[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 11, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S860-S871]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 REPEALING SECTION 403 OF THE BIPARTISAN BUDGET ACT OF 2013--MOTION TO 
                                PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1963, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 298, S. 1963, a bill to 
     repeal section 403 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

[[Page S861]]

                            Ayotte Amendment

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Presiding Officer is new to the 
Senate, and we are glad to have him. He will find in the course of his 
senatorial experience that occasionally good legislative ideas come 
from unexpected places. Occasionally they come from phone calls to your 
office, emails, and letters, where people tell their stories, and from 
those stories you see the need for a new law, a change in policy.
  That happened to me 13 years ago. A Korean-American mother called my 
office in Chicago with a problem. Her problem was that her daughter 
Tereza was about to graduate from high school and had an opportunity to 
go, on scholarship, to the Manhattan Conservatory of Music in New York.
  This was a poor family. Mom worked at a dry cleaners. They barely got 
by. But her daughter had an extraordinary musical talent. She was an 
accomplished pianist, even as a senior in high school, and this was her 
chance.
  As her daughter started to fill out the application form for the 
Manhattan Conservatory of Music, there was a box that asked her to 
identify her nationality, her citizenship. She turned to her mom and 
said: What should I put here? Her mother said: I'm not sure.
  You see, Tereza Lee was brought to the United States at the age of 2 
on a visitor's visa. When the visa expired, her mom, her dad, and she 
stayed in the United States and did nothing else. Technically Tereza, 
having lived about 16 years in this country, was just another 
undocumented kid.
  So they called my office and said: What do we do about this? Well, we 
checked the law. The law is very clear. Tereza and those just like her 
were to be deported from the United States for a minimum of 10 years 
and then be allowed to petition to come back in.
  That seemed to me fundamentally unfair. So I wrote a change for the 
law called the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act said if you are a child under 
the age of 16 brought to this country by parents, if you will finish 
high school, have no serious criminal record, and you are prepared to 
go to college or enlist in the military, we will put you on a path to 
citizenship.
  I introduced that 13 years ago. As you can see, the wheels of justice 
grind exceedingly slow in the U.S. Senate. But over the years, this 
idea of the DREAM Act has really caught hold. The reason is not because 
of me; it is because of the DREAMers. Initially, they were frightened, 
afraid of deportation, raised as children in families where they were 
warned every day: Be careful. Do not get in a position where you are 
going to get arrested. You will get deported, and the whole family 
might get deported. We don't want to break up our family, so be 
careful. So they held back in the shadows, wondering, worrying about a 
knock on the door.
  Over time, though, something happened, and I cannot explain it. The 
same kids who used to stand outside my meetings, after I would talk 
about the DREAM Act in Chicago--waiting in the darkness, in the 
shadows, to tell me, in a whisper, they were DREAMers--decided to step 
up and speak to the United States, to identify themselves. It was an 
act of courage. Some people say: Well, they were kids, and kids do rash 
things. I think it was more courageous than rash.
  I came to the floor on more than 50 different occasions to tell the 
story of the DREAMers: who they are, what they have done, what they 
hope to do--amazing stories, incredible stories, of young people across 
America just asking for a chance to be legalized, to be part of 
America's future. They felt they were Americans start to finish.
  The Presiding Officer's colleague, Senator Bob Menendez, used to talk 
about Hispanics, who are the largest group of DREAMers, standing in 
those classrooms, hand over their heart, pledging allegiance to the 
only flag they have ever known, who faced the cruel reality that they 
were not going to be American citizens unless we changed the law.
  Here is the good news. Over time--a long time; 13 years--the 
sentiment not just of the American people but of Members of Congress 
started to change. It changed for the better. The House of 
Representatives enacted the DREAM Act. Even the Senate, in the 
comprehensive immigration reform bill this last year, enacted the 
strongest DREAM Act ever written.
  In fact, just last week, when Speaker Boehner, in the midst of his 
examination, if you will, of the immigration issue, issued a statement 
of principles, smack-dab in the middle of it, in clear language, was an 
endorsement of the DREAM Act. So although the Speaker may have some 
misgivings--and I am sorry to say I disagree with him--but may have 
some misgivings about comprehensive immigration reform, he acknowledged 
that on a bipartisan basis the DREAM Act was something that both 
parties should embrace.
  I still believe in comprehensive immigration reform. The DREAMers 
will be the first to say: Don't forget my mom and dad when you are 
talking about immigration reform. But the reason I give this preface to 
my remarks is to put in perspective an amendment which will be on the 
floor of the Senate this week offered by Senator Kelly Ayotte of New 
Hampshire. It is an amendment which addresses a provision of the Tax 
Code.
  Here is what our laws currently say when it comes to taxes and 
families working in America. If you are undocumented, you are not 
legally allowed to work in America. That is what the law says. But if 
you do work in America, even undocumented, you have a legal obligation 
to pay your taxes. So how would an undocumented worker pay their taxes? 
Well, they would have an ITIN, they call it, a basic identification 
number that they can use to file their tax returns; and so many do.
  Undocumented workers here in the United States pay their income 
taxes, as required by law. One of the provisions in our Tax Code--for 
every taxpayer--says if you are in certain income categories, you are 
allowed to claim a credit for your children. It helps 38 million 
American families who take this credit on their tax returns because 
they are working families and have children and the Tax Code said: We 
will help you raise your children.

  On its face, it is worth about $1,000 a year in reduced taxes. But 
there are limitations. If your income reaches certain levels, you do 
not qualify for this tax credit.
  Now comes Senator Ayotte who makes a proposal that we basically 
change this child tax credit as it applies to the tax-paying 
undocumented workers--that we say to them their children can only be 
claimed for this child tax credit if the children can produce a Social 
Security number. Therein lies the problem, because many of these 
children, although they are legally claimed today, do not have a Social 
Security number.
  Let's talk about DREAMers, because that is a group affected most 
directly by the Ayotte amendment. DREAMers--those who would qualify if 
the DREAM Act becomes law--have been given a special status because of 
President Obama. He created a deferred deportation, deferred action 
program so that DREAMers could step up, identify themselves to the 
government, register, be given a work permit, and be allowed to apply 
for a Social Security number--DACA it is called.
  We estimate there are about 2.1 million eligible DREAMers in America 
for the law that I want to change. So far, a half a million of them 
have applied for DACA and therefore can obtain Social Security numbers. 
That leaves 1.6 million DREAMers who cannot, under the Ayotte 
amendment, be counted as children under the child tax credit.
  So ultimately what Senator Ayotte is doing is to deny those who are 
working in America and paying their income taxes that provision of the 
Tax Code which says: You get a special consideration for your children. 
I think that is just plain wrong.
  Listen to these numbers: The child tax credit--a refundable credit 
for working families--of $1,000 for each child under the age of 17 is 
limited, as I mentioned earlier. The most anyone can claim for the tax 
credit is 15 percent of family income minus $3,000, regardless of the 
number of children. For example, a minimum-wage worker earning $14,500 
with two or more children would receive at most $1,725 as a tax credit 
or refundable tax credit. The credit is only available for taxpayers 
who are working, earning income, and raising children.
  The Ayotte amendment, though, has to be put in this perspective. 
Nearly 38 million families are expected to benefit from this child tax 
credit this year--I should say this year, filing for last

[[Page S862]]

year's income. Sixty percent of those who claim this tax credit earn 
less than $25,000 a year. Nearly half of the workers, members of 
families working in America claiming the child tax credit, earn $10 an 
hour or less, and 90 percent of those who would be hurt by the Ayotte 
amendment are Hispanic.
  The tax credit is legally available for qualified taxpayers who have 
children with ITINs--these are individual tax identification numbers--
and not everyone who uses an ITIN is undocumented. This amendment, the 
Ayotte amendment, would also affect lawfully present children who use 
ITINs, including victims of human trafficking, DREAMers, as I 
mentioned, under DACA, Cuban and Haitian entrants, and those with a 
pending application for asylum.
  The child tax credit, we estimate, lifts about 3 million people, 
including 1.5 million children, out of poverty every year. It is an 
incentive for these low-income families who are working and paying 
taxes but not earning enough to take care of their kids. The Ayotte 
amendment would eliminate the use of a tax credit for 1 million 
children, pushing many low- and moderate-income families with children 
deeper into poverty.
  What Senator Ayotte is trying to do is to use the proceeds from this 
amendment she is offering to pay for the cost-of-living adjustment 
under the military pensions. Those veterans have already paid for their 
pensions. They paid by volunteering to serve this country and risk 
their lives. Some of them have come home with visible and invisible 
wounds of war that will be with them for a lifetime.
  I do not believe we should come up with a pay-for for something these 
veterans have already paid for, No. 1. And, No. 2, I think it is unfair 
for us to impoverish more children in America as a means of helping our 
veterans. What a cruel choice to put before the U.S. Senate.
  Do not take my word for it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the statement I am about to refer to be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   [From the NETWORK, Feb. 10, 2014]

              Immigrant Families Should Not Pay the Price

                          (By Simone Campbell)

