the missing and fallen: LT Sean 
Christopher Snyder, LT Wesley Van Dorn, and Navy Aircrewman Brian 
Andrew Collins.
  Virginia is home to one of the Nation's largest concentrations of 
Active-Duty and retired military personnel. I consider it an honor and 
a privilege to represent them in Congress. So while we are shutting 
down government and signing short-term CRs, the pensions of our service 
men and women are being unfairly singled out. This isn't right, this 
isn't fair, and my hope is that today and over the next few days we 
will fully correct the mistake we made in the Budget Act last month.
  In my time in the Senate, working for our military families and 
veterans has been one of my top priorities. I am proud I have 
relentlessly worked across the aisle on this issue. I would like to 
point out one particular action where we have made dramatic progress.
  I have worked with the Puller Clinic at William & Mary Law School in 
Hampton Roads to develop a model for veterans legal clinics to help 
solve the Nation's backlog of veterans' benefits claims. To my mind it 
is an embarrassment that our veterans sometimes have to wait for over 1 
year to get their claims processed to receive the benefits they have 
already earned.
  Working with the William & Mary Puller Law Clinic, we got the VA to 
accept this model and to be certified by the VA to become the first law 
school in the country to be able to complete fully developed claims. 
Now 19 universities in Virginia are committed to serving veterans and 
more than 15 law

[[Page S306]]

schools across the country have adopted the William & Mary model.
  The incredible thing about this project--and we often use the term 
``win-win-win''--is this truly is a win-win-win. It is a win for the 
taxpayers because there are no taxpayer funds involved, it is a win for 
our veterans who are able to get their claims processed in a more rapid 
and expeditious manner, and it is a win for the law students who gain 
valuable experience in both dealing with a large Federal agency--the 
VA--but, more importantly, being able to help one-on-one veterans who 
deserve to get their benefits.
  I have also worked with my friends and former Virginia colleague Jim 
Webb to draft legislation for a complete comprehensive look at military 
compensation and retirement. We have worked with Chairman Levin as 
well, and this Commission will be reporting later this year. I look 
forward to the results because we do have to recognize our overall 
compensation and benefits packages need an overall review. I believe 
this Commission will make strong recommendations on how we can both 
modernize and achieve fiscal stability for our military.
  I am proud of the work I have done on veterans' issues in terms of 
the Puller Clinic, in terms of the overall look at the military 
compensation package as part of an effort to make sure we honor our 
commitment to our military. But as we honor that commitment to our 
military, we have to recognize as well that threats to our Nation are 
not just those posed by outside forces but also the continuing threat 
of our increasing debt and deficit. I often like to cite former 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen, who said the 
single largest threat to our Nation was not the threat of terrorists 
but the threat of that $17 trillion debt and deficit, which goes up by 
over $4 billion a night--a debt burden that may weigh down our ability 
to compete in the future.
  I continue to come to the floor--not always successfully--to suggest 
to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that we cannot continue to 
punt on this issue; that, ultimately, both political parties are going 
to have to give. We are going to have to find ways to generate 
additional revenues through a comprehensive reform of our Tax Code. We 
are going to have to find a way to make sure that not only the promise 
of military pensions and benefits but also the promise of Social 
Security and Medicare will be here for future generations. That means 
both political parties will have to be willing to give on their sacred 
cows.
  We have to make sure as well, if we put together this comprehensive 
approach on debt and deficit, that it will provide the kind of 
financial stability to our military families, making sure those 
pensions, benefits, and other kinds of compensation packages will be 
there for themselves and for future people who serve. But that is for a 
future battle. Right now we have to finish the work the Appropriations 
Committee started on getting rid of this unfair attack on the military 
COLAs that was included in the Budget Act.
  I hope my colleagues will join my friends, Senator Kaine and Senator 
Shaheen and others, to replace the cuts to the military COLAs. The 
approach we have taken would do this by closing a tax loophole that 
allows some corporations to actually avoid paying their fair share of 
taxes. There may be other alternatives as well. I will look at any that 
are fair and reasonable and make sure our military families don't get 
singled out.
  Virginians have served with honor in our military for generations, 
and I want to assure our service men and women there is ample time to 
undo these changes before they take effect. I would remind those who 
are listening this decrease in the COLA doesn't actually take place 
until next year, so we still have time to rectify this.
  I promise to continue using every tool I can to fight these unfair 
pension cuts and to make sure the promises we have made to our military 
families and these retirees gets honored.
  With that, 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. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                               ObamaCare

