[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 11, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S873-S885]
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--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Remembering Willard Hackerman

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, there is an epitaph on the wall above 
where Sir Christopher Wren--one of England's greatest architects--is 
buried. The epitaph reads in part:

       Here . . . lies . . . Christopher Wren, who lived beyond 
     ninety years, not for his own profit but for the public good. 
     Reader, if you seek his monument, look around you.

  A similar epitaph would be entirely suitable for my dear friend, the 
great businessman, engineer, philanthropist, and devoted Baltimorean 
Willard Hackerman, who died yesterday at the age of 95.
  In 1938, Willard was a 19-year-old civil engineer who had just 
graduated from Johns Hopkins University. He went to work for the 
Whiting-Turner Contracting Company in his native Baltimore. G.W.C. 
Whiting and LeBaron Turner had started the construction firm in 1909. 
In 1955, Whiting promoted Willard to be the president and chief 
executive officer of the firm, and he served in that capacity until his 
recent death.
  Whiting-Turner issued a press release which stated:

       Mr. Hackerman led Whiting-Turner from a modest-sized local 
     and regional contractor to a highly-ranked nationwide 
     construction manager and general contractor working in all 
     major commercial, industrial, and institutional sectors.

  Last year--Willard's 75th year with the firm--it reported $5 billion 
in revenue. The firm, which has 33 regional offices and more than 2,100 
employees, is ranked fourth in domestic general building by Engineering 
News Record and ranked 117th on the list of America's largest private 
companies.
  As the Baltimore Sun noted, Whiting-Turner Contracting Company built 
the new University of Baltimore School of Law last year, the Joseph 
Meyerhoff Symphony Hall, the National Aquarium, and the M&T Bank 
Stadium. The firm's clients included Yale and Stanford universities, 
the Cleveland Clinic, Target, IBM, and Unilever, and the Hippodrome 
Theater. If you seek his monument, look around you.
  Through Whiting-Turner, Willard teamed with then-mayor William Donald 
Schaefer to help transform Baltimore by building the Convention Center, 
Harborplace, and the Aquarium. These statistics and lists attest to 
Willard's incredible skills as an engineer and businessman, but they 
don't begin to capture the magnitude of his accomplishments, his 
charitable contributions, or his generous spirit.
  Willard and his beloved wife Lillian have been lifelong supporters of 
Johns Hopkins University. He helped to reestablish the university's 
stand-alone engineering school in 1979, and secured the school-naming 
gift from the estate of his mentor, G.W.C. Whiting.
  Other activities include funding the Willard and Lillian Hackerman 
Chair in Radiation Oncology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 
construction of the Hackerman-Patz Patient and Family Pavilion, and the 
Hackerman Research Laboratories at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive 
Cancer Center. He and his wife also provided major support for the 
Robert H. and Clarice Smith Building at the Wilmer Eye Institute.
  In 1984, Willard and Lillian donated a mansion on Mount Vernon Place 
adjacent to the Walters Art Gallery to the city of Baltimore, which in 
turn entrusted the property to the gallery--now known as the Walters 
Art Museum--to house its collection of Asian art.
  In December 2001, Mr. Hackerman gave the largest gift in the history 
of the Baltimore City Community College Foundation to establish the 
Lillian and Willard Hackerman Student Emergency Loan Program, which 
provides no-interest loans to BCCC students. If you seek his monument, 
look around you.
  Timothy Regan, the Whiting-Turner executive vice president who will 
succeed Willard as the firm's third president in its 105-year history, 
noted:

       He is a legend for his good works, and the irony is that 
     most of his good works are not even known.

  The Sun recounted a story Baltimore architect Adam Gross told about 
accompanying Willard through a newly completed project at the Bryn Mawr 
School. According to Mr. Gross, Willard asked the school's headmistress 
how many women were graduating with engineering degrees. Then, a few 
days later, he sent a sizable check to the school to provide 
scholarships for women in engineering. ``He was like that. He did deeds 
that nobody knew about,'' Mr. Gross said.
  Willard was a man of quiet strength who professionally and charitably 
enriched his beloved Baltimore. He was an active alumnus of Johns 
Hopkins University who gave back to the school and its hospital in 
countless ways. He was a humble man and rarely stood still to take 
credit for his many successes because he had already begun to tackle 
the next challenge. Despite being at the helm of one of the largest 
general building companies in America, Willard never outgrew his city 
or his fellow citizens. The Meyerhoff, the National Aquarium, and M&T 
Bank Stadium all stand as enduring monuments to a great man. His 
benevolent legacy extended to the synagogue where my family and I 
worship, Beth Tfiloh Congregation, where he will be missed as a man of 
great faith. Willard Hackerman was a true son of Baltimore.
  My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife Lillian, their daughter 
Nancy, their son Steven Mordecai, their five grandchildren and 23 
great-grandchildren, and his extended family at Whiting-Turner, all of 
whom loved him deeply.
  I encourage my fellow colleagues, my fellow Baltimoreans and 
Marylanders, and all Americans to celebrate Willard Hackerman ``who 
lived beyond ninety years, not for his own profit but for the public 
good. If you seek his monument, look around you.''
  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. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes 
as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Health Care

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor week after week 
and talk about the President's health care

[[Page S874]]

law. As a physician who has practiced medicine in Wyoming for 25 years, 
I am here to give a doctor's second opinion about the law. As we 
continue to learn more and more and see more and more, I am concerned 
about how the law affects my former patients, the doctors and nurses 
who take care of those patients, and the taxpayers who, of course, have 
been impacted as well.
  It has been clear for a long time that this health care law is not 
working. It has been obvious from the beginning that this law would not 
work out the way the Democrats had promised the American people it 
would work out. Republicans had warned that it was a terrible idea, and 
even some Democrats have admitted this law has been a train wreck.
  The Obama administration has been desperate to talk about anything 
but the failure of the health care law, and they have been desperate to 
hide some of the biggest problems with the law. The President has 
unilaterally made one change after another--sometimes with, in my 
opinion, no legal authority to do so--and tried to do this in a way 
that, perhaps, nobody would even notice.
  Late yesterday the administration leaked word that it would delay 
again the law's unpopular employer mandate. It was the second time the 
Obama administration had changed the health care law in just a few 
days.
  On the front page of USA Today, above the fold: ``Health law faces 
new delay.''
  The Wall Street Journal: ``Health-Law Mandate Put Off Again.''
  The Washington Post reported on modifications over the weekend. This 
is from Saturday: ``Administration to allow some changes to health-care 
plans.'' That article says:

       The Obama administration has quietly reworked rules and 
     computer code for HealthCare.gov to try to stem an outpouring 
     of discontent--
  ``an outpouring of discontent''--

     by . . . Americans who have discovered that the health plans 
     they bought do not include their old doctors or allow them to 
     add new babies or spouses.

  So the administration then sent out a 14-page memo to insurance 
companies with changes to how its Web site works and new rules for how 
people can buy coverage.
  The Washington Post article goes on to say:

       The changes reflect recent work--still underway--to improve 
     the computer system for the marketplace, as well as fresh 
     thinking about the needs of people who are buying the 
     coverage.

  ``Fresh thinking about the needs of people who are buying the 
coverage''? Did the administration not think of these people before 
they wrote all of these things? The Obama administration has been 
working on this Web site for 4 years. Do they not talk to people and 
think about people and lives? I know a lot of these folks who work for 
the administration have gone right from college to graduate or law 
school and then right into some cubicle on the administration's 
payroll. Do they have no clue about how the real world works?
  It is worse than that. On Super Bowl Sunday, President Obama sat down 
for an interview, and he was asked about the failure of his health care 
Web site, healthcare.gov--the Web site. This is what he said:

       It got fixed within a month and half, it was up and running 
     and now it's working the way it's supposed to.