       For a while now, kids--particularly those in immigrant 
     families--have been unfairly under attack in the Senate, and 
     the only plausible explanation is unconscionable: to score 
     political points.
       Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., recently proposed variations of 
     a plan to strip away the refundable Child Tax Credit that now 
     goes to millions of children of taxpaying immigrant workers 
     in low-wage jobs.
       Ayotte alleges that immigrants are fleecing taxpayers by 
     claiming children who do not live in the country or do not 
     really exist. At one point, the senator said she wanted money 
     gained by denying the tax credit to pay for extension of 
     emergency unemployment insurance benefits. Then she switched 
     her focus to helping restore earlier cuts to veterans' 
     pension benefits. In fact, there are much fairer sources of 
     funding for these goals. For example, New Hampshire's other 
     senator, Jeanne Shaheen, said veterans' benefits could be 
     paid for by closing offshore tax loopholes.
       In the end, it doesn't really matter where the money would 
     go since taking money away from children of low-wage, tax-
     paying families is indefensible. Ayotte's proposal is 
     misguided and antithetical to the Gospel call to care for 
     children and those at the margins of society. It violates our 
     long-held values as a nation, and it should be rejected.
       To set the record straight, children targeted by her plan 
     do exist and they do live in the U.S. Four million of them 
     are U.S. citizens and others are ``little DREAMers,'' young 
     children brought to this country by their families. Under 
     existing tax laws, their families may apply for the child tax 
     credit if they qualify financially. If fraud is suspected, 
     the solution is not to deny all eligible children access to 
     this critical antipoverty program. That is cruel and 
     ineffective.
       The Child Tax Credit is a proven success in addressing 
     poverty. Senators concerned about child poverty agree that 
     funding for other programs can be found without targeting 
     needy children.
       Ayotte says she understands families' needs, yet wants to 
     deny a child tax credit to taxpaying immigrant families. 
     Actions speak louder than words, and her proposal hurts 
     families.
       Our political leaders should never place poor children in a 
     position of competing with other vulnerable populations for 
     funds that help pay for food and other basic needs.
       Deliberately harming immigrant families goes against the 
     fundamental goodwill of Americans, including thousands of 
     people we met last year as our ``Nuns on the Bus'' traveled 
     6,500 miles across the U.S. to speak out for justice. 
     Throughout our journey, we stood with, prayed with, and heard 
     the stories of hundreds of immigrants who have long served 
     the needs of our nation.
       Responsible leaders in Congress should look into their 
     hearts and reject proposals like this one pushed by Ayotte. 
     This political tactic is not good for our economy or the 
     wellbeing of our entire nation--especially children who are 
     the future of our country. We are better than this.

  Mr. DURBIN. Sister Simone Campbell is somebody whom I greatly 
respect. Sister Simone Campbell is executive director of NETWORK, a 
national Catholic social justice lobby. She is also one of the 
organizers of Nuns on the Bus, Catholic nuns who have traveled all over 
the United States speaking out on issues of social justice.
  She has sent us a statement opposing the Ayotte amendment. It is a 
lengthy statement. I will not read it all, but I do want to read 
several parts that I think are important. Sister Simone Campbell says:

       To set the record straight, children targeted by [the 
     Ayotte amendment] do exist and they do live in the U.S. Four 
     million of them are U.S. citizens and others are ``little 
     DREAMers,'' young children brought to this country by their 
     families. Under existing tax laws, their families may apply 
     for the child tax credit if they qualify financially. If 
     fraud is suspected, the solution is not to deny all eligible 
     children access to this critical antipoverty program. That is 
     cruel and ineffective.

  Those are the words of Sister Simone Campbell in reference to this 
proposed amendment. She concludes by saying:

       Responsible leaders in Congress should look into their 
     hearts and reject proposals like this one pushed by [Senator] 
     Ayotte. This political tactic is not good for our economy or 
     the wellbeing of our entire nation--especially children who 
     are the future of our country. We are better than this.

  I agree with Sister Campbell. Why is it, week after week, from the 
other side of the aisle, from the other side of the Rotunda, we hear 
proposal after proposal to make it harder for working families, and 
particularly lower income families, to get by in America?
  When we talked about unemployment benefits for those who have lost 
their jobs so they can find additional work, only four Republicans 
Senators would step up and join us in that effort. When we talk about 
extending the minimum wage so that those who get up and go to work 
every single day have a fighting chance, the opposition consistently 
comes from the other side of the aisle.
  Now we have before us this proposal to change the Tax Code to the 
disadvantage of the poorest workers and the poorest families and the 
poorest children in America. We are better than this. Sister Campbell 
is right. I would say to my colleagues, if you believe in the DREAM 
Act--and many of you have said you do--you cannot vote for the Ayotte 
amendment without realizing what it does to these children. To 
impoverish these children on 1 day in the Senate, and before that say 
that we think they should be citizens some day--we have to have a 
consistent moral ethic when it comes to the way we treat children in 
America.
  Denying children the most basics in life, whether it is food stamps 
or assistance on the tax returns of their parents, is just not what 
America should be about. This Ayotte amendment will really call into 
question our dedication to these kids and their families. These workers 
are stepping up, meeting their legal obligation to pay their taxes. All 
they are asking for is to be treated like everyone else under the Tax 
Code. The Ayotte amendment will deny that to millions of these 
children. That is absolutely unacceptable.
  Now, let me address a very real issue. Senator Ayotte has identified 
some instances--I do not know how many--of fraud in the use of this 
child tax credit. I stand with her in trying to fight back and end that 
fraud. But let's be honest. A person making barely minimum wage, filing 
their tax returns and claiming this credit, is not likely to set out to 
game the system.
  The people who are gaming the system are the tax preparers. They are 
the ones who may be lying to the government and are guilty of fraud. I 
will join with Senator Ayotte and any other colleague who wants to stop 
that perpetration of fraud. I do not stand for fraud in any program. I 
do not think any Senator would. But to take this out on the children 
and low-income taxpayers is just plain wrong.

[[Page S863]]

  I urge my colleagues, let's stand by the veterans and restore their 
pensions. Let's do it as quickly as we can. But please do not help our 
veterans at the expense of children in America. This is an important 
amendment. It is one that calls into question our values. I urge my 
colleagues to look at this very carefully.
  This is the last point I will make before I yield the floor; I see 
other colleagues here. I support comprehensive immigration reform. If 
the Ayotte amendment is enacted into law, the cost of bringing the 
DREAMers into citizenship has just gone up by billions of dollars, 
which we will have to raise to undo the Ayotte amendment at a future 
time. Let's not put ourselves in that position.
  For the good of these children and their families and to put this 
Nation in the right place by fixing our broken immigration system, I 
urge my colleagues to oppose the Ayotte amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a 
colloquy with my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        IRS Political Targeting