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about 
the damage ObamaCare is doing to our struggling economy.
  After months of unrelenting coverage of ObamaCare's many problems and 
after Friday's release of December's dismal job report, I am sure 
Democrats in the Senate would prefer we talk about almost anything 
else. After all, when you have held most of the power here in 
Washington for the last 5 years, you don't want to mention the fact 
that your main legacy is a sluggish economy and a disastrous train 
wreck of a health care program.
  This past Friday we found out December marked the weakest month of 
job growth since January 2011. The economy added just 74,000 jobs in 
December--less than half of the monthly job growth needed for a real 
recovery.
  Some are saying perhaps this is an aberration, and perhaps it was for 
a 1-month period. But the one thing we can't get away from is that 
December's drop in the unemployment rate--the slight drop that we saw 
as a percentage--was driven by nearly 350,000 Americans dropping out of 
the workforce altogether, driving the labor participation rate to its 
lowest level in 36 years. We haven't seen the labor participation rate 
this low since the Carter administration.
  Had millions of Americans not stopped looking for work since January 
of 2009, the unemployment rate would be a staggering 10.8 percent. What 
I mean is if the labor participation rate were today what it was in 
2009--in other words, the number of Americans actually in the labor 
force looking for jobs--the unemployment rate would be almost 11 
percent, a significantly higher number than what we use as the official 
unemployment rate today. Even without that, the Wall Street Journal 
points out that ``the unemployment rate remains near levels previously 
seen only during recessions.''
  Let me repeat that: The Wall Street Journal states that ``the 
unemployment rate remains near levels previously seen only during 
recessions.'' That is a pretty damning statement.
  The President and his advisers would like us to believe that 
President Obama's policies are growing our economy and putting 
Americans back to work. But in the 5 years of his Presidency, all 
Democrats have been able to accomplish is a recovery that looks a lot 
like other Presidents' recessions.
  In his weekly address on Saturday, the President said he would do 
``everything I can to create new jobs and new opportunities for 
American families.''
  How does he propose to do that? By treating the symptoms, not the 
causes, of economic stagnation. Economic bandaids like the President 
proposes may temporarily help a few Americans, but they will do nothing 
to bring about the real long-term job growth our country needs. 
Unfortunately, the President's policies are actually hurting already 
struggling middle-class families and making it more difficult for 
businesses to grow and create jobs.
  Chief among the President's failed policies is the massive boondoggle 
known as the Affordable Care Act. If there is one thing you don't want 
in an economy where businesses are already struggling, it is 
legislation that places everything from new taxes to burdensome new 
regulations on businesses, and yet that is exactly what ObamaCare does.
  There is a tax on medical devices, like pacemakers and prosthetics, 
which is driving medical device jobs overseas and driving medical bills 
up for American patients. There is a pill tax, which is a tax on 
prescription drugs. There is a tax on businesses that do not provide a 
government-approved health care. There are multiple taxes on health 
insurance companies, and more.
  Then there are the scores of new regulations which raise the cost of 
doing business--regulations like the requirement that any business with 
50 or more workers provide ObamaCare-approved health insurance benefits 
to its full-time employees, which the health care law defines as 30 
hours or more per week. That is all very well for some employers, but 
for many employers in industries with small profit margins, providing 
Obama-approved health care to full-time workers is the difference

[[Page S307]]

between making a profit and making none at all. For employers in 
nonprofit fields like education, it can be the difference between 
staying in operation or closing.
  Around the country, school systems, community colleges and 
universities, restaurants, and other small businesses are being forced 
to cut workers' hours to avoid the full burden of ObamaCare's mandate. 
It is no wonder the health care law is so unpopular with the owners of 
businesses, both large and small.
  CBS News reported in December:

       Nearly half of U.S. companies said they are reluctant to 
     hire full-time employees because of the law.