  I do not think many people around the country who have gone on this 
Web site even today believe it is working the way it is supposed to.
  The President was with Bill Clinton in September at the Clinton 
Forum, and President Obama said: Easier to use than Amazon, cheaper to 
buy than your cell phone bill. I assume the President actually believed 
that. I assume the President believes it is working the way it is 
supposed to today. But I think that is the reason the President's poll 
numbers are so low--because the American people say the President is 
out of touch with what the American people are seeing in their own 
homes and in their own communities, and the President in the White 
House has very little realization of what is happening in America. So 
according to the President, healthcare.gov is now working the way it is 
supposed to work.
  Well, if that is true, why did we learn a week later that there are 
another 14 pages of rules changes and changes to the Web site? Did the 
President not have a clue that they were even coming? Why do we learn 
now that their work is ``still underway,'' trying to think about the 
needs of people who have been forced to buy insurance through this Web 
site?
  Back in December the press gave President Obama the lie of the year 
award for his statement that if you like your health care plan, you can 
keep it. Well, when the President says that his Web site is working the 
way it is supposed to, either he continues to be in denial or he has 
another entry for this year's lie of the year.
  On Sunday, Bob Schieffer on ``Face the Nation'' asked about the 
latest rules changes. Those were the rules changes that were before 
Sunday, not the ones that came out yesterday. The President has changed 
these rules now over two dozen times.
  Bob Schieffer said: ``Things just seem, in every day and every way, 
to be more confused.'' This is Bob Schieffer, who for years, as the 
face of ``Face the Nation,'' has become a trusted person whom people 
turn to. As he says in a reasonable way, things just seem, in every day 
and every way, to be more confused. He then asked: ``Is there any hope 
of getting it straightened out?'' That is what Bob Schieffer asked--
``any hope of getting it straightened out?''
  Well, the majority party whip was on the show. The Democratic Senator 
was on the show, and instead of answering the question, he avoided it. 
He tried to change the subject, and he repeated an old Democratic 
talking point. This time that Senator claimed that ``10 million 
Americans have health insurance today who would not have had it''--this 
is the Democratic Senator--without the President's law--not actually 
responding to the question from Bob Schieffer about whether we can get 
things straightened out--no, not at all, not answering whether there is 
any hope of getting the law straightened out, just the same old talking 
points, and the talking points are not even true.
  The Washington Post Fact Checker said the statement was so wrong, it 
deserved four Pinocchios--the most you can get. Well, that is the 
highest number possible--four Pinocchios. The Washington Post called 
the Democratic Senator's claim ``simply ridiculous.''
  The reality is that the overwhelming majority of the American people 
signing up under the Obama health care law already had health 
insurance, so they are actually not getting new insurance or are newly 
insured because of the law. These are people who got cancellation 
letters and then said: Uh-oh, I need to get insurance. So then they 
went to the Web site to buy something--often much more expensive, 
requiring higher copays, higher deductibles. The law forced them to 
lose the coverage they had and the coverage that actually had worked 
for them.
  Many people are paying far more now than they were for worse 
coverage, and it is not the right fit for their families. They are 
often paying for insurance which they are not going to use, do not 
want, which is more than they would ever need, and they are paying more 
than they ever had intended. That is what I hear when I talk to people 
in Wyoming. I was in Wyoming--in Cheyenne and Casper--this weekend. 
That is what I hear at home. The administration does not want to talk 
about that. Democrats in Washington do not want to talk about it at 
all. They just want to repeat their talking points even though they are 
completely false and have been proven to be false. Democrats want to 
avoid the tough questions about how the law has failed. They rely on 
denial and deception.

  The Web site still is not working in spite of what the President may 
have said on Super Bowl Sunday. The law is not working. The answer to 
the question is, No, there is no hope of getting it straightened out. 
The Web site problems we have seen are just the tip of the iceberg.
  People are paying higher premiums. Coverages are canceled. People 
cannot keep their doctors. Fraud and identity theft are going to 
continue to be a plague of this health care Web site. People are paying 
higher copays and deductibles.
  It has been reported, interestingly enough, that in California, with 
the so-

[[Page S875]]

called navigators--the people who are the certified navigators--over 40 
of them are convicted criminals. Forty convicted criminals were hired 
and certified--certified--to be navigators in California in spite of 
the fact that people are being asked to give personal information, 
health information, financial information to these navigators. So it is 
no surprise that we are going to continue to see issues of fraud and 
identity theft.
  Another interesting thing we learned recently: The Congressional 
Budget Office came out with its new estimates about the health care law 
and its effect on parts of the economy and on jobs. It also talked 
about the number of people who do not have insurance. It said that in 
the year 2024--10 years from now--there will be 31 million Americans 
who will be uninsured: Ten years from now, 31 million Americans 
uninsured.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Let's think about the speech the President gave in 
2009. He came to Congress. He wanted to talk about health care reform. 
He talked about why it was so urgent that the Congress pass health care 
reform. He said: ``There are now more than 30 million American citizens 
who cannot get coverage.'' So in 2009 the President said 30 million 
Americans could not get coverage.
  The Congressional Budget Office just comes out and says: Ten years in 
the future--15 years after the President gives his speech--31 million 
Americans with no insurance. Yet we will have spent trillions of 
dollars, and yet it will not fix so big of a problem that we know we 
need to deal with--health care in America--and this present law, this 
enormous law, this 2,700-page law, has completely failed to deal with 
the reason the President said we had to deal with this in 2009. Fifteen 
years later, the same numbers--30 million; over 30 million in 2024. How 
is that a victory for uninsured Americans? How can the President say 
this law has succeeded? How is it a sign that the health care law is 
working in the way it is supposed to work?
  On top of that, middle-class people all across the country are paying 
more because of the health care law. Their premiums have gone up. Their 
deductibles have gone up. Their copayments have gone up. Millions of 
hard-working Americans have had their insurance policies canceled 
because of the law. And the administration is still working on the Web 
site, in spite of what the President may say about it.
  The President says it is working as it is supposed to. On this and so 
many issues, the President continues to be wrong, and the American 
people see it. The Web site is not working. The health care law clearly 
is not working. It is not working the way he promised. It is not 
working the way the American people need health care to work for them 
in this country.
  It is time for the administration to stop sneaking out these changes 
under the cover of darkness, in blog posts. If the President is going 
to make a change, why doesn't he come and tell the American people what 
he is going to do?
  It is time for the Democrats to stop the four-Pinocchio talking 
points. It is time for folks to be honest about the failings of the 
health care law. It is time to eliminate this terrible health care law 
and replace it with real reform that gives people better access to 
quality, affordable health care--the care they need, from a doctor they 
choose, at lower cost.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, we have reached a historic moment in the 
history of our Republic when the President of the United States claims 
the unilateral power to waive, delay, or just simply ignore the law of 
the land.
  One of the most frequent questions I get back home in Texas is, How 
can the President do that? How can he do that? They remember when he 
was sworn in and put his hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the 
Constitution and laws of the United States, and now how can he simply 
ignore what those laws are? How can that contradiction exist?
  Usually what I find myself doing is saying: Well, Congress has the 
authority to pass the laws, and it is the executive branch--the 
President--that has the authority to enforce the law. That is why he 
has the authority to appoint the head of the Department of Justice, the 
Attorney General of the United States, Attorney General Eric Holder.
  But when the President and, by extension, his own Department of 
Justice refuse to enforce the law of the land, what have we become? 
Well, we certainly cannot claim in good conscience to believe in the 
rule of law, where the law applies to all of us no matter whether you 
are the President of the United States or you are the most humble of 
our citizens. That is the promise over the top of the Supreme Court of 
the United States. All you have to do is look out the window here. It 
says: Equal Justice Under The Law.
  Quite simply, the President has no legal authority under our 
Constitution or under any law in America to pick and choose which laws 
he is going to enforce or not enforce based on political expediency. 
And the fact that he claimed to do so again, for perhaps the two-
dozenth time, does not change anything.
  So my constituents at home ask me--they say: Well, Senator Cornyn, 
what are you going to do about it? I said: Well, I am going to support 
private litigation to challenge the President. Indeed, that is the 
nature of the litigation that originally challenged the Affordable Care 
Act, or ObamaCare. There was private litigation that challenged the 
President's claimed authority to make a recess appointment and bypass 
the advice and consent function in the Constitution for the Congress to 
the National Labor Relations Board, which has now been held 
unconstitutional by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and now the 
Supreme Court of the United States is considering an appeal from that 
court.
  So there is a way to challenge the President, although it takes time 
and it is not exactly very satisfying because people say: Well, months, 
if not years, will go by before we will ultimately get a decision. But 
just think about the implications of what the President is doing. How 
would our Democratic friends feel if a Republican President decided not 
to enforce certain laws--let's say as they pertained to the 
environment?
  They would be outraged. You know what. They would be right; it is 
wrong. I do not care whether you are a Democratic President or you are 
a Republican President or an Independent or whatever. It is wrong for 
the President to put his hand on the Bible, to take an oath to uphold 
the law of the land and then refuse to do so and to have no 
embarrassment, no sense of regret, but just the hubris and the 
arrogance to say: I am going to do it until somebody stops me.
  I have said it before, and I will say it again. The issues here go 
far beyond the health care policy and ObamaCare. Checks and balances 
are not optional. They are the very fundamental structure of our 
Constitution. James Madison and the authors of the Federalist Papers, 
who wrote so eloquently about the new Constitution, at the time said 
that the concentration of power in a single branch of government is the 
very definition of tyranny. If the Obama administration continues to 
undermine checks and balances, it will not only undermine respect for 
the rule of law but also will create even greater distrust of the 
Federal Government and Congress itself, not to mention the office of 
the Presidency.
  Make no mistake. We all understand why the President is going down 
this path. It is because ObamaCare has proved to be even more 
unworkable than its biggest critics might have imagined. The entire law 
needs--well, we need a do over. Let me put it that way. This side of 
the aisle has repeatedly encouraged the President and his allies to 
work with us to try to replace ObamaCare with patient-centered reforms 
which would bring down the cost and make sure that we as patients and 
our families get to make decisions in consultation with our family, and 
not outsource those to the Federal Government.
  We could come up with some ideas, and we actually have ideas that 
would lower costs, expand coverage, and improve access to care. 
Unfortunately, the President has shown zero intention in addressing 
those. I know I heard him say, even at the latest State of the