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise today to bring attention to the 
latest installment concerning political targeting by the IRS. Last 
spring we learned of the IRS's targeting of conservative groups that 
were applying for 401(c)(4) tax exempt status, thanks to a report by 
the IRS's inspector general. This report detailed how the IRS singled 
out conservative groups for excessive scrutiny, which caused some 
applications to lie pending for more than 3 years and another 28 
organizations to actually give up on their unanswered application.
  The President claimed the targeting was due solely to ``boneheaded 
decisions.'' Unfortunately, with the head of the tax-exempt 
organizations unit at the agency, Lois Lerner, choosing to plead the 
Fifth and resigning rather than answer questions before Congress, we 
may find that the source of this problem is a little more troubling 
than that.
  Thankfully, multiple investigations are taking place to answer 
lingering questions such as this one. I look forward to their findings 
wherever they may lead. Uncovering who directed and participated in the 
inappropriate targeting and why will allow us to bring justice to the 
groups affected and ensure that no such targeting like this occurs 
again.
  So imagine my surprise when over the Thanksgiving holiday I learned 
that the IRS had diagnosed the problem and offered its regulatory 
solution, despite the fact that multiple investigations are far from 
complete. On Friday, November 29, without warning, the IRS published a 
proposed rule that would restrict the activities of 501(c)(4) 
organizations, effectively limiting their speech and curtailing their 
civic participation.
  This brings a whole new meaning to the term ``Black Friday.'' This 
rule singles out the same conservative groups that were previously 
targeted by the IRS and threatens to shut them down. It further 
attempts to legitimatize the targeting of organizations that hold 
ideological views that are inconsistent with the administration's 
views.
  It should be no surprise, since critics of these conservative 
organizations have openly called for their extinction, that this is 
occurring. At the least, some would like to force 401(c)(4) 
organizations into ill-fitting structures devised more appropriately 
for political committees in order to require the disclosure of 
conservative supporters.
  The IRS and the White House claim innocently that the proposed rule 
is meant to clear up confusion about the process of applications for 
501(c)(4) organizations involved in political activities. Over the past 
several months, we have heard this administration tell the public 
multiple times how confusing the applications are. Yet 501(c)(4) 
applications have been processed for years without excessive complaints 
of confusion that has occurred in recent months.
  In fact, before the IRS began flagging the applications of 
conservative groups in February 2010, these types of applications were 
being processed within 3 months. Email traffic between IRS employees 
shows that the applications of conservative organizations were not 
flagged out of confusion but, rather, because of media attention and 
potential interest to Washington.
  So let's call this rule what it is. It is an attempt to silence the 
voices of conservative organizations. To be clear, 501(c)(4)s are 
permitted to engage in the political process and in political 
discourse, and they should continue to be allowed to do so. But this 
regulation seeks to limit their participation in a host of advocacy and 
education activities, even nonpartisan voter registration and education 
drives.
  These activities have a clear role in promoting civic engagement and 
social welfare, the precise purpose of the 501(c)(4) structure. 
Unfortunately, the rule would suppress conservative voices by forcing 
organizations to quit these activities or to be shut down. In fact, 
according to evidence collected by the House Ways and Means Committee 
and Chairman Dave Camp, the administration has been working on this 
rule since 2011.
  Not surprisingly, the Treasury Department kept quiet of its plans. In 
fact, it neglected to mention consideration of this rule in the 
agency's 2011 or 2012 policy guidance plan. These are usually the ones 
that detail upcoming projects. If it sounds suspicious, it is. Just 3 
months after the IRS abuse surfaced, the Treasury Department listed in 
its 2013 plan the development of guidance related to the political 
activities of 501(c)(4)s.
  Conveniently, the publicity of the IRS abuse provided an opportunity 
to finally roll out the agency's rule as a solution to its ``boneheaded 
decisions.'' But this administration is not fooling anyone. Over 20,000 
people have already submitted comments to the proposed rule. According 
to the new IRS Commissioner, this is the largest number of comments 
ever received by any agency. Clearly, the public sees through the 
administration's veiled attempts to squash free speech and to shut down 
opposition to its priorities. This is not a way to win back trust.
  Just this past December the IRS Commissioner, known for his ability 
to turn around organizations, was confirmed as the new IRS 
Commissioner. This is John Koskinen. He promised to work towards 
restoring trust to the scandal-ridden agency. But he has yet to turn 
things around and is allowing this politically charged rule to move 
ahead.
  So I come to the floor today, along with my friend from Kansas, 
Senator Roberts, and with the support of 37 additional Members of this 
body, to introduce legislation to stop the rule's implementation. I see 
Senator Hatch from Utah and Senator Cornyn of Texas who will also speak 
to this in a moment.
  The Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act will prevent 
this rule or any other that seeks to continue the targeting of groups 
based on their ideology. It is time to end the intimidation and 
harassment. Let's preserve the First Amendment rights of all groups 
regardless of their ideology, especially those that commit themselves 
to improve our society. Let's restore the public's faith in the ability 
of the IRS to fairly administer our Nation's laws. I hope the rest of 
the Senate will join us in this effort. I look forward to coming back 
to the floor later in the week to ask unanimous consent to pass this 
legislation outright.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I would like first to thank my colleagues 
for working with Senator Flake and myself to bring this proposal 
forward. This is a critical issue, one that really gets straight to the 
heart of our American democracy.
  The current investigations of the IRS clearly show it is not an 
overreaction to say that the Internal Revenue Service did suppress 
political opposition. Now, to Kansans, to Arizonans, to Texans, to 
Utahns all across the country, and to my colleagues, this is not only a 
scandal but one that is egregious.
  There is a great deal more than a ``smidgen'' at stake here. It gets 
right to the heart of our system of government. The government must be 
held accountable for its actions and must

[[Page S864]]

never be permitted to trample on the constitutional rights of our 
citizens. The behavior of the IRS in singling out select groups at 
their discretion for extra scrutiny and harassment just because they 
hold views that differ from the administration is simply outrageous.
  Worse, the IRS continues to target groups whose politics it does not 
like even as we speak on the floor of the Senate. In fact, the proposed 
IRS 501(c)(4) regulations will even more directly prevent groups the 
IRS does not favor from really participating in the political process.
  The proposed regulations would place much tougher controls on what 
would be considered political activity, effectively blocking the normal 
practice of a wide range of not-for-profit organizations, not only 
conservatives. Under the proposed rules, healthy debate and discussion 
of political issues, political candidates, and Congressional actions 
would be prohibited.
  This is, in effect, suppression of free speech for these Americans. 
The proposed regulations would result in continued sanction, 
intimidation and harassment to these groups, and permit the Federal 
Government to be used as a partisan tool. We recently learned that the 
proposed regulations have been under development for some time. Senator 
Flake has just mentioned this. This is nothing new, and perhaps it is 
as far back as 2011. Some say even 2010.
  These proposed regulations until recently have been considered off-
line--my colleagues, pay attention to this--off-line. Off-line means 
that the regs are being considered outside the normal regulatory 
process, which, in my view, has been done in order to circumvent the 
Administrative Procedures Act. There is no transparency here.
  I cannot help but think that all of this, the targeting, the slow 
walking of exemption applications, and the proposed regulations are 
part of a calculated plan to deny unfavored groups their First 
Amendment rights to participate in the political process of the Nation.
  My colleagues, this is simple. What we are seeing is a deliberate 
effort to infringe the peoples' First Amendment rights. It is 
incredible. I never thought I would live to see the day that this would 
happen in the United States and we would have to be debating this. This 
is a copy of the Constitution of the United States--the First Amendment 
by James Madison. This was given to me by Robert C. Byrd, the 
institutional flame of the Senate, who sat right over there to the left 
of the distinguished ranking member from Utah, and I know who is our 
Republican lead in regards to the investigation of all of this in the 
Finance Committee.

       Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 
     religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or 
     abridging the freedom of speech.
  The freedom of speech, my colleagues, or the press or the right of 
the people peaceably to assemble and/or to petition the government for 
a redress of grievances.
  As former chair of the Intelligence Committee, I can say that the 
arrogant response of the administration to the IRS actions, the 
denials, the evasions, the attempts to downgrade the implications of 
the IRS efforts, and now counteraccusations--they look like they came 
from some counterespionage handbook.
  The real problem is that the IRS has proposed these regulations 
before Congress has even completed, as the Senator from Arizona pointed 
out, its investigation of the agency's actions in these matters. The 
manner in which these regulations have come up raises questions about 
the integrity of the rulemaking process--the exact opposite direction 
the agency should be taking.
  Even worse, the IRS proceeds with these rules when they have done as 
much as possible to slow down the Finance Committee's investigation--I 
am a member of that committee; Senator Hatch is leading the effort on 
the Republican side--by responding to document requests at a glacial 
pace at best and redacting large amounts of critical information.
  Senator Flake and I have proposed a very straightforward, very 
commonsense approach to this entire mess. We simply halt further action 
on the proposed regulations until the Justice Department and the 
congressional investigations by the House Ways and Means Committee and 
the Senate Finance Committee into the IRS actions are completed. The 
bill freezes further IRS action for 1 year and would make it clear that 
the IRS could only enforce the regulations that were in place before 
all this mess began.
  It is no wonder, given the IRS's behavior, that Kansans and virtually 
every American--with very good reason--doubt that the agency can in 
good faith administer the Tax Code. Clearly, the IRS has no capacity to 
regulate any political activity without running roughshod over the 
people's fundamental constitutional rights.
  I have said this many times, but the scandal also shows that the IRS 
is too big, too intrusive, and too involved in taxpayers' business. The 
time for us to scale it back is now. In fact, it is easily the most 
distrusted agency in the Federal Government. That is a shame. The IRS 
has become a four-letter word.
  This growing lack of faith in the IRS is a very strong reason why 
Congress should consider a wholesale rewrite of the tax system by 
simplifying tax collection and reducing the government's intrusion into 
economic and other affairs of the public. This is the main reason I am 
supporting legislation to scrap the Tax Code and move to a simplified, 
single-rate tax system. We do not need the IRS regulating 
constitutionally guaranteed free speech and muzzling lawful activity in 
regard to politics and taking part as a partner in government.
  Will Rogers once said, ``The difference between death and taxes is 
death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets.'' Today, Will Rogers 
is wrong. It is not Congress that is making things worse, it is the 
IRS.
  So let's pass this bill and work to get the IRS out of Americans' 
lives and their freedom of speech.
  I thank Senator Flake again for being a cosponsor of the legislation.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Senator from Kansas.
  I yield to the Senator from Utah, the ranking minority member on the 
Finance Committee.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague from Arizona and my colleague from 
Kansas as well.
  I rise today in support of the Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by 
the IRS Act, the bill introduced today by our Senator from Arizona and 
the senior Senator from Kansas. This is a Senate companion to the bill 
being marked up today in the House Ways and Means Committee. This is an 
important piece of legislation that will protect free speech and 
ensure--at least for the time being--that the Internal Revenue Service 
is not used as yet another political arm of this administration.
  As we all know, last November the IRS unveiled proposed regulations 
that would fundamentally alter the nature of the activities tax-exempt 
501(c)(4) organizations can engage in. Under current regulations, 
501(c)(4) organizations--or social welfare groups--can engage in 
political activities on a limited basis so long as their primary 
activity is the promotion of social welfare. However, they remain free 
to educate the public on important issues--even those that may be 
politically charged--because that falls within the exempt purpose of 
promoting social welfare. They can also conduct voter registration 
drives and distribute voter guides outlining candidates' priorities on 
issues important to the organization.
  Under the proposed regulation, virtually all of these activities 
would be considered political activity and would be considered 
inconsistent with various groups' exemptions under 501(c)(4) of the 
Internal Revenue Code. As a practical matter, this would mean that 
grassroots organizations all over the country would be forced to shut 
down--or, to put it more bluntly, conservative grassroots organizations 
all over this country would be forced to shut down.
  That is precisely the point. The Obama administration does not want 
grassroots organizations--even those that are legitimately 
nonpartisan--educating the public on the issues of the day. They don't 
want tax-exempt organizations to be able to tell voters where 
candidates and politicians stand on the issues. And they certainly 
don't want these types of groups participating in the political process 
in any