  A survey from the National Association of Manufacturers found that 
more than 75 percent of manufacturers cite soaring health care costs as 
the biggest issue facing their businesses.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. In addition to being bad for business's bottom line, 
ObamaCare is placing a tremendous financial burden on American 
families.
  The President claimed his health care law would reduce the cost of 
health care, but the average family has seen a $2,500 premium increase 
since the law's passage--and now that the law is being fully 
implemented, that number is set to soar even higher.
  One of my constituents, Carrie, emailed me to tell me she may have to 
take a part-time job to afford the health care premium she was quoted 
for a family of 6. That is a part-time job on top of the two part-time 
jobs she already works and the full-time job her husband works.
  Another constituent, Matt from Rapid City, SD, emailed to tell me his 
insurance has gone up 60 percent. Meanwhile, his wife's hours at work 
have been reduced below the ObamaCare full-time threshold of 30 hours. 
``We have had to cut back on basic needs,'' he told me.
  Terry contacted me to tell me his insurance policy was cancelled, and 
that he was offered a replacement policy for twice the cost of his 
original policy. ``Now \1/4\ of my salary will go to my insurance.'' 
That is a quarter of his salary.
  Is this the affordable care Americans were promised?
  Democrats claim they want to grow the economy, but what do they think 
happens to the economy when businesses aren't growing and people aren't 
spending? When Americans have to devote more of their income to paying 
their health care bills, they cut back on other spending, they go out 
to fewer restaurants, they keep their old car for a few more years, and 
they put a bucket under the leak instead of paying for a new roof. That 
is a lot of money not going to local businesses.
  Similarly, when businesses are hit with burdensome taxes and 
regulations, they cut back on hiring and investment, they cut workers' 
hours, and they move jobs overseas. That means fewer jobs for the 
millions of Americans looking for work and lower wages for families 
already struggling to get by.
  If Democrats were really serious about growing the economy and 
creating jobs, they would stop focusing on economic bandaids and start 
a long, hard look at the damage ObamaCare is doing to our economy.
  As Members of Congress, we need to make it easier to create jobs, not 
harder. We should be repealing burdensome mandates, not creating them. 
We should be reducing the tax burden, not increasing it, and we should 
be creating incentives for businesses to expand, not eliminating them.
  Millions of Americans spend too much time wondering how they are 
going to afford their health care premiums or buy a house or send their 
kids to college. We need to give them the economic opportunities they 
need.
  Over the past few weeks Republicans in the House and in the Senate 
have introduced plan after plan to get our economy moving again and 
help struggling families find better jobs and increased wages.
  I recently introduced a plan to exempt long-term unemployed workers 
from the ObamaCare mandate, an onerous and unpopular provision which 
will destroy jobs and reduce hours for hardworking Americans. In fact, 
this mandate is so unpopular and so unworkable that the administration 
unilaterally delayed it past the next election.
  Since even the administration doesn't want to enforce it, I think we 
can all agree that exempting the long-term unemployed will help break 
the cycle of extended unemployment that plagues the Obama economy.
  We hope Democrats will abandon their short-term cosmetic fixes and 
join us in talking about the kind of long-term reform which will truly 
grow the economy and offer economic opportunity to every American. We 
have lived in the Obama economy long enough.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I am here to speak in opposition to the 
offset in Ayotte amendment No. 2603. The bipartisan budget that passed 
in December included a Republican provision that changed the annual 
cost-of-living adjustments, or COLAs, for military retirees. I opposed 
that provision, and I believe there is bipartisan support for repealing 
it. The main question that needs to be debated is how to pay for that 
repeal. Amendment No. 2603 would pay for fixing the military retirement 
COLA problem by denying the refundable child tax credit to millions of 
eligible U.S. citizen children. That amendment asks, in effect, whether 
military retirees are more deserving of help than U.S. citizen children 
who are on the edge of poverty. That is a false choice. That is not the 
right approach.
  The child tax credit is one of our most important programs to reduce 
child poverty. Tens of millions of families claim the child tax credit 
each year--more than 35 million families in 2009--both using Social 
Security numbers and individual taxpayer identification numbers. 
According to the Congressional Research Service, the child tax credit 
reduces child poverty by approximately one-fifth. For such an important 
and widely used program as this, we should be careful that any changes 
we make to the program do not harm low-income children and working 
families. Many of these low-income families are headed by women.
  Any large program is susceptible to fraud and misuse. When fraud is 
alleged, the cases should be investigated and the people who commit 
fraud should be punished. This means targeted, aggressive auditing and 
enforcement, not wholesale changes to the program that will deny help 
to kids who are legally receiving it today.
  The proponents of the amendment tell us that individuals are 
fraudulently claiming the child tax credit for kids who live in Mexico 
or for kids who do not exist. That is already a violation of the law. 
This is fraud. I agree with the sponsor that we should take steps to 
prevent this fraud.
  The IRS says this amendment would not solve the fraud problem. In 
2012, five Senators wrote to the IRS regarding this matter, and their 
letter asked:

       Does the fact that the person filing the return has a 
     Social Security number indicate whether the child claimed for 
     the credit met the residency requirements required under the 
     law?