[[Page S876]]

Union: If my Republican friends have some good ideas, bring them to me.
  We have been bringing them to him since 2009 and he simply has 
ignored or affirmatively rejected any other idea because he is so wed 
to this signature piece of legislation. I cannot help but think that 
one reason why the President claimed the authority to unilaterally 
waive the employer mandates until after the election is because he is 
focused on--you guessed it--the November elections, and he realizes 
what an albatross this is around the necks of those people who are 
going to be going to the voters and asking for them to reelect them.
  But if he is wondering why Americans have grown so cynical about 
Washington, DC, all he needs to do is to look at his own 
administration's handling of this signature piece of legislation, a 
program that has come to symbolize big government overreach, and--I 
hate to say it, but it is true--contempt for the rule of law.
  I want to say just a few more words in conclusion about America's 
fiscal health. As you know, Members of Congress have once again been 
asked to raise the debt ceiling, even though the national debt is in 
excess of $17 trillion. The President likes to boast about short-term 
deficit reduction. That is the difference between what the government 
brings in on an annual basis and what it spends.
  It is true that on an annual basis the last couple of years the 
number has gone down a little bit, primarily because the President 
raised taxes by $1.7 trillion, coupled together with the caps on 
discretionary spending in the Budget Control Act. But the long-term 
trajectory remains just as bad as it ever was, and America continues to 
spend money that it does not have.
  We are waiting for the President. He is the Commander in Chief. He is 
the leader of the free world. We are waiting for the President to put 
out a serious plan to address this problem. Many of us held out hope in 
December 2010 when the Simpson-Bowles bipartisan fiscal commission got 
together and made some bipartisan recommendations for doing exactly 
that. Unfortunately, they were ignored by the President. He demanded, 
in exchange for the so-called ``grand bargain'' that he wanted $1 
trillion more in revenue, more taxes.
  Imagine what a body slam that would have been to the American 
economy. The American economy is still so weak that unemployment is at 
a historic high, particularly compared to recoveries following 
recessions. But $1 trillion of additional taxes would have been 
catastrophic in terms of people looking for work and not being able to 
find work.
  But since the President took office in 2009, our national debt has 
increased by $6.6 trillion. It is now larger than our entire economy. I 
wonder who the President thinks will have to pay that back. Probably 
not our generation; we will not be around. But this generation will be 
around. They will be left holding the bag as a result of our 
irresponsibility and unwillingness to deal with this important problem.
  Even though interest rates are at a very low point now, and, yes, the 
interest we have to pay the Chinese government and our other creditors 
is at a relatively low rate, imagine what will happen, as the 
Congressional Budget Office has, when interest rates start to tick back 
up to their historic norms. We will see that more and more of the tax 
dollars of the American people are used to pay interest on the debt. 
Whether you are concerned about safety net programs that our most 
vulnerable citizens need or our national security, we will not be able 
to do either the way we want to and need to.
  According to the CBO's baseline projections, the annual deficit will 
steadily rise after 2015 and exceed $1 trillion in 2022, at which time 
the Federal Government will be spending $755 billion a year on net 
interest payments alone. To put that in another perspective, net 
interest payments in 2014 are estimated to be $233 billion. That is not 
money that helps the most vulnerable in our society. That is not money 
that helps the warfighter keep us safe. That is money we are paying on 
the debt to our creditors, to the Chinese and other creditor nations as 
interest for all of this money we are borrowing that eventually 
somebody some day is going to have to pay back.
  The Congressional Budget Office has consistently reminded us that 
even a small change in U.S. economic growth or interest rates or 
inflation could dramatically affect the Federal budget outlook. In 
fact, if interest rates were to rise just 1 percentage point above the 
CBO baseline each year over the next decade, our cumulative deficit 
will increase by $1.5 trillion. That shows you how fragile the 
condition of our fiscal house is.
  On multiple occasions back in the mid 1990s, this Chamber came within 
one vote--one vote--of passing a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution. Since the vote in March of 1997, our national debt has 
gone from $5.3 trillion to $17.2 trillion. It has more than tripled. 
Yet even as the debt problem has gotten massively worse, the number of 
folks on the other side of the aisle who are willing to acknowledge 
that we cannot continue to spend money that we do not have and that the 
debt is a threat to our national security and our ability to do the 
things we know we want to do and need to do, continue to seem to ignore 
it.
  I am proud to say that everyone on this side of the aisle has 
cosponsored a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that would 
force Washington, whether led by Democrats or Republicans--it would 
force Washington to live within our means and meet the same type of 
fiscal requirements that virtually all State governments have to meet.
  To those who think that a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution is not the answer, I ask: Where is your plan? I realize 
that there are some who think that we can raise taxes. Let's raise 
taxes some more. But even they must understand that we simply cannot 
tax away our long-term debt problem. The only way we can solve that is 
by controlling our spending and reforming our programs like Social 
Security and Medicare. Sooner or later, even the President will have to 
acknowledge that.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about S. 1963, which 
is supported by well over 30 veterans organizations. I want to thank my 
colleagues for their help and their support of the military retirement 
pay restoration bill that repeals section 403 of the budget agreement, 
which unfairly singled out our brave men and women in uniform.
  I could spend a long time here, but I do not intend to because I know 
we have other colleagues who are on the way to speak. But I do want to 
thank my colleagues for their support. We got a huge vote the other 
night to move to this measure. I do not think there were any dissenting 
votes. I appreciate my colleagues voting to move to it.
  The bottom line is this bill is about honoring the commitments we 
have made to our servicemembers. My State is the home of nearly 255,000 
veterans--255,000 veterans. We only have a population of 3 million. So 
if you do the math, per capita we have a lot of veterans in my State--a 
very patriotic State. These brave men and women have put their lives on 
the line, and they have also put their lives on hold to serve their 
country, oftentimes in faraway places, far away from their homes and 
their families and from their beloved country to protect our Nation and 
defend our way of life.
  They have fulfilled their obligations, and we need to fulfill ours. 
Day after day we get emails and letters and phone calls from Arkansas 
veterans and their families. They talk about what the Senate is talking 
about today; that is, whether we should fix this cost of living 
adjustment or not and even down to the details of whether we should pay 
for this or not.
  Let me just read a few. I have eight Arkansans here who have written 
in recent weeks.
  MAJ Adam Smith of Sherwood said:

       When I signed on twelve years ago, I swore an oath to 
     defend my country, one that I have upheld through four combat 
     deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Horn of Africa. It 
     pains me to see that my government is not keeping its faith 
     in my oath. I have served and will continue to serve 
     faithfully, but I want my government to properly compensate 
     me for all the times I nearly made my wife a young widow.

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


[[Page S877]]


       I see [our veterans] every day struggling. They served and 
     it is our duty to respect and take care of them.

  John Barnwell of Fort Smith says:

       I spent a career in the U.S. Air Force defending this great 
     country from all enemies . . . How could [Congress] even 
     consider cutting veterans benefits when our sacrifices are 
     the reason we are even able to live in a free country?

  SMSgt John W. Smith of Cabot writes:

       I served my country for 28 years with the promise that once 
     I completed my part, I would be given a retirement for the 
     rest of my life to include the cost of living increases. 
     However, it appears the government has decided to change the 
     promise made and not honor their part of the bargain.

  Sam Garland of Jacksonville says:

       When I enlisted I was told if I did my time that I would 
     receive retirement . . . [Don't take away] this hard worked 
     promise.

  Marshall Harmon of Vilonia wrote:

       This is a military retirement that I worked extremely hard 
     for and in fact earned! The documents I was provided at the 
     time of retirement assured me that my buying power would 
     remain strong and consistent . . . It seems that is just not 
     the case.

  Chadwick Cagle of Sherwood wrote to say:

       I am a military veteran of almost 15 years, including two 
     deployments to Iraq. I was an Infantryman in the Marine Corps 
     . . . I find it very frustrating that the reductions in 
     benefits were taken from the very men and women who have 
     served and protected this country.

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

       As a veteran of the U.S. Army, I am saddened by the 
     provision in this bill that in essence penalizes those that 
     have given the most for this great country of ours. Although 
     I do realize the importance of keeping the government funded 
     and running, I am opposed to the fact that we are doing it on 
     the backs of those who have served honorably, and long.

  I want those words to sink in for my colleagues in the Senate today. 
These are men and women from my State. The Senators have the same types 
of folks in their States. They put on the uniform and they serve our 
country. This is not how we should repay them.
  I know that on this floor and out in press conferences and in press 
releases and all of that, people say: Well, we need to pay for this.
  This bill, S. 1963, has no pay-for. The way I feel about it is this 
cut to their benefits, this cut in their COLA, the 1 percent adjusted 
downward, doesn't take effect until 2015. We have all of this year to 
find a pay-for if that is what we decide we are going to do.
  But the way I feel about this is they have already paid. They have 
paid for this with their service. This was something that was added to 
a budget deal, and it is something I think probably came in and was put 
in by the House Republicans. In effect, we are trying to solve this 
problem for them.
  But, regardless, I have a list that I did not fabricate for this 
speech. This stands in my office in Washington every day. I have a 
similar poster identical to this poster in Little Rock. It is there 
every day in our lobby, in our entryway for anyone and everyone who 
comes to the office to see the sacrifice that Arkansans have made to 
this country. These men and women--there are over 100 listed.
  As much as I hate to say it, this list grows all the time. We change 
this list out frequently. There are over 100 listed. In fact, there are 
over 110 listed. These are troops from Arkansas or based in Arkansas 
who paid the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan. These people 
paid for this benefit.
  All of the veterans who will receive this benefit were in the exact 
same situation that these men and women were, but by the grace of God 
they made it home. We need to honor the commitments we have made to our 
veterans.
  This is no laughing matter. This isn't politics, this isn't a 
Democratic thing or a Republican thing, this is an American thing.
  Do you know what. When we make commitments to our veterans, if we 
cannot honor those commitments, we never should have made them in the 
first place.
  I know a lot of people in Washington make all kinds of promises, but 
we have made these commitments to our veterans. Some of them mentioned 
when they signed on in the very beginning or when they take their 
retirement in the very end, it is very clear the type of retirement 
benefits they will get. Just because it is hard now, because it is 
expensive, doesn't mean we back out on the commitments we have made to 
our men and women in uniform. We don't back out on the commitments we 
have made to our veterans.
  But now what we have is we have people in Washington who are saying: 
We like our veterans, but they need to pay for this. They need to pay 
for this. I disagree. We have all this year. If we make that decision 
later to find a way to pay for this change, we have time to find the 
pay-for later.
  I am always reminded when I think of our folks who served this Nation 
in the military, of this one verse that is found in John 15:13. It 
says: ``Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his 
life for his friends.''
  I have been to a number of funerals, and I have made a number of 
calls to these families. I don't know how many people I have talked to 
who have lost a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan--or in some other 
military operation somehow, some way--and that is the verse I always 
remember because they laid down their lives for their country.
  Everyone else who puts on that uniform, by the very nature of them 
putting on that uniform, has made the commitment that they are willing 
to lay down their lives too. They are in harm's way for us.
  I think it is wrong for us to try to lower their benefits. I think it 
is wrong for us to be having a debate about finding a way to pay for 
this. We have time to pay for this over the course of this year. I am 
totally open to talking to people about how to pay for this as we go.
  But let's, for crying out loud, not send the message to our men and 
women in uniform, to our veterans, that we are going to balance the 
budget on their backs. They are the ones who have made the commitment. 
They are the ones who have traveled and served overseas.
  When it comes to government spending--I just heard a couple of 
speeches by my friends on the other side of the aisle--everybody who is 
paying attention knows we can cut unnecessary government programs. We 
can eliminate duplicative policies. We can do good in the regulatory 
world to make government more efficient, more effective. We can do 
that, but we should not use these folks to balance our budget.
  I see my colleague from Florida has stepped in. I know he would like 
to say a few words.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. I am here to support Senator Pryor's bill. I am a 
cosponsor. We were about to have a press conference, and the bottom 
line is there is no way to fully repay someone who puts their life on 
the line for our country, but we can do what we can, and this 
legislation ensures that we continue to do all we can. That is a 
summary of the whole thing.
  I have the privilege of being a senior member of the Armed Services 
Committee, and from day one one of the things we recognize is that we 
want to keep our promises to the men and women of our military. The 
strength of the military will always be the people, and they commit 
their lives to the service of the country. During that commitment there 
is a lot of sacrifice: overseas deployments, they miss births, 
birthdays, and countless other hardships.
  A retiree has spent years earning the benefits they looked forward to 
and those were some of the reasons they made the sacrifices when they 
took the oath of office and put on the uniform.
  When that servicemember joins the military, they look at the 
retirement system in place at the time, and they began to build their 
life and their plans around those specific retirement benefits. Those 
who choose to devote long years and the retirement period of 20 years 
of service--and then happen to retire and pursue a second career--it 
gives them the flexibility to move back to a location where they can 
help out a family member or finally become a full-time part of a family 
business, whatever it is. Those folks shouldn't be penalized because 
they are not yet 62 years old. They have already done 20 years of 
service, if not more.
  They are choosing to innovate to serve their community or to finally