[[Page S865]]

meaningful way. That is why we are seeing these regulations, that is 
why they were drafted in the first place, and that is why the 
administration seems set to finalize them right before the 2014 midterm 
elections or, at the very latest, before the 2016 Presidential 
election.
  We need to call this what it is.
  This is an affront to free speech and the right of all American 
citizens to participate in the democratic process. This is an attempt 
by the Obama administration to further marginalize its critics and keep 
them on the sidelines. It is a blatant attempt to continue the 
harassment and intimidation that has already been taking place at the 
IRS over the past few years.
  This regulation is just one of many problems we see at the IRS. 
Indeed, the American people have ample reason to doubt the credibility 
of the IRS, particularly when it comes to dealing with organizations 
that might be critical of the President and his policies. The IRS is 
currently under investigation on three separate congressional 
committees for its targeting of conservative organizations during the 
run-up to the 2010 and 2012 elections.
  On top of that, the agency recently came under widespread 
condemnation when, in the midst of these ongoing investigations, they 
announced they were reinstating bonuses that had been canceled in 
response to the targeting scandal. It is almost as if they believe 
there was no scandal at all. Of course, if you have been listening to 
other people in the Obama administration, that type of thinking appears 
to be the predominant view. Several weeks ago, for example, leaks from 
the Justice Department indicated that no criminal charges were likely 
to be filed in the targeting scandal, even though this scandal is still 
under investigation. Talk about politics. Talk about political control. 
Talk about ignoring what is going on.

  On Super Bowl Sunday, President Obama said in an interview that there 
was not a ``smidgen'' of corruption at the IRS. Well, when it comes to 
suppressing free speech, there is far more than a smidgen of corruption 
at the IRS. If anything, these proposed regulations on 501(c)(4)s are 
additional proof. It is one side trying to one-up the other in all 
cases because they happen to control the Presidency and one House of 
Congress.
  When the proposed rule was first made public, the IRS said it was 
drafted in response to the 2013 TIGTA report that revealed all the 
issues the agency was having with regard to 501(c)(4) applications. 
However, as we learned in a Ways and Means Committee hearing last week, 
those regulations were under consideration for 2 years before the 
report was issued--2 years.
  On top of that, the regulations were pursued outside of the normal 
channels for IRS and Treasury Department regulatory efforts in a manner 
that some IRS officials labeled ``off-plan.'' ``Off-plan'' in this case 
means hidden--h-i-d-d-e-n--from the public. Why does the IRS need to 
hide a draft regulation from the public when a regulation project is 
normally listed on a public Treasury guidance plan? I suppose we can 
only speculate, but I think it is fair to assume they didn't want the 
public to know these regulations were in the works. And they expect the 
American people to believe there is no political motivation for these 
regulations? Give me a break.
  The fact is that these proposed regulations demonstrate that the IRS 
is willing and able to carry the President's political water even when 
the agency is, by law, supposed to be an independent and nonpartisan 
agency. That is why this legislation that has been introduced today by 
the two distinguished Senators who preceded me in their remarks is so 
important. We need to send a message to the administration that it 
cannot tamper with the rules of free speech just because it doesn't 
like what is being said.
  If enacted, this legislation would delay the implementation of these 
rules for a year. This is the least we can do to protect free speech. 
People from all across the political spectrum--from the ACLU, to the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to the unions--have recognized just how 
egregious this proposed rule is. It needs to be stopped, and our bill 
would stop it.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Indeed, everyone 
who supports the right of American citizens to participate in the 
political process, whether they are Republican or Democrat, should 
support this bill.
  I say to our new IRS Commissioner--whom I fought to get confirmed, 
who I believe is sincere, who I believe is a person who can clean up 
this mess over there, this nest of partisan people who are in the IRS, 
where there should not be any partisanship--Mr. Koskinen, you have the 
power to stop this regulation from becoming final.
  The Commissioner should stop this. All he has to do is just not sign 
it.
  I have to say that I will be watching very carefully because I am 
sick and tired of the IRS being used for political purposes. I don't 
want to be used for Republican purposes, Democratic purposes, liberal 
purposes, or conservative purposes. I want freedom in this country, and 
I want people to be able to express themselves freely.
  What they are trying to do is outrageous, and it shows an 
administration that can't win fair and square with all of the 
advantages that it has.
  We know that many of the 501(c)(4)s are basically organizations that 
have a conservative tilt. The 501(c)(5)s are the unions that we know 
almost 100 percent support Democrats, even though 40 percent of union 
members are Republicans. I know; I used to be a skilled tradesman. I 
learned a skilled trade, went through a formal apprenticeship, worked 
for 10 years in a building construction trade union, and I am proud of 
that, and I was proud to be a union member. Forty percent of union 
members are Republicans. Yet almost 100 percent of their effort goes to 
elect Democrats. The uptick in 501(c)(5) applications was just as high 
as the uptick for conservative organizations in 501(c)(4)s. We didn't 
see any of this--neither the targeting nor the regulations--being used 
against 501(c)(5)s. The only conclusion is that there is a group of 
people who basically want to support only one side of the equation.
  We have to get politics out of the IRS. I don't know what that means. 
It may mean--like other agencies where we don't want any politics 
involved--getting rid of any partisan controls. That might include the 
union. Because we have people who were partisan and did wrong things--
our investigation is not complete, but it is a matter of great concern 
to us--and then to come up with this type of stuff, it is enough to 
just make you want to cry or, should I say, throw up.
  I am a Republican. The Presiding Officer is a Democrat. We are 
friends. We don't agree on a lot of things. That is what makes this 
country great. But when one side tries to stifle the free speech of the 
other side, we both have to stand together. I hope Mr. Koskinen, the 
new Commissioner, will do what is right and get rid of these 
regulations. My gosh, let's not have regulations that give a tilt to 
one side or the other. Let's have the IRS be down the middle, 
straightforward, decent, and honest, which it has not been in the last 
number of years. We are going to show that.

  All I can say is I commend my two colleagues for their leadership in 
introducing this bill. It is long overdue, and I hope every Senator in 
this Senate will support it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FLAKE. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Utah and his 
recitation of the chronology and how this happened.
  These regulations are supposedly in response to the scandal that came 
up, although the President is not calling it a scandal. He says there 
is not any evidence there was any wrongdoing. But these plans were 
actually being developed a couple years ago--long before we knew the 
IRS was targeting conservative organizations. So the notion this is in 
response to what just occurred is wrong.
  What is equally troubling--or more troubling--as the Senator from 
Utah noted, these plans were described, in an internal memo, as 
``offplan,'' around the process--that were hidden. So that is what we 
are asking for in this legislation. Let's not do any rulemaking until 
the results of the investigations that are going on come back to us. 
That is a prudent thing to do, and I hope we will follow through.
  I now yield to the minority whip, Senator Cornyn.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will be brief, but I just wanted to 
commend

[[Page S866]]

the Senators from Arizona, Kansas, and my friend and colleague from 
Utah, Senator Hatch, for their comments and for their support for 
getting the IRS out of the speech police business.
  As if the IRS doesn't have its hands full already with the addition 
of the implementation of ObamaCare, on top of all of its other 
problems. I don't know anybody who thinks they need more to do, 
particularly when it comes to discriminating against people based upon 
their political affiliations and their desire to engage in debate and 
advocate their views in the arena. This is a politically neutral issue 
because we know this legislation will protect people on the left as 
much as on the right.
  I have to agree with my colleagues that it appears there has been a 
disproportionate amount of attention given to people on the right under 
this administration. I know my colleague from Arizona has heard of 
Catherine Engelbrecht of Houston, TX, with the King Street Patriots and 
True the Vote. She founded two organizations dedicated to improving 
elections and furthering the ideals of our Founding Fathers. She led a 
coalition of citizen volunteers to work as election monitors who 
provide resources for voter registration and to root out election 
fraud.
  One would think those would be commendable actions, not a reason for 
government discrimination and investigation. But for 3 years the IRS 
denied her organization tax-exempt status while comparable 
organizations--as I think the Senator from Arizona pointed out--had 
received expedited or fairly routine treatment. In the meantime, she 
was subjected to over-the-top inquiries by the IRS and even by the ATF 
and other government organizations. The IRS wanted to subpoena every 
one of her tweets on her Twitter account as well as entries made on her 
Facebook account.
  You can't make up this stuff. It is extraordinarily offensive.
  What these proposed rules are going to do is to institutionalize the 
role of the IRS as the speech police, something we ought to avoid like 
the plague. We ought to make sure people of all ideological and 
political affiliations are free to engage in their constitutional 
rights of association and of political speech.
  I wish to point out, in conclusion, that 60 years ago the Supreme 
Court of the United States handed down a very important decision. It is 
called the NAACP v. Alabama. The question there was whether the 
government could compel the disclosure of the membership list of the 
NAACP when the NAACP felt its members would then be targeted by the 
government in a negative sort of way. The Supreme Court said the 
Constitution of the United States and the First Amendment guarantees 
the right of free association in addition to a right of free speech and 
that was constitutionally protected activity. Given the importance of 
that right under the Constitution and also given the likelihood of 
negative attention by the government, they said the NAACP could keep 
its membership list confidential.
  So at a time when the American people have taxes on their minds--I 
know my wife and I have a deadline in our family that by the end of 
February we like to get everything to the people who help us prepare 
our tax returns--and with a midterm election looming, the last thing we 
need to do is to support the IRS becoming the speech police and 
suppressing the constitutionally protected rights of the American 
people.
  I would particularly say to my friend from Arizona that I pulled out 
a Gallup poll report, dated January 15, 2014, where government was 
cited as the top problem. That report shows that 21 percent of people 
in the poll said they were dissatisfied with the government, Congress, 
politicians, poor leadership, corruption, and abuse of power. What 
greater abuse of power could there be than to confer upon the IRS the 
legitimacy to intimidate and suppress people exercising their 
constitutionally protected rights of free speech.
  So I commend the Senator from Arizona and others who are working on 
this. They can count on me to lend my voice and support to their 
efforts.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Senator from Texas and my other colleagues who 
have participated in this colloquy. I hope we can speedily bring the 
Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act to the floor. When 
the Senator from Texas talks about his constituents and what they 
endured at the hands of the IRS, how anybody can say there is nothing 
amiss there or there is nothing wrong, especially when somebody is 
asked, upon application for a 501(c)(4), to give up their Facebook 
posts and tweets and let the IRS review them to see if they are worthy 
of receiving such status, there is something wrong. I think Americans 
know that.
  I appreciate the support of my colleagues on this legislation and I 
appreciate the Senator from Kansas, my partner in this effort.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Nominations