  The response from the IRS, in a letter dated July 20, 2012, was:

       The possession of a SSN [Social Security number] by the 
     filer is not relevant in determining whether the child met 
     the residency requirements.

  In other words, imposing a Social Security number requirement does 
not prevent the fraud that the sponsor seeks to prevent. That makes 
intuitive sense. If a person is going to lie about the existence of a 
kid, they will lie about the SSN too. This amendment does not solve the 
problem.
  If this amendment does not solve the problem, then what would be the 
real impact of this amendment? Here is what the amendment would do.
  First, it would deny help to roughly 4 million U.S. citizen children 
from low-income households by making their families ineligible for the 
child tax credit. The average family claiming the refundable child tax 
credit earns only about $21,000 a year, and, as I mentioned earlier, 
many of these families are led by women. Every dollar matters to these 
families. The child tax credit lifts roughly 1.5 million children out 
of poverty each year. This amendment would plunge many of these 
children back into poverty.

[[Page S308]]

  I wish to emphasize that because of the way the child tax credit is 
structured in the Tax Code, only working families are eligible for the 
refundable portion. These families are working and paying taxes, but in 
lean years they would be denied help from the child tax credit if this 
amendment were to become law. They are paying taxes but would be denied 
help. That is not fair.
  Second, this amendment would render these 4 million U.S. children 
second-class citizens because of who their parents are. That is 
contrary to the principle of equality on which this country was 
founded. All citizens should be treated fairly and equally. This 
amendment says some citizen children will receive help and others will 
not, depending on who their parents are. That is simply not right.
  In closing, there is a better way to pay for repealing the military 
COLA provision that was included in the budget, and that is to close 
corporate tax loopholes. The proponents cite a news report from Indiana 
in which an undocumented worker admitted he had allowed four other 
undocumented workers to use his address to file tax returns. The four 
workers did not live there, but he allowed them to use his address 
anyway. I agree that this is fraud and should be stopped.
  This story reminds me of the story of the Ugland House in the Cayman 
Islands. The Ugland House is a 5-story building that has been 
identified as the official address for 18,857 companies, all at the 
same time. Some of the inhabitants of this address are some of the 
largest publicly traded companies in the United States. As I understand 
it, this is not a violation of U.S. laws. Tens of thousands of 
corporations can legally use the same building for their official 
address. It is not fraud but merely tax planning, I am told.
  Offshore mailing addresses and accounting tricks are allowing 
corporations to shelter enormous profits from U.S. taxes. According to 
Bloomberg News, 83 of the largest companies in the United States held 
$1.46 trillion in profits offshore in 2012. Another report, by JPMorgan 
Chase, estimates that the amount of offshore profits is even higher--
nearly $1.7 trillion. How does this work? They funnel their revenues 
through shell companies to escape taxation. Countries such as Bermuda, 
Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Switzerland--which combined 
account for less than one-half of 1 percent of the world's population--
generated 43 percent of the profits reported by American companies in 
2008. Clearly, there is a major tax problem here.
  While our colleagues rail against five workers using one address to 
file taxes, we hear nothing about more than 18,000 companies that have 
used one address to file their taxes. Talk about egregious. These 
corporate tax loopholes resulting in the huge amount of taxes companies 
don't pay are what this Congress should focus on, not on denying a few 
hundred dollars of help to a U.S. citizen child who is on the edge of 
poverty.
  Senator Shaheen has filed an amendment that begins to address these 
corporate tax problems. Her amendment, No. 2618, of which I am a 
cosponsor, will prevent more than 18,000 corporations from pretending 
they are headquartered in a single building in the Cayman Islands. Like 
the amendment of Senator Ayotte, the Shaheen amendment will repeal the 
military retiree COLA provision that was in the budget deal. The 
difference is that the amendment of Senator Shaheen will pay for the 
repeal by holding corporations accountable for the taxes they owe 
instead of denying help to U.S. citizen children of working parents, 
many of whom are women, who are in poverty.