[[Page S878]]

start that small business they had always dreamed about, and so it is 
unfair to penalize them when others are not. Why in the world would we 
want to make a difference between those who had retired from the 
military?
  So safeguarding the benefits servicemembers have earned not only 
protects the all-volunteer force, but it also attracts and will 
continue to attract the best talent and encourage somebody to make the 
military a career. For the career soldier, sailor, airman or marine, 
what they give back over those 20-plus years is immeasurable.
  We have bipartisan agreement that restricting military benefits in 
this way is not the correct path to address defense cuts and the debt. 
We must restore this full cost-of-living adjustment for military 
retirees.
  With that vote yesterday, zero against it, why are we out here having 
to spend all this time? Why don't we just take it up and pass it, 
because the votes are obviously here. I am hoping that is what the 
Senate is going to do in the next few hours.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. I come to the floor to talk about an amendment I have 
pending to the bill pending on the floor to fix the unfair cuts to our 
military retirees.
  Let me remind everyone of how we got to this point. It was right 
before the holidays and there was a budget agreement that was reached 
between the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and the chairman of 
the House Budget Committee.
  Let me remind everyone in this Chamber that I serve on the Senate 
Budget Committee. No one on the Senate Budget Committee--at least 
myself, I wasn't included, I guess I missed it--brought to our 
attention the budget agreement before it was brought as a fait accompli 
to the floor, and that is one of the problems that brought us to where 
we are today. Only in Washington could you serve on the actual Budget 
Committee, they come up with a budget agreement and actually never show 
it to you--even though you are on the Budget Committee.
  Had they shown it to me in advance, I can tell you what I would have 
told them, that this idea to single out our military retirees is 
totally unfair. It is the wrong priority for America to single out 
those who have taken the bullets for us when, if we look at the changes 
that were made in the budget agreement to the contributions for Federal 
employees, they were prospective. Only new hires had to pay additional 
contributions.
  But for our men and women in uniform, those working-age retirees 
under 62--and originally our wounded warriors were included in that as 
well--took the cut. So when I did find out about it--and I see my 
colleague from South Carolina, who also serves on the Senate Budget 
Committee, is here--when we and others found out about it--also my 
colleague Senator Wicker from Mississippi--we pointed out from the 
beginning, before this body even voted on the budget agreement, that 
the cuts to military retirees were unfair; that of all the people we 
were going to single out, why would we single out the people who have 
taken the bullets for us? What kind of message does that send to those 
who have served us and sacrificed so much for our country?

  So I remember it. We came down here before Christmas, before the 
holidays. Senator Graham, my colleague from South Carolina, came down 
here, Senator Wicker from Mississippi, and we said to our colleagues 
then: Let's fix this. Let's fix this unfair cut now before we actually 
pass this budget into law, because we have time to do it. Do you know 
the response we got? We are in a rush. We have to get home to our 
families before the holidays, rather than fix what was wrong from the 
beginning.
  Right now I hear so many of our colleagues coming to the floor and 
saying: We have to fix this, even though they voted for this budget 
agreement.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Ms. AYOTTE. Yes, I yield for a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair.
  Does the Senator agree with me, if the budget deal had not been paid 
for it would never have passed?
  Ms. AYOTTE. I would agree with that.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Most Republicans, and I am sure some Democrats, would not 
have voted for a budget deal unless it was deficit-neutral and paid 
for. I know it wouldn't have passed the House. So now, after the fact, 
if you fix the COLA problem without paying for it, haven't you 
basically blown the budget deal apart?
  Ms. AYOTTE. Well, that is the irony of where we find ourselves. We 
have people who came to the floor, even though we warned them and said 
this is really unfair, why are we doing this to military retirees, we 
should fix this now and we can find other ways to cut spending--
  Mr. GRAHAM. And their response was: We can fix it later. Our response 
was: Well, will you pay for it later? And everybody said yes.
  So here we are. I appreciate Senator Pryor and Senator Hagan from 
North Carolina wanting to fix it. The good news is everyone in the body 
wants to undo the damage done to our military retirees. That is the 
good news. The bad news is we are doing it in a fashion that would 
break the budget agreement, and I don't think that should be our 
choice.
  In order to right a wrong done to the military retirement community--
which was a $6 billion taking from them, unlike anybody else in the 
country--can we not find $6 billion over the next 10 years to make up 
for it? Because if we don't, we have broken the budget agreement and 
put a burden on the next generation. So, really, to help the military 
retiree, do you have to turn around and screw future generations by 
adding $6 billion of debt on top of the $16 trillion? I guess that is 
the question. And I would say no. That is why I appreciate the 
Senator's offset.
  Ms. AYOTTE. The answer is no. Of course we don't. We don't have to 
burden the next generation to fix what we should have fixed from the 
beginning, which was unfair from the beginning. That said, I have an 
offset----
  Mr. GRAHAM. What is the Senator proposing here?
  Ms. AYOTTE. I have an offset that is pretty straightforward. We have 
two major refundable tax credits in our Tax Code, the earned income tax 
credit and the additional child tax credit, both of which, when you 
claim them, you actually get money back under the Tax Code. My 
amendment is pretty straightforward. When you file for the earned 
income tax credit, you actually have to put a Social Security number 
when you file for it as the tax filer. Also, if you have a dependent, 
you have to put a Social Security number. For the additional child tax 
credit, there was a Treasury IG report done under this administration 
in 2011 and it raised real concerns about the way this tax refund was 
being administered, because when you filed for it, you didn't have to 
put a Social Security number. Also, for any child for whom you were 
seeking a refund, you didn't have to put a Social Security number.
  My fix is very straightforward: All I am asking is, if you want to 
seek that tax refund for your child, you list a Social Security number 
for the child. Why is that important? It is important because the 
Treasury IG found with this tax refund billions and billions of dollars 
going out the door. In fact, with the amendment I just mentioned, we 
can save $20 billion over the next 10 years.
  There were investigations done of this tax refund, and guess what 
they found. Massive examples of fraud, which I will go through in 
detail, of people claiming kids who may not even live in this country; 
of people claiming kids who might live in Mexico, because there are 
absolutely no parameters on the way this is being interpreted right 
now.
  So here is the question: Should we fix fraud in our Tax Code and 
really address this issue, still allowing American children and 
children who the President has said are eligible--certain DREAMer 
children--to get this tax refund--real children in this country--or 
should we let this fraud continue and also add to our debt and not 
address the underlying problems facing our Nation?
  I don't understand why we can't pass something commonsense like this.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Let me see if I have this right. There is an earned 
income

[[Page S879]]