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of notifying my 
colleagues that later today or tomorrow I intend to ask unanimous 
consent for two of my judge nominees to be voted on this week. Both are 
noncontroversial, both have been heartily endorsed by Senator Boozman, 
my colleague from Arkansas, and basically everybody else who has looked 
at this. These two judges came out of the Judiciary Committee, one of 
them on October 31 and the other on November 14.
  These two judges are completely noncontroversial, but we have a sense 
of urgency, not only because we have two vacancies on the Federal bench 
in Arkansas, which is in and of itself a problem, but we have a real 
sense of urgency because one of these judges is an elected judge. In 
Arkansas, those are nonpartisan elections. One of these judges is an 
elected judge and the filing period for his seat opens on February 24 
and closes on March 3.
  We find ourselves in a situation where we are here this week, then we 
will be in recess next week. We will then come back on the evening of 
February 24, presumably for 5:30 p.m. votes, if things work on that day 
as they typically do around here. We would presumably have a 5:30 p.m. 
vote, and at that point the filing would be open, with other lawyers 
and judges interested in that position, and there is a domino effect 
that happens in Arkansas because of that.
  So I am not going to ask unanimous consent right now, but I wanted to 
put all my colleagues on notice that I intend to do that either later 
today or tomorrow.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, first, I wish to thank Senator Pryor. 
Senator Pryor and a group of us have introduced a piece of legislation 
that rights a wrong; that makes sure our military continues to receive 
their COLA in full course and in the full amount.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, we had a budget issue we worked 
through, and in that process the COLA for our active retired military 
was reduced by 1 percent. We all knew we would take the time, because 
we had the time after the budget passed, to fix this problem. We have 
already done it for our disabled retired veterans and now we need to 
fulfill the final and full promise of their COLA in total.
  I spoke last night about this issue, and then we had the vote on 
cloture, with the result being 94 to 0--94 to 0. If that isn't an 
indication of how much support there is to make sure the COLA comes 
back in full force, I don't know what is.
  I do know starting right after that vote we began hearing from people 
already coming up with, well, I voted for cloture, but I have a caveat. 
I have some qualifications I want to add on that vote. I want to have 
these things in Washington that are called pay-fors.
  Let me make it very clear to the veterans in my State--and there are 
77,000 veterans who live in my State. The highest per capita in the 
Nation is in Alaska. They have paid the bill. They paid the bill time 
and time again.
  This is a perfect photo to use as an example of our military who have 
served in combat, who served on the

[[Page S867]]

frontlines. Think about those who have already paid the ultimate bill--
almost 6,800 servicemembers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan; from 
Alaska alone, 22, and I will read some of those names in a second.
  First, I wish to make it very clear we are going to hear these 
convoluted reasons as to why we should have this pay-for. I wasn't here 
when they paid for these wars--no, I am sorry, they didn't pay for 
these wars. They didn't pay the $2 trillion-plus for the wars, but now 
that it is time to pay the bill for those who committed to serve our 
country, to go to the frontlines when called upon and ensure we have 
the freedom we enjoy in this country, some are saying: Well, yes, we 
want to give them that retirement COLA, but--there should be no ``but'' 
here. A promise made is a promise we need to keep.
  My view is we should have their backs every single day, and this is 
the day to do it. Let me make it very clear to those who are going to 
have this convoluted reason for this pay-for: This is a vote for vets 
or a vote against vets. You can have all the gobbledygook, all the 
convoluted arguments, but at the end of the day if you vote against 
this bill, without all this stuff added to it--just a clean and simple 
giving the COLA back and then let's move on, give them their full 
COLA--you are voting against vets.
  I don't care how they try to press-release it, spin it, or what 
amendments they want to add to create a political situation for other 
Members on other issues unrelated to vets. A promise made is a promise 
we need to keep. We need to have their backs. They have our backs every 
single day to make sure this country is safe, no matter where American 
citizens are in this country or in this world. It is our time to do 
what is right for veterans.
  I shared some stories last night about Alaskans who are struggling 
with this issue and the commitment they thought they had. One gentleman 
served 18 years in the military and is close to retirement. He is 
wondering what did he sign up for. He has had enormous pressures on his 
family. He has moved six different times. He has two children, one 
disabled, and a variety of personal issues. But he continues to serve 
this country. And for us to play politics and start talking about 
immigration, child tax credits, forget it. It is time to do what is 
right for our veterans, to put this COLA back in full force.
  Over 30 veterans organizations support this bill with no pay-for, 
clean and simple. Senator Pryor and I were on a phone call last week 
and talked to many--the Air Force Association, Army Aviation 
Association, the Fleet Reserves, Gold Star Wives--I can go through the 
list of 30-plus organizations who work with our veterans every single 
day and want us to pass this bill--not an amended bill but this bill: 
Get it done and give peace of mind to our veterans and retirees and 
active military.
  To some degree this puts our readiness at risk. If someone is 
thinking about joining the military, they are looking at the benefits. 
They know at some point they may be called to duty and put their life 
on the line. So they are looking at the benefits: What can they provide 
for themselves and their families? What is the retirement if they 
become a career officer or a career enlisted member? And now they are 
questioning if they should.
  I received emails from some parents whose sons and daughters are 
currently enlisted and are now wondering, what did they get into when 
at a moment's notice the commitments, the promises we--Congress--made 
can change overnight.
  Our readiness is at risk, and the promises and commitments we make to 
our military are in question. Today is the start to make sure our 
commitments are there. We cannot say to our veterans: Sign up; we will 
promise you these things, and tomorrow we might change them. That 
doesn't help our readiness and commitment.
  I get that there is going to be a lot of policy wonk conversation by 
some Members because they want to confuse the issue and make it hard 
for people to understand what is really going on in Washington. But it 
is simple. The chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee knows this 
issue is simple. It is about our vets. If you vote yes, you are for our 
vets; if you vote no, you are against our vets. That is it. They can 
put in all the spin and all the amendments to make it sound good. But 
in reality, they are trying to cover an activity they are struggling 
with; that is, they don't necessarily like some of us who are sponsors. 
I get that. But let's put aside our politics. Let's do what is right 
for the vets, let's have their backs, let's keep the promise we made to 
them.
  Again, this bill is simple. It is so simple it is 1 page. It just 
says: Repeal that action.
  I hope my colleagues on the other side who are wondering about what 
they should do will vote for the vets. Vote yes. Don't mess with 
amendments, don't try to have this pay-for convoluted argument. The 
vets at home who will be watching don't care about that. They just want 
to make sure their COLA is there. Let's give them the peace of mind 
they deserve.
  I will read a few of the names who have paid the ultimate sacrifice. 
I read some of these last night: GySgt Christopher Eastman, Marines, 
age 28, from Moose Pass, AK; SGT Joel Clarkson, Army, age 23, 
Fairbanks; LCpl Grant Fraser, Marine Reserves, age 22, Anchorage; SPC 
Shane Woods, Army, age 23, Palmer.
  These are just a few of the 22 Alaskans who have lost their lives. I 
don't know if they would have been long-term career if they stayed in 
the Army or Air Force, but they sacrificed their lives. They put their 
lives on the line to make sure we do the right thing here. It is time 
we do it. Today is the opportunity. Don't convolute it with all kinds 
of amendments. Vote up or down. You are either for vets or against 
vets.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise in full support of the legislation 
on the floor.
  I think most Members understand, as part of the 2013 bipartisan 
budget agreement, language was included which cut COLAs for military 
retirees. I think most Members here in the Senate and the House 
understand that was a mistake, an oversight, and is something that 
should be rectified and it should be rectified now. Promises made to 
people in the military should be kept, and our job is to do that.
  This morning, as the chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs 
Committee, I wish to say a word on broader issues impacting the 
veterans community.
  Shortly after this legislation is disposed of, we are going to move 
on to a comprehensive piece of legislation which addresses many of the 
very serious problems facing our veterans community. I will give a 
brief overview of what the legislation does. The legislation is the 
Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay 
Restoration Act of 2014--S. 1982.
  The first point I will make is I honestly believe, in terms of the 
veterans issues, there is widespread bipartisan support. On the 
Veterans Committee, every Member of our committee--Democrat, 
Republican, or in my case Independent--believes very much that we owe 
our veterans more than we can provide them. Their sacrifices are too 
deep, the pains are great. But all Members of the committee in a 
bipartisan way are doing their best to protect the interests of our 
veterans, and I thank all of them for their hard work.
  To as great a degree as possible, the bill which will be on the 
floor--the comprehensive veterans bill--is a bipartisan bill. It 
contains many provisions brought forth by my Republican colleagues. 
This bill consists of two omnibus bills unanimously passed by the 
Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, supported by Democrats and 
Republicans. It also includes other provisions which had strong 
bipartisan support.
  This legislation also contains two new provisions, both of which have 
bipartisan support. The first new addition addresses the restoration of 
cuts made to military retiree COLAs as a result of the 2013 bipartisan 
agreement, the exact same issue being debated on the floor right now. 
We also have that language in our bill. Promises made to veterans have 
got to be kept. We have to restore those cuts to COLAs for military 
retirees.
  The second new provision not discussed, frankly, by the committee 
also has widespread bipartisan support, and