  We all recognize that we have a responsibility to our veterans, 
taxpayers, and to future generations. The amendment of Senator Shaheen 
will allow us to meet all of these commitments at the same time. I urge 
my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense approach and 
vote in favor of the Shaheen amendment and not the Ayotte amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I join my colleague from Hawaii in her 
remarks and her opposition to the Ayotte amendment. I wish to start off 
by simply saying that when we are talking about extending unemployment 
insurance benefits to Americans who have played by the rules, done 
everything right, and through no fault of their own find themselves 
unemployed, many long-term unemployed, and who are trying to get a job 
but still, despite an economy that is improving, have not seen the job 
market increase significantly so that they can attain that job--what 
they need at this time is not a kick in the pants, they need a helping 
hand so that they can sustain their families during this period of time 
and continue to be in a position to do that which the law requires of 
them: continue to look for a job and eventually find that job.
  The reality is that this is not an ideological battle, I hope, in a 
greater political war. It is about real people and the lives of real 
people. I don't think we can lose sight of that simple fact. Political 
ideology doesn't trump faith and family values. It does not trump 
reason or compassion or the acceptance that we are all in this 
together.
  Having said that, I am encouraged that there is bipartisan support 
for repealing the military pension cuts. I opposed those. I am 
committed to ensuring that our brave men and women and their families 
receive all the care and resources they deserve, both during their 
service and throughout their lives. They have fought for our freedom 
and security in the most difficult situations, and our Nation owes them 
the same level of commitment, and we remain indebted to them for their 
service.
  But I have heard the Senator from New Hampshire declare her support 
for offsetting the cost to fix that by fixing ``an egregious problem in 
the Tax Code.'' As someone who sits on the Senate Finance Committee, I 
can tell you that after years of being stymied by Republican opposition 
to closing any tax loopholes, to shutting down any abusive tax 
practices, I would like to have them join us in looking for savings in 
the Tax Code to achieve a bipartisan goal. But, unfortunately, instead 
of shutting down the abuses in the code, like the huge amounts of money 
stripped out of the United States and piling up in tax havens abroad, 
or instead of ending the wasteful subsidies for very profitable 
companies, such as the oil industry, or perhaps the myriad tax shelters 
used by millionaires to avoid paying their fair share, my colleague 
decided instead to propose legislation that would have a devastating 
impact on 4 million children who are U.S. citizens and who deserve 
every right and every protection as any other child under the 
Constitution, all of whom are deserving of our support.
  Instead of working with Democrats, many of whom have spent a great 
deal of time studying and pointing out waste, fraud, and abuse in the 
Tax Code to find a bipartisan solution, we are presented with a 
proposal that would go much further than she claims and hammer over 2 
million working and tax-paying families.
  What does the child tax credit do, which is the subject of her 
amendment? The child tax credit is for people who have a qualifying 
child. That is the fundamental essence of the child tax credit. You are 
not eligible for it if you do not have a qualifying child. What is a 
qualifying child under the law? It must be the son, daughter, 
stepchild, foster child, brother, sister, stepbrother, stepsister, or a 
descendent of the filer. They must live with the filer for more than 
half of the year. No. 3, the child must be a U.S. citizen, a U.S. 
national, or a U.S. resident alien. It is the child who is the 
determinative factor. It is the child for which these resources 
ultimately we have decided as a Congress and as a society to support.
  We talk about being family-friendly. We talk about the poverty 
situation in this country. We talk about the consistently growing gap 
in terms of the haves and the have-nots. This amendment is only going 
to exacerbate that problem for U.S. children.
  To eliminate the ability of a taxpayer to use a taxpayer ID number in 
order to claim the refundable portion of the child tax credit ignores 
the fact that the vast majority of these children are U.S. citizens and 
the child tax credit was enacted to help families financially care for 
their children. The refundable portion was introduced because children 
in working families deserve the same support provided by