tax credit you can receive based on need; is that right?
  Ms. AYOTTE. Exactly.
  Mr. GRAHAM. We are not going to get it. You are not going to get it 
for your kids because you make too much money.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Right.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I think this is a Ronald Reagan idea. If you are working, 
even though you may not have any income tax liability, we are going to 
give you an earned income tax credit. I think it is $500 per child; is 
that right?
  Ms. AYOTTE. This is the earned income we are talking about.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, I know. But under the earned income tax credit----
  Ms. AYOTTE. I don't know the amount.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I think it is $500. But the point is, do you have to have 
a Social Security number?
  Ms. AYOTTE. Yes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Ok. If the argument is that by adding a Social Security 
number requirement to the additional credit you are somehow burdening 
people, why isn't that an argument made against the EITC? Because to 
get the earned income tax credit you have to have a Social Security 
number.
  This new additional tax credit, on top of the earned income tax 
credit, doesn't have the same requirements. So those who come to the 
floor to say we are destroying families, why wouldn't you come down 
here and propose to do away with the Social Security number on the 
earned income tax credit? That would make perfect sense to me.
  If requiring a Social Security number is a bad thing for families, 
why do you tolerate it for the EITC? The reason you wouldn't propose 
that change is because people in Treasury would say you would be crazy, 
because now you have an additional tax credit, something new on top of 
the EITC, that Senator Ayotte has found without a Social Security 
number you have $19 billion in fraud.
  So I am curious. If you think requiring a Social Security number for 
a child to get an additional tax credit is destroying the family, why 
don't you come down here and suggest changing the law for the EITC? If 
you did that, you would get blistered by the auditor saying you are 
opening a new line of fraud.
  So could the Senator tell us what would happen to the American 
taxpayer, what benefit would inure to the American taxpayer if we 
followed the Senator's proposal and accepted her amendment of requiring 
a Social Security number?
  Ms. AYOTTE. The American taxpayer would save $20 billion over the 
next 10 years. This is about protecting the American taxpayer. Let me 
talk about some of the fraud that was found.
  In Indiana, they found 4 workers were claiming 20 children living 
inside 1 residence. The IRS sent these illegal immigrants tax refunds 
of a total of $29,000-plus. They also found many people were claiming 
the tax credit for kids who live in Mexico. These are our taxpayer 
dollars going out the door in this way.
  An Indiana tax preparer, who acted as a whistleblower, said: We have 
seen sometimes 10 or 12 dependents, most times nieces and nephews, on 
these tax forms. The more you put on there, the more you get back, even 
though they are not verifying that any of these children live here or 
exist. That is our tax money going out the door. The whistleblower had 
thousands of examples.
  Another example from a whistleblower: We have over $10,000 in refunds 
for nine nieces and nephews, he said. It is so easy. I can bring out 
stacks and stacks. It is so easy, it is ridiculous.
  In North Carolina, investigators tied at least 17 tax returns 
totaling more than $62,000 in returns to a Charlotte, NC, apartment 
that 1 woman leased. At another apartment nearby, investigators 
discovered 153 returns valued at over $700,000 in refunds. Another 
address in the same apartment complex had 236 returns worth over $1 
million in returns.
  This is money taken into our treasury and turned back in. All I am 
saying with this amendment is if you can put a Social Security number 
for the child you are claiming the credit for, you can get this credit. 
That is all this is, making this consistent with the earned income tax 
credit. And in fact, the filer can be an undocumented worker in this 
country and have a child who legitimately has a Social Security number 
and get the credit for it. So I have modified my amendment to address 
that issue.
  What I am saying is this: Let us end fraud and let us take that money 
that is being taken from the American taxpayer--$20 billion--and take 
$6 billion of it to be used to restore these military cuts. This will 
make sure we do not burden the next generation and we fix a wrong that 
should be righted.
  Let me talk about some other examples of what we have seen. In 
Tennessee, a search warrant was prepared by the IRS for a tax company 
that was encouraging undocumented workers to lie on their tax returns 
by claiming children who live in Mexico as dependents. Why can this tax 
preparer even encourage that? Because right now, when the refund for 
the additional child tax credit is filed for, you don't have to put 
anything about the child to prove the child even exists. So simply 
requiring a Social Security number for the child you are getting money 
back for would end that fraud.
  The IRS says the Tennessee tax preparer has filed 6,000 tax returns 
over the last 3 years, and although his--listen to this--although his 
clients only paid $3.3 million in taxes, they were able to receive back 
$17 million in refunds. Imagine that: $3.3 million in taxes his clients 
as a whole claim they have paid, and they received $17 million in 
refunds back. Pretty good deal, isn't it. Well, it is a bad deal for 
the American taxpayer.
  This amendment makes so much common sense I just hope I can get a 
vote on it on the floor of the Senate. In the past, when I have tried 
to bring this amendment forward, I have been denied a vote on many 
occasions.
  I hope the people of this country understand what the vote on the 
floor is. The vote on the floor is straightforward. This amendment 
fixes the unfair cuts to our military retirees and ensures we aren't 
breaking the budget agreement that was just passed or burdening the 
next generation with debt. In fact, my amendment will further reduce 
the debt because it saves more money than just paying for this fix. We 
can also fix this tax fraud and do the right thing by the American 
taxpayer.
  What worries me most is that because this is Washington, and this 
makes so much sense, I fear I won't get a vote and that my colleagues 
will use excuses to say: We shouldn't vote for this because--as I heard 
my colleague from Illinois on the floor this morning saying--we are 
going to harm children. Well, children will still be able to get this 
refund. Put a Social Security number down and American children will 
get this refund. Also children the President has already deemed 
eligible--so-called DREAMers. In fact, my colleague from Illinois who 
came to the floor this morning admitted already \1/2\ million of them 
have filed for a Social Security number, and they too could receive 
this tax refund.
  If we don't pass this amendment, there are two groups that lose: the 
veterans, but also, most importantly, all of us--the American taxpayer.
  Before I conclude, I wanted to mention the groups endorsing my 
amendment: the American Legion, American Veterans--AMVETs--Concerned 
Veterans for America, the Military Officers Association of America, the 
National Guard Association of the United States, the National Military 
Family Association, the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association, the Retired 
Enlisted Association, the U.S. Army Warrant Officers Association, the 
U.S. Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers Association, and the U.S. Coast 
Guard Enlisted Association.
  I hope my colleagues will vote for this commonsense amendment, so we 
can fix this unfair cut to our military retirees and pay for it and 
make sure we aren't also adding to our debt and burdening future 
generations.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield to the 
majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:30 p.m., 
the

[[Page S880]]

Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following 
nominations: Calendar Nos. 516, 517, 518, and 593; that there be 30 
minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use 
or yielding back of the time the Senate proceed to vote without 
intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; 
that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be 
in order; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that 
the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the 
Senate then resume legislative session; further, that there be 2 
minutes for debate, equally divided in the usual form prior to each 
vote, and that all rollcall votes after the first be 10 minutes in 
duration.
  I appreciate the Senator yielding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Afghanistan Prisoner Release

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would say to my friend from South 
Carolina that we have received some disturbing news today; that is, the 
President of Afghanistan, President Karzai, has made a decision to 
release 65 of the 88 detainees at Parwan prison in Afghanistan.
  The Senator from South Carolina and I have known the President of 
Afghanistan for many years. We have had many meetings with the 
President of Afghanistan, and I believe we had established a rather 
cordial relationship over these last 13 years.
  Many of my colleagues may not know that the Senator from South 
Carolina, in his capacity as a Colonel in the U.S. Air Force Reserve, a 
lawyer, has spent a great deal of his active-duty time in Afghanistan 
on Active Duty primarily focusing on the whole issue of detainees, how 
they are tried, how they are incarcerated, and steps for release and 
detention. In other words, there is no one that I know who has more 
indepth knowledge of this issue than the Senator from South Carolina. I 
don't believe anybody has ever worked as hard as he has on this issue, 
and there have been significant accomplishments as a result of his and 
other wonderful Americans' work.
  I think facts are stubborn things; and I would ask my friend from 
South Carolina, isn't it true the release of these detainees poses a 
direct threat to the lives of our service men and women who are serving 
in Afghanistan? Is it true that 25 of these individuals are linked to 
the production and/or emplacement of IEDs; that 33 tested positive for 
explosive residue when processed after capture; that 40 percent are 
associated with direct attacks, killing or wounding 57 Afghan citizens 
and allied forces; that 30 percent are associated with direct attacks, 
killing or wounding 60 U.S. or coalition force members; that 32 were 
captured after the ANSF assumed responsibility?
  So isn't it clear, I ask my colleague, after all these years of work 
trying to get this whole system of detainees and trials and 
incarceration, that we are now seeing--sadly--this result of 
individuals who can be traced to attacks on or directly responsible for 
the deaths of brave Americans?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Senator McCain is absolutely right.
  I thank him for showing such an interest in this topic. He has been 
so helpful in making sure we get this detention issue right. Having 
been incarcerated in a war, I think Senator McCain knows the difference 
between a system that works and one that doesn't. It has always been 
helpful to have Senator McCain travel with me and make a point to the 
Afghans that he knows what doesn't work.
  General Dunford called this morning with a lot of sadness and, quite 
frankly, anger in his voice. We have captured thousands of Afghans and 
some third-country nationals during the 12-year war in Afghanistan. Our 
confinement facility at Bagram Air Base has improved a thousand 
percent. We have made our fair share of mistakes, but the prison now 
called Parwan I would put up against any prison in West Virginia, South 
Carolina or Arizona. It is a state-of-the-art prison. It is being 
transferred over to the Afghans.
  As we take this prisoner population and turn it over to the Afghans 
with a collaborative process where we work together to determine what 
force to take, they have what is called an Accountability Review Board, 
which is an Afghan board looking at the disposition of this prison 
population. They were about ready to release about 88 about whom our 
commander felt the evidence in question deserved criminal court 
disposition.
  The Afghan criminal court at the prison, which is attached right to 
the prison--the JSAF--has heard 6,000 cases with a 70-percent 
conviction rate. I am very proud of the judges and lawyers who run that 
facility.
  All we are asking is that they not let 65 of the 88 walk out the door 
because of an administrative review board which is not recognized under 
Afghan law. The guy in charge of it is openly against the Bilateral 
Security Agreement. I think he is a corrupt individual.
  General Dunford has basically said: You are going too far here. I 
cannot in good conscience not object.
  We have lodged our objections, and we thought this would be fixed, 
and they were going to turn these cases over to the attorney general. I 
received a phone call Sunday night. There was a caveat which nobody 
told us about. They turned the 88 files over to the attorney general we 
thought for prosecution, but apparently President Karzai told the 
attorney general to release 65 of the 88.
  If you believe in the rule of law, the President of the country does 
not have the authority under Afghan law to tell the judiciary or the 
attorney general what cases to dispose of. This is an extrajudicial 
exercise of legal authority by the President of Afghanistan. The people 
in question, the 88, are responsible for killing 60 Americans and 
coalition forces and 57 Afghans, and the Afghan population does not 
like the idea that these people are going to walk out of the jail.
  I will read the statement issued by our commander in Afghanistan 
right after the phone call:

       United States Forces-Afghanistan has learned that 65 
     dangerous individuals from a group of 88 detainees under 
     dispute have been ordered released from the Afghan National 
     Detention Facility at Parwan.
       The U.S. has, on several occasions, provided extensive 
     information and evidence on each of the 88 detainees to the 
     Afghan Review Board, the Afghan National Directorate of 
     Security and the Attorney General's office.
       This release violates the agreements between the U.S. and 
     Afghanistan.

  The agreement is called the Memorandum of Understanding, and this 
violates the spirit and the letter of the agreement we have negotiated.

       We have made clear our judgment that these individuals 
     should be prosecuted under Afghan law. We requested that the 
     cases be carefully reviewed. But the evidence against them 
     was never seriously considered, including by the Attorney 
     General, given the short time since the decision was made to 
     transfer these cases to the Afghan legal system.
  So within 24 hours they decided to let 65 people go. Clearly, they 
didn't spend much time.

       The release of the 65 detainees is a legitimate force 
     protection concern for the lives of both coalition troops and 
     Afghan National Security Forces.

  It goes to Senator McCain's question, and I have spent a lot of time 
looking at every file. This is our own ground commander, General 
Dunford, who I think is doing a great job, telling us: If you let these 
people go, it represents a force protection problem.
  He further goes on to say:

       The primary weapon of choice for these primary individuals 
     is the improvised explosive device, widely recognized as the 
     primary cause of civilian casualties in Afghanistan.

  And quite frankly, the death of our own troops. Senator McCain made a 
good point. Twenty-five of the 65 are directly linked to planting IEDs 
against our forces. We have fingerprints on these people. I have 
literally seen the evidence where there is biometric identification, 
where we can look at the pressure plate and the tape and all the 
material around the making of the IED and pick up fingerprints. When we 
do that, they match to the biometric data. We have identified the 
person by fingerprint, and they are going to let that person go. Some 
of

[[Page S881]]

these people have been captured previously. The recidivism rate is 
growing in Afghanistan.
  This is the final paragraph:

       The release of these detainees is a major step backward for 
     the rule of law in Afghanistan. Some previously-released 
     individuals have already returned to the fight, and this 
     subsequent release will allow dangerous insurgents back into 
     Afghan cities and villages.

  Back into the Afghan cities and villages to kill our troops and kill 
innocent Afghans.
  I thank Senator McCain so much for his interest in this subject 
matter.
  We are drafting a resolution condemning the actions of the Afghan 
government, President Karzai, in the strongest terms possible. We are 
suggesting that, in light of the breach of this agreement, putting our 
troops at risk, letting killers go, that we suspend all economic aid 
until after the election.
  I want to let this body know that the troops are watching this. Can 
you imagine being one of the soldiers--Afghan and American--who risked 
their life to capture these people to have them walk right out the door 
and never face justice for killing one of your comrades? They are 
watching us. We have to prove to the troops on the ground in 
Afghanistan--both Afghan and American and coalition forces--that the 
Congress of the United States will not accept this; that we have their 
back; and that we should push back as hard as humanly possible to make 
the message clear to President Karzai and the Afghan government how 
much this displeases us. They are due to walk out of the jail Thursday.
  I hope I don't have to come back on the floor of the Senate and read 
about the death of an American caused by one of the people President 
Karzai released.
  Senator McCain and I have been to Afghanistan more times than I can 
think of. I have not found anybody more attuned to the idea that we 
need a sustaining permanent relationship with the Afghan people than 
the Senator from Arizona. He understands a follow-on force is 
necessary, and that we can win this conflict and end it well with honor 
if we have a follow-on force, and the Senator from Arizona wants to 
stay involved.
  But does Senator McCain agree with me that the actions of President 
Karzai defying our commander, his own judges, his own legal system has 
done enormous damage to public support for this war effort--which is 
already low--and has hurt the relationship between the Congress and the 
Afghan government?
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from South Carolina, and I hope my 
colleagues will understand the in-depth knowledge which he has about 
this issue. No one understands it as well or has been more involved, to 
the point of being involved with each of the individual cases.
  Before I respond to the question, I think it important for our 
colleagues to understand some of these specific cases. I am not going 
to submit for the record all 65 because it is long. But let me just 
mention a couple of examples of people who are about to be released 
into Afghanistan while our men and women are still there in harm's way.
  Habibulla Abdul Hady is a Taliban member, emplaced IEDs used in 
attacks against ANSF and ISAF forces in Kandahar province which took 
American lives, and was biometrically matched to an IED incident in 
Daman, Kandahar, where pressure plate IEDs and components which took 
American lives were seized by coalition forces.
  Nek Mohammad facilitated rocket attacks against our forces in 
Kandahar province, is an IED expert, and transferred money to Al Qaeda.
  The list goes on.
  Akhtar Mohammad is a suspected Taliban commander who conducts 
attacks, provides lethal aid and supports Taliban leaders in operations 
against ANSF and ISAF in Nangarhar and Kunar province. He acted as a 
trusted courier for the former Ghaziabad Taliban shadow governor. The 
list goes on and on. These are not random arrests. These are not 
misdemeanors. These are serious, hard-core professional terrorists who 
have already committed these acts, and that is what is so disappointing 
about it.