[[Page S868]]

authorizes the VA to enter into 27 major medical facility leases in 18 
States and Puerto Rico.
  Interestingly, the legislation which will soon be on the floor 
contains two major provisions already passed by House Republicans. So 
to as great a degree as possible, in terms of language in the bill, in 
terms of working with our Republican colleagues in the House, this is a 
bipartisan bill and should have the support of every Member of the 
Senate who believes in protecting the interests of veterans. And I hope 
that is the vast majority of the people here.
  As Senator Begich mentioned a moment ago, our veterans have paid a 
very heavy price. What I have learned in the little bit more than the 
year in which I have been chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee 
is I think most Americans, including myself, were not fully aware of 
what that sacrifice was. And what that sacrifice was in recent years 
was not just the loss of over 6,700 Americans who lost their lives in 
Afghanistan and Iraq but the impact of those wars on hundreds and 
hundreds of thousands of veterans who came home either wounded in 
body--loss of arms, loss of legs, loss of hearing, or loss of sight--or 
the more invisible wounds of war.
  What most Americans don't know is a rather shocking number, but we 
are now dealing with hundreds of thousands of men and women who came 
home from Iraq and Afghanistan who are doing their best to cope with 
post-traumatic stress disorder, which has a terrible impact on their 
lives, on their families' lives, and on their ability to get a job and 
keep a job; and traumatic brain injury, the result of being in the 
presence of IEDs and the explosions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  We are also dealing in this rough economy, this struggling economy, 
this high unemployment economy, with many young veterans coming home 
unable to find jobs. Some in the National Guard left decent jobs and 
came home to find those jobs are not there.
  I think virtually every Member in the Senate understands that at a 
time when the VA went from paper to digital and made the transformation 
which was necessary to deal with the claims process, the claims process 
today remains too long. The backlog is too great. We have to deal with 
that issue.
  We are dealing with a situation where young men and women were 
wounded in war who had hopes and dreams of starting their own families, 
but as a result of injuries sustained in those wars, for whatever 
reason, lost their reproductive capabilities and they still want to 
have families.
  We are dealing with issues of sexual assault--a scandal, an outrage I 
know every Member of the Senate feels strongly about. Women and men who 
were sexually assaulted are coming home in need of treatment and are 
unable to get that treatment.
  We are dealing with a situation today above and beyond the wars in 
Afghanistan and Iraq, where there are people--often women, wives and 
sisters--who are under great stress taking care of disabled veterans 
who have no arms and no legs. They have devoted their lives to those 
people and they are hurting as well. As chairman of the veterans' 
committee, what I have done is listened as carefully as I could to what 
the veterans community--representing some 22 million veterans--had to 
say about the problems veterans are facing.

  My very fine staff and I--along with my Republican colleagues and 
their very fine staffs--worked together. We said: These are the 
problems facing our veterans. We all know that on Veterans Day and 
Memorial Day every Member of the Senate goes out and gives a great 
speech about how much they love and respect veterans and how much they 
appreciate the sacrifices made by veterans.
  Now is the time to stand and go beyond words and rhetoric. Now is the 
time to, in fact, address the real and serious problems facing those 
men and women whose families experienced the ultimate sacrifice and 
those men and women who came home wounded in body and spirit.
  We cannot solve all of the problems facing veterans. We cannot bring 
back loved ones lost in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and the other wars. 
We cannot bring them back to their wives, their mothers, their dads, 
and their kids. We cannot do that. We cannot magically replace the arms 
and the legs or eyesight lost in war, but we do have the moral 
obligation to do everything humanly possible to protect and defend 
those men and women who protected and defended us. We can do that and 
that we must.
  I am very proud the legislation that will soon be on the floor has 
the strong support of virtually every veteran and military organization 
in this country, and that includes all of the major organizations 
representing millions and millions of veterans.
  I thank the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the VFW, 
the Disabled American Veterans, also known as DAV, Vietnam Veterans of 
America, the Military Officers Association of America, the Iraq and 
Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the 
Gold Star Wives, and dozens and dozens of other veterans and military 
organizations that are supporting this legislation.
  The Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs has received letters of 
support from virtually all of these organizations, and if Members want 
to check out why these organizations that are representing millions of 
veterans are supporting this bill, they will find those letters on our 
Web site.
  I will quote from one of the letters. This letter is from the 
Disabled American Veterans, DAV.

       This . . . bill, unprecedented in our modern experience, 
     would create, expand, advance, and extend a number of VA 
     benefits, services and programs that are important to DAV and 
     to our members.

  They see it--as do many of the other veterans organizations--as one 
of the most comprehensive pieces of veterans legislation brought forth 
in the modern history of Congress. I am proud of it. I thank the 
veterans organizations not just for their support of this legislation 
but for the help they gave us in drafting this legislation.
  This legislation did not come from Bernie Sanders or from anybody 
else on the committee. It came from the veterans community itself. It 
came from representatives of veterans organizations who came before us 
in hearings, who came before us in private meetings, and said: Senator, 
here are the problems facing our veterans. If you are serious about 
going beyond rhetoric and speeches and truly want to help veterans and 
their families, this is what needs to be done.
  We listened. We could not do everything, but we did put many of the 
major concerns facing the veterans community in this bill. Again, I 
thank the veterans organizations for being our partner in drafting this 
legislation.
  I also wish to take this opportunity to thank those people who have 
currently cosponsored this legislation, and that includes Senator 
Landrieu, Senator Begich, the Presiding Officer Senator Schatz, Senator 
Brown, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Hirono, Senator Boxer, Senator 
Casey, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Heinrich, Senator Heitkamp, Senator 
Merkley, Senator Murray, Senator Reed, Senator Shaheen, Senator 
Whitehouse, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Tester, and Senator Cantwell. 
I thank all of them for their strong support.
  I will take a few minutes to touch on some of the areas this 
comprehensive bill covers. As I return to the floor in the coming days, 
I will go into greater length about each of these provisions. Each of 
these provisions, unto themselves, is enormously important in terms of 
the needs of our veterans.
  As I mentioned earlier, our comprehensive veterans bill--consistent 
with the Pryor bill--will restore the cuts made in the Bipartisan 
Budget Act of 2013 to military retirees. We address that issue in our 
bill.
  This comprehensive veterans legislation deals with another issue--not 
necessarily a sexy issue--that in fact impacts a large number of 
veterans in communities all over America, and that is that it will 
allow the VA to enter into 27 major medical facility leases in 18 
States and Puerto Rico. That means--for a variety of reasons too 
complicated to get into right now--we have CBOC, community-based 
outpatient clinics, and other veterans facilities that are ready to go. 
They are on the drawing board.
  Actually, it is beyond the drawing board, but we have not been able 
to pull the plug on it. This is very important to veterans all over 
this country.

[[Page S869]]

It is important to Republicans, it is important to Democrats, and it is 
time to get this done. By the way, this has been passed in the House of 
Representatives. We need to do it and that is part of this legislation.
  This legislation includes groundbreaking provisions that would expand 
access to VA health care. In my view and in the view of veterans all 
over this country, the VA provides high-quality, cost-effective care to 
millions and millions of our veterans. There are approximately 6.2 
million veterans accessing VA health care today. About 8 million are 
signed up for VA care.
  This legislation expands access to VA health care, allows more 
veterans to come in, and ends a very complicated priority 8 
eligibility. Priority 8 is a situation where there are hundreds and 
hundreds of different eligibility levels all over the country, and it 
makes it very confusing for priority 8 veterans to determine whether 
they are eligible. We ended that and simplified it. The result is that 
more veterans will be able to access VA health care. We have also 
expanded complementary and alternative medicine within the VA. The 
truth is the VA is now doing a good job in providing complementary and 
alternative medicine, and that means meditation, acupuncture, yoga, and 
other treatments to veterans who are concerned about not being 
dependent on medication. One of the great problems we have nationally 
and in the VA is overmedication of people who have problems associated 
with pain and other ailments. The VA has done a good job. We are going 
to expand that opportunity.