[[Page S309]]

benefits in the Tax Code as anyone else. That is why we made it 
refundable--because we wanted to reward work and we wanted to help with 
the growth of that child and to deal with their challenges.
  I agree with the Senator from New Hampshire that the anecdotal 
stories she included in her remarks amount to fraud, and they should be 
stopped. Let's be clear: The stories she told of claiming credits for 
children not in the United States or of 1,000 tax returns linked to 8 
addresses, those actions are already illegal by whomever would make 
such a false filing and commit those actions.
  In fact, what the Senator does is cite reports of IRS investigators 
who did their job shutting down illegal activity. It seems to me the 
IRS doesn't need her amendment to go after this fraud. They need the 
resources and the investigators to ultimately make sure all elements of 
the code that have fraudulent activity being taken need to be dealt 
with. They need Republicans to stop cutting their funds so they can do 
their job better. But to use these instances of fraud that were 
successfully pursued to go after American children is not confronting 
fraud. It is disadvantaging children--4 million children to be exact.
  If we had one computer science company prosecuted for tax evasion, we 
don't bar all computer science companies from ever taking the research 
and development tax credit again. If we find one entity, one person or 
one industry committing fraud, we don't eliminate all of the benefits 
of the provision in the Tax Code for which they committed fraud because 
we have decided that provision is of a societal benefit. What we do is 
make sure we go after the individuals who commit the fraud. It doesn't 
make any sense, just like hammering 4 million U.S. children because of 
fraud perpetrated by some other unscrupulous actor doesn't make a whole 
lot of sense to me.
  I believe this amendment creates a clear-cut case of priorities. 
Surely nobody here would argue that outside of this instance, there is 
no other part of the Tax Code that allows waste, fraud or abuse. We 
could sit down and find dozens of wasteful loopholes, fraudulent tax 
practices, and abusive tax shelters that could be shut down in order to 
pay for restoring the cuts to military pensions. If my Republican 
colleagues chose to support these efforts, I think this bill would sail 
through the Senate.
  I say to my friends who are putting up obstacles--because I believe a 
lot of these false choices that are being put out there are not for the 
purposes of a legitimate policy goal but to undermine the efforts of 
achieving the extension of unemployment insurance--I say to them I 
think you need to stop and think. Think about the people who are 
hurting. Think about their lives, their hopes, and their struggles. 
Think about what their conversations are around the kitchen table at 
night. Every night in New Jersey and all over the country thousands of 
families who have played by the rules and are looking for work are 
sitting around the table asking heartwrenching questions: How will we 
afford the mortgage and keep our home if we cannot get the assistance 
during this period of time? Do I have to decide between putting food on 
the table and keeping a place for my family? What if I have a health 
emergency? These are real-life conversations that are being had by 
Americans across this country.
  How are we not putting aside ideology and looking into our conscience 
for the obvious answer? This is a simple extension of unemployment 
benefits for those who need our help. It is a no-brainer at a time when 
so many need help now and don't care about politics, don't want or 
deserve to be pawns in a political battle over the role or size of 
government. They just want help from the very people who represent 
them.
  It isn't a time for political games. It is a time for action. We can 
always argue deficits. We can argue about debt management, we can argue 
about politics, but for now it is about the American people, their 
lives, their hopes, and their dreams for a better life for themselves 
and their families. It is about the kind of Nation we are and the 
values we hold dear.
  Extending unemployment benefits isn't just the right thing to do 
morally, it also makes good economic sense. Study after study has shown 
that unemployment benefits are one of the most effective ways to help 
our economy grow, so much so that every $1 spent produces a benefit of 
at least $1.50 in gross domestic product. That is because people 
receiving benefits spend the money and immediately stimulate the 
economy in the form of consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent 
of our GDP. Leaving 1.3 million Americans in the cold without any 
assistance would end up costing our economy 240,000 jobs.
  Some on the other side say helping people who have been out of work 
is a crutch. I have to be honest with you. I have never met a person in 
my State who said they wanted to be on unemployment, who found dignity 
in being on unemployment or realized their dreams by being on 
unemployment. They found their dignity by achieving a job that helped 
them realize their hopes and dreams and aspirations.
  The American worker is not lazy, and they don't want handouts. With 
the job market still recovering, there simply are not enough jobs 
available for them. As we work to make sure there is an economy that 
has enough jobs for Americans to be able to realize their hopes and 
dreams and aspirations, it is incumbent on us to make sure we continue 
to assist them so those stark choices around the kitchen table aren't 
as horrible as they are today.
  I hope my colleagues will oppose hurting 4 million American children, 
exacerbating the poverty in our country, and sending a message that 
goes counter to what the child tax credit is all about. We want to help 
an American child be able to fulfill their hopes and dreams and 
aspirations and their God-given potential. The adoption of the Ayotte 
amendment would go entirely counter to that belief.
  With that, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________