  My experience--having gone around the country--is that both within 
the Department of Defense hospitals and the VA, more and more veterans 
are looking at these alternative-type treatments and want to break 
their dependence on overmedication.
  What we also do in this legislation is something that is terribly 
important. It is my strong belief that dental care must be considered a 
part of health care. The fact is that in this country there are 
millions of people--above and beyond the veterans community--who cannot 
find affordable dental care. Right now within the VA, dental care--with 
the exception of service-connected problems and homeless veterans--is 
not open to veterans, and we begin the process to do a significant 
pilot program to bring dental care into the VA. That is extremely 
important for the veterans community.
  I think all of us remember not so many months ago the Government of 
the United States was shut down and caused all kinds of problems for 
all kinds of people. What is not widely known is that disabled veterans 
and veterans receiving their pension were 7 to 10 days away from not 
getting their checks. We have disabled veterans all over this country 
who live from month to month through those checks, and they were 7 to 
10 days away from not getting those checks. This legislation provides 
for advanced appropriations for mandatory VA benefits. By passing that 
provision, we will never again put disabled vets or veterans who are 
dependent on their pensions in the position of not getting their checks 
when they need it.
  One of the issues that has been discussed a great deal is the issue 
of benefits backlog. There is no disagreement in this Senate--whether 
one is a Republican, Democrat, Independent--that it is not acceptable 
for veterans who applied for benefits to have to wait for years to get 
those benefits. In my view, what the VA is now doing is undergoing a 
massive transformation of their benefit system, going from paper--which 
was incomprehensible to me. In 2008 their system was paper. They are 
going from paper to digital. They are making progress, but I want to 
see them make more progress. This legislation includes some important 
provisions to make sure we end this unacceptable backlog of VA 
benefits.
  One of the issues that has also received some attention is the issue 
of instate tuition assistance for post-9/11 veterans. A number of years 
ago we passed very significant legislation which enabled some 900,000 
post-9/11 veterans and family members to get higher education 
throughout this country. This legislation would give our transitioning 
servicemembers a fair shot at attaining their educational goals without 
incurring an additional financial burden.
  We deal with the issue of somebody from out of State moving into 
another State and making sure that veteran is paying no more than what 
the instate tuition is for that State. This is a very important 
provision and, by the way, a provision that was passed in the House of 
Representatives. The language is pretty much the same in this bill.
  We promised veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan that they 
would have 5 years of free VA health care when they came home. For a 
variety of reasons, people have not taken advantage of that. We think 
it is important to extend--from 5 to 10 years--unfettered access to VA 
health care for recently separated veterans, and that is what this 
legislation does.
  I don't have to mention to anybody that our economy--while slowly 
improving--still has many challenges. Unemployment is much too high. 
What this legislation would do is reauthorize provisions from the VOW 
to Hire Heroes Act of 2011, including a 2-year extension for the 
Veterans Retraining Assistance Program, otherwise known as the VRAP 
program. In other words, what we are saying to our veterans is when 
they come home, we want a job to be there for them. We want them to get 
integrated back into civilian life, so we have some very important 
provisions in here for employment opportunities for our veterans.
  As I mentioned earlier, sexual assault is a scandal. The numbers are 
appallingly high. What this legislation does is enable those women and 
men who were sexually assaulted to come into the VA to get the quality 
of care their situations require and deserve.
  This provision was inspired by Ruth Moore, who struggled for 23 years 
to receive VA disability compensation. So we have language making sure 
those who suffered sexual assault will get the care within the VA they 
absolutely are entitled to.
  I mentioned earlier, also, that several thousand men and women who 
served in Iraq and Afghanistan were wounded in ways that make it 
impossible for them to have babies. These are people who really want 
families, and some of them are now spending a very significant amount 
of money in the private sector through a number of approaches in order 
to be able to have babies. We have language, a provision in this bill, 
which would help female and male veterans who have suffered significant 
spinal cord, reproductive, and urinary tract injuries to start a 
family. I think that is absolutely the right thing to do.
  Several years ago this Congress did the right thing by establishing a 
Caregivers Act, which said to those people who were caring for disabled 
vets that we understand how difficult--how difficult--that work is, 
that you are taking care of people who need constant attention, loved 
ones who need constant attention, and we are going to help you do what 
you have been doing.
  The good news is we passed that legislation. The bad news is it only 
applied to post-9/11 veterans. I think there was a general 
understanding, an assumption, that we were going to expand that program 
to all veterans--Vietnam, World War II, Korea--so those people, mostly 
women who are staying home, taking care of veterans, get the support 
they need. So the extension of the Caregivers Act is also included in 
this legislation.
  Those are some of the provisions. This is a 400-page bill, and I just 
touched on some of them. But let me end in the way I began. There is no 
way we can ever fully repay the debt we owe to the men and women who 
put their lives on the line defending this country. That is just the 
simple nature of things. We are not going to bring back the husbands 
who were lost in war, the wives who came back without any legs. We are 
not going to bring fathers and mothers back to children who lost their 
dad or their mom. We are not going to restore eyesight to people who 
are blind. We cannot do that.
  But if this country means anything, it means that we have to keep the 
promises we made to veterans and their families; that while we cannot 
do everything, we have to do as much as we can to make the lives of our 
veterans and their families, their loved ones, as happy and productive 
as we possibly can.
  So this legislation is from Senators who listened to our veterans, 
heard

[[Page S870]]

their concerns, worked with them, and developed this comprehensive 
bill.
  Let me conclude once again by thanking all of the veterans 
organizations. We have virtually every veterans organization in 
America--not all but almost all--supporting this legislation. We thank 
them for the work they do every day on behalf of our veterans. I thank 
them very much for all the help they have provided me and the committee 
in writing this legislation.
  Speeches on Veterans Day or Memorial Day are great. That is good. It 
is important we all do it. But now is the time to go beyond speeches. 
Now is the time to address the problems facing the veterans community. 
This legislation does this in a very comprehensive way, and I ask for 
the support of all my colleagues in the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, before my colleague, the chairman of the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee, leaves the floor, I say thank you to him 
for his passion and advocacy. The legislation he spoke of this morning 
is incredibly important. I say to Senator Sanders, if I am not yet on 
that bill, I need to be and will be. Please sign me up.
  It is absolutely true we need to do more than just make speeches. We 
need to put our commitment, our resources, and keep our promises to our 
veterans. That is what this bill does, and we thank the Senator very 
much.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank the Senator.
  Ms. STABENOW. We also, Mr. President, have a bill in front of us that 
is about our veterans. This bill is about our veterans, and the 
question is on a ``yes'' or ``no'' on this final bill. If we support 
our veterans, we vote yes. If we do not support our veterans, if we 
want to play political games with it, find some other excuse not to 
support veterans, then you vote no. It is very simple. To keep our 
promise, vote yes. If you do not care about keeping our promise, vote 
no.
  We had a vote last night in the Senate to end the filibuster. I think 
it was embarrassing we had to have the vote. I thank our friend and 
colleague, the senior Senator from Arkansas Mr. Pryor for putting this 
bill forward, along with a number of colleagues. But we should not even 
have had to have a vote to end a filibuster to move forward on this 
bill. This is something that everyone should want to do as quickly as 
possible. It should not be controversial.
  Unfortunately, instead of moving it forward and getting this done, we 
are seeing Republican colleagues who are arguing about amendments, 
amazingly, that would increase taxes on families in order to ``pay 
for'' helping our veterans.
  Now, I think every veteran in America should find this absolutely 
outrageous. I know I do. These men and women have sacrificed for our 
Nation. Some did not come home. Some came home without an arm or a leg 
or a closed head injury. They have paid in full for this bill. ``Paid 
in Full'' is what we stamp on this piece of legislation.
  I am proud to represent nearly 700,000 veterans who are living in 
Michigan--veterans and their families. That is my pay-for for this 
bill. They have paid in full to make sure they get their veterans 
benefits, their pensions, the health care we promised them.
  I would like to read just a very few of the names of people in 
Michigan who are the pay-for I offer today on the floor of the Senate:
  Richard Belisle from Saint Joseph, MI, who retired from the Coast 
Guard after 21 years of service--twenty-one years of service--has paid 
in full for this bill.
  Bill Garlinghouse of Holland spent 22 years in the Navy--I am partial 
to the Navy; my dad was in the Navy--and then 5 years working for the 
Navy as a civilian. With twenty-two years in the Navy; 5 years working 
for the Navy as a civilian, he has paid in full for this bill.
  Richard Eversole of Sumner spent 22 years in the Air Force and 
retired as a master sergeant. Richard has paid in full for this bill.
  Frank Bell from Kalamazoo retired 10 years ago as a senior master 
sergeant in the U.S. Air Force. He is 51 years old, so he will see his 
pension cut by 1 percent every year for the next 11 years.
  This needs to be fixed now--no games, no debating about amendments--
yes or no on making sure Frank Bell gets his full pension because he 
has paid in full for this bill.
  David Lord of Cheboygan retired from the Navy after 20 years of 
service. Again, he has paid in full.
  John Frollo of Saint Charles spent 20 years in the Navy before 
retiring in 2006.
  Joseph Boogren of Gwinn, MI, spent 32 years--32 years--in the Navy. 
He served in Iraq and Afghanistan. He flew 177 combat missions 
defending our country, putting himself in harm's way on behalf of all 
of us. I believe Joseph Boogren has paid in full for his pension and 
the other benefits we have promised him and his family.
  Debbie Rasmussen from Sheridan, MI, wrote in on behalf of her 
military family. Debbie and her husband are both Navy veterans, and 
their son Matt is an Active Duty sailor with over 15 years of service, 
including service in Afghanistan. They believe--and I believe--the 
Rasmussens have paid in full for this benefit.
  Karen Ruedisueli is the wife of an Active Duty Army major currently 
stationed at the Pentagon. Kurt and Karen have been a military family 
for 12 years. The Ruedisuelis have paid in full.
  I could go on and on with so many similar letters. Every service is 
represented in these letters because veterans from every part of our 
armed services would be hurt by what has been put in place.
  We know this needs to be addressed and needs to be fixed. We have all 
said that--that this needs to be fixed, we need to honor the commitment 
we have made to the men and women who have served us, and continue to 
serve us. This bill will restore the cost-of-living adjustments for all 
military retirees.
  We need to act now so our veterans have the certainty and the peace 
of mind they need to move forward with their lives. We should not be 
involved in wrangling, in folks trying to find political advantage, and 
take political hostages, score points in some way. We need to just get 
this done--no amendments, no jockeying here, just vote for this bill 
and get this done.
  This bill is about keeping our promise to the men and women who have 
served us and continue to serve us. A ``yes'' vote says we have your 
back. A ``yes'' vote says we honor and support you. A ``no'' vote or 
other votes that confuse the situation and play political games are 
really votes that turn your back on our veterans. Very simply, vote yes 
to get this done--no distractions, no extraneous issues. No matter how 
people feel about other things, bringing them into this is not right. 
It is not fair. This is about yes for veterans or no for veterans.
  I hope we will all stand together and understand the ``paid for'' are 
the people who have served in our States and continue to serve us 
today. They have paid in full. We need to vote yes and get this done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The Senator from South Dakota.


                              The Economy

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I come to the floor today to discuss the 
stagnant Obama economy and how ObamaCare is making it worse. This 
Monday marks the fifth anniversary of the day the President signed his 
trillion-dollar stimulus bill into law. In remarks he gave in Denver 
that very day he signed the bill, the President stated that the 
legislation marked ``the beginning of the end'' of the Nation's 
``economic troubles.''
  Five years later, however, the end of the Nation's economic troubles 
is nowhere in sight. The headlines of the jobs report released Friday 
say it all. The headlines from the Associated Press said, ``U.S. 
Economy May Be Stuck in Slow Lane for Long Run.''
  The New York Times headline: ``Weakness Continues as 113,000 Jobs Are 
Added in January.''
  From CBS News: ``Another month of weak job growth raises slowdown 
fears.''
  From the Wall Street Journal: ``U.S. Adds 113,000 Jobs, in Latest 
Worrying Sign on Growth.''
  From Reuters: ``U.S. employment fails to rebound strongly from winter 
chill.''
  Well before passage of the stimulus, Presidential adviser Christina 
Romer predicted that the stimulus bill would reduce the unemployment 
rate to 5 percent by the year 2014. In fact, over the

[[Page S871]]

past 5 years, the unemployment rate has never come close to falling 
that low. Last month's unemployment rate was 6.6 percent. If so many 
people had not dropped out of the labor force over the past several 
years, that number would be even higher.
  If the labor force participation rate were the same as it was when 
President Obama took office, our current unemployment rate would be a 
staggering 10.5 percent. Despite the fact that the recession 
technically ended 55 months ago, we are still nowhere near where we 
need to be in terms of economic recovery.
  CBS News reported on Friday that the economy would have to gain an 
average of 285,000 jobs per month for the next 3 years just to get us 
back to where we were before the recession. Yet job creation for the 
past year has not even come close to that. In fact, our economy has 
added just 180,000 new jobs per month, approximately, over the past 
year. If we continue at that same rate, it will take us over 5 years to 
return to where we were before the recession.
  President Obama's economic policies have left our economy mired in 
stagnation. His health care law is making things even worse. Last week 
the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a new report on 
ObamaCare. It found that ObamaCare will result in the equivalent of 2.5 
million fewer full-time jobs over the next 10 years--2.5 million fewer 
jobs. Our economy is millions of jobs away from where it needs to be.
  Our labor force participation rate is near a 35-year low. The 
President's health care law is going to result in 2.5 million fewer 
full-time jobs. How will that work? Well, the CBO report made it clear 
that ObamaCare provides disincentives to work, particularly for those 
at the low income end of the spectrum.
  An individual receiving ObamaCare subsidies to pay for his or her 
health insurance may decide not to accept more hours or a higher paying 
job so that she or he does not exceed the income caps for receiving 
subsidies. At the higher end of the wage spectrum, workers may decide 
not to rise too far up the ladder so their income does not reach the 
point at which it would be subject to ObamaCare taxes. Thus, ObamaCare 
essentially traps workers in lower paying jobs, putting a de facto 
limit on the prosperity of literally millions of Americans.
  The CBO reinforces that notion, not just by projecting that 2.5 
million people will drop out of the workforce but also by projecting 
that those who stay in the workforce will earn less.
  According to one analysis of the CBO report, ObamaCare will reduce 
total wages by an estimated $70 billion per year. Without question, 
most of this burden will be placed on lower and middle-income families 
who already are struggling to make ends meet. Furthermore, by providing 
Americans with disincentives to work, ObamaCare will limit our economic 
growth.
  As the editors of the National Review put it, ``The depth of the 
Obamacare crater in the labor force isn't some abstract unemployment 
rate, but the lost value of the work those Americans would have done.''
  Americans working creates economic growth. It is as simple as that. 
Encouraging Americans to work less or quit work altogether will 
undermine American prosperity and American families' security. Those 
who find work and are willing and able to fulfill their jobs deserve 
wages that are unhindered by a government takeover of health care.
  Combine the CBO report with our experience of ObamaCare so far and 
the future does not look promising: lower income Americans living off 
meager salaries and government health care subsidies just to get by; 
middle-income Americans struggling to pay higher health insurance 
premiums and deductibles; and upper income Americans and small business 
owners too reluctant to create jobs and wealth for fear that they will 
be subjected to ObamaCare's burdensome taxes and regulations.
  That is not the kind of future any American desires, but that is 
exactly the future ObamaCare is bringing us. In fact, for too many 
Americans, that future is already here. With ObamaCare's full 
implementation this year, Americans are facing huge premium increases 
and steep hikes in their out-of-pocket costs. They are losing access to 
their doctors and hospitals. All too often they are facing fewer hours 
with fewer benefits at their jobs as their employers struggle to comply 
with ObamaCare's taxes and mandates.
  Even the President has tacitly acknowledged the burdens his health 
care law places on employers by once again delaying one of the law's 
job-destroying mandates. While I am glad some businesses will get 
relief until 2016, Congress should go further, much further, and ensure 
that every single American is protected from this disastrous law.
  We can do better than ObamaCare and the President's economic 
policies. The President has called for 2014 to be a year of action. 
Republicans could not agree more. It is past time to take action to 
start reversing ObamaCare's damage and finally get our economic 
recovery off the ground.
  Almost 2 weeks ago, the Obama State Department released its fifth 
environmental review showing that the Keystone XL Pipeline would have 
no significant impact on global carbon emissions. There is strong 
bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress for approving that 
pipeline and the 42,000 jobs it will support. The President needs to 
stop pandering to far-left environmentalists and immediately approve 
the pipeline and the good-paying jobs it will open for Americans.
  Next, the President should pick up that phone he keeps talking about 
to call the Senate majority leader and tell him to bring the bipartisan 
trade promotion authority legislation to the floor. Passing trade 
promotion authority will help U.S. farmers, ranchers, entrepreneurs, 
and job creators gain access to 1 billion consumers around the globe. 
The majority leader needs to stop obstructing the jobs this bill would 
create and join Members of both parties to pass this important 
legislation.
  Finally, the President should throw his support behind a repeal of 
the medical device tax in his health care law. This tax on lifesaving 
medical technology such as pacemakers and insulin pumps is forcing 
medical device companies to send American jobs overseas. There is 
strong bipartisan support for repealing the tax, and the President 
should add his.
  Far too many Americans have spent the past 5\1/2\ years of the Obama 
Presidency struggling to get by. Household income has fallen. Health 
care costs have risen. Jobs and opportunity have been few and far 
between. For many Americans, the possibility of a secure economic 
future seems further and further out of reach. It does not have to be 
this way. We can turn our economy around by abandoning the President's 
failed economic proposals and embracing the kind of legislation that 
will open up new jobs and opportunities for the American people.
  The three proposals I have outlined above are a good place to start. 
I hope the President will join Republicans and Democrats to get these 
priorities done.
  I yield the floor, and 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. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________