  Again, I say to my friend from South Carolina, we have been there 
often, and being around these brave young Americans who are serving and 
sacrificed has probably been the best part of our lives. Some of them 
have had three, four, five, six tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq. 
It seems to me that we owe them at least the security of not releasing 
these trained killers--they are not amateurs--into the fight again. We 
already know that the ones we released voluntarily--I think it was 27 
or 30 percent--reentered the fight.
  I say to my friend in response: Isn't it almost totally predictable 
that these hard-core individuals will quickly reenter the fight? They 
are talented, professional, trained zealots, and it would obviously put 
American lives in danger.
  Finally, in answer to my colleague's question, again, I am saddened 
because President Karzai, my friend from South Carolina, Senator 
Lieberman, and I have developed a relationship over many years of 
cooperation and assistance. There are reasons for some of his behavior. 
It has been terribly mishandled by this administration. We still don't 
know the number of troops they want to leave behind.
  Having said all of that, and the sadness I feel, I think it has been 
replaced a bit by anger because this kind of action cannot be excused 
when we have an obligation to do everything we can to protect the lives 
of the young men and women who are serving. To let this go without a 
response is an abrogation of our responsibility to these young men and 
women.
  I still have hopes for the agreement. I would point out to my 
colleagues that it was first raised a couple of years ago by Senator 
Graham when he and I were over there. The overwhelming majority of 
Afghans support this agreement. But when we have people such as this 
running around, it is not just Americans and our allies who are in 
danger but the lives of the Afghan people, whom President Karzai was 
elected to represent, are in danger.
  I ask my colleague again how many times he has been through this 
drill with President Karzai where they were about to release these 
people and we managed to pull them back from the brink? Apparently they 
have finally stepped over the line.
  Mr. GRAHAM. We are not asking to bring these people back to the 
United States for trial. We are asking that they go through the 
criminal process under Afghan law where Afghan judges will decide their 
fate. Afghan prosecutors and defense attorneys will take over the case, 
not us. We agreed to 550 people being released under this 
administrative review board, but these 88--according to General 
Dunford, and my own review--represent a different case of detainee.
  The evidence in some cases is overwhelming. With some investigation, 
I think a case could be made against all of them. Many of the people 
who are part of the NDS, which is basically their FBI and CIA rolled 
into one, lost their lives capturing these folks.
  All we ever asked the Afghans to do is basically follow their own 
rule of law. The accountability review board was never meant to be a 
release mechanism. General Dunford did the right thing by lodging a 
complaint.
  I talked to the President of Afghanistan personally about how this is 
against the letter and spirit of the memorandum of understanding we 
have regarding detainees and how this will play back in America. 
Apparently what we think doesn't matter to him anymore. I understand 
being upset with this administration for the uncertainty and a lot of 
mistakes they made.
  We may be the last two in the whole Senate who understand that we 
need a relationship with Afghanistan post Karzai. I believe a lot of my 
colleagues understand that too.
  I hope every U.S. Senate Member will agree, no matter what they may 
think about what we should be doing in the future in Afghanistan, that 
we need to make a clear statement and agree to this resolution. If 
there are any Members who have any ideas to enhance it, I welcome those 
ideas.
  I want this body to speak with a single voice--Republicans and 
Democrats--and stand behind our general and tell the President of 
Afghanistan that we will not let this happen without a push-back. We 
owe it to those who have died, we owe it to those who are in harm's 
way, we owe it to our own value system, and now is the time

[[Page S882]]

for the Congress--and particularly the Senate--to speak with one voice 
and let President Karzai know that he doesn't understand what is going 
on in America. He is detached from reality when it comes to Afghanistan 
and America. No President of Afghanistan who understood this issue at 
all would ever do this. He is making it impossible for an American 
political leader and an American general to not respond forcefully.
  I look forward to working with Senator McCain on this resolution.
  Mr. McCAIN. I will emphasize one point that my friend from South 
Carolina has already made. We are not giving up on Afghanistan. We 
believe that we can't afford to see the movie that we saw in Iraq in 
which the total withdrawal of American forces caused the chaos and the 
situation in Iraq today.
  In the second battle of Fallujah, 96 soldiers and marines were killed 
and 600 were wounded. Today the black flags of al-Qaida fly over the 
city of Fallujah. There is no greater metaphor for the failure of this 
administration in Iraq.
  We are saying that we will make a new deal with Karzai's successor. 
We will provide the economic assistance and we will provide the follow-
on force. But right now we cannot stand by without responding to this 
act which directly puts the lives of Americans and Afghans in danger. 
These are professional killers. They are terrorists. They are good at 
their work, and we cannot expose our allies, our friends, and our men 
and women to this kind of danger without a response.
  I will finally say again that no one understands this issue better 
than Colonel Graham. Colonel Graham has been through every single one 
of these cases. He has fought this battle many times before, and if 
anybody has any question about the severity and the consequences of the 
act being taken today by President Karzai, I suggest they talk with him 
since he has all the information.
  I thank my colleague for his many years of service in Afghanistan and 
Iraq on behalf of the men and women who are serving and have served 
with him.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator from Arizona.
  To conclude, this is not Lindsey Graham or Colonel Graham saying 
this. This is what General Dunford is saying. I know he is right. I 
clearly understand what he is telling us. I have seen it firsthand.
  To the folks at 435, who are in charge of the detainee population--
they lost two yesterday. An IED killed two of our civilian contractors, 
Paul and Michael, who were working out of the Pul-i-Charkhi prison. I 
know them well. I met them a bunch of times. They have been over there 
as civilian contractors for years trying to improve the Afghan 
detention facilities and legal system, and they gave their lives for a 
very worthy cause.
  All I am saying is we need to suspend aid. We are taking hundreds of 
millions of dollars of American taxpayer money and investing it in 
Afghanistan in a way that is inappropriate.
  After President Karzai's decision to release these detainees, we 
should cut off the money. Not a dime should go to economic development. 
No more money. I can't go to a taxpayer in South Carolina and say that 
they should write a check to a government that is being led by Karzai. 
Hopefully, as Senator McCain said, when somebody new comes along, 
reason will prevail.
  I thank my colleagues and need their support. I urge every Member of 
this body to speak out with one voice.
  I will conclude with recognizing my good friend from Connecticut. His 
son is a marine who served in Afghanistan, and he has been there many 
times. I want Senator Blumenthal to know that we are doing this today 
to let our marines know that their sacrifice will not go unnoticed, and 
we will not let these guys walk out of jail without a fight.
  Mr. McCAIN. I want to also recognize that the Senator has a son in 
the Navy as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I thank my distinguished colleagues for recognizing 
my sons' service. One is a marine reservist deployed to Afghanistan and 
the other is a Navy officer currently in further training.
  I thank them and offer my support to the goals they have articulated 
today. I look forward to the resolution they are offering and talking 
further about the specifics of it. I again thank them for recognizing 
the urgent need for this body to take action at this point in 
supporting those goals. I look forward to continuing my work with them. 
Again, my gratitude to them for their courage and determination, and I 
offer my thanks and support.
  I am here today to talk about a bill that undoes an injustice, and 
frequently the work of this body is to undo injustices, and sometimes 
even mistakes, such as the repeal of the cost-of-living adjustment 
reduction for certain military retirees.
  I have spoken before in this Chamber and at home in Connecticut about 
my opposition to the pension cost-of-living adjustment reduction 
contained in the budget agreement approved by this body. I firmly 
believe there is no just way to balance the budget on the backs of our 
military retirees. It was a mistake then, and we can undo it now 
without a so-called pay-for. Their sacrifice and service has been paid 
in full. With their sacrifices, military retirees deserve to be paid in 
full for the promises we have made to them. We made those promises to 
them for their service and sacrifice that they have given us already, 
and we should not break that promise.
  The reduction in these cost-of-living adjustments impacts both the 
brave veterans who served for 20 years in the military and those who 
earned their retirements because of a service-connected medical 
disability. We should keep our promises to both.
  Last month I discussed this problem with about 25 veterans in 
American Legion Post 96 in West Hartford with Commander Ken Hungerford. 
Our brave patriots who served and sacrificed for our country 
understandably agreed they should receive the full benefit of present 
cost-of-living adjustments. This is a promise we have made and a 
promise we must keep.
  To fix this issue, Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire and I first 
introduced the Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act. I continue to 
support it. I also support Chairman Sanders' comprehensive veterans 
legislation that would restore this cut to military retiree pensions, 
along with improving access to health care and tackling benefits 
backlogs for veterans.
  I am very proud to have helped draft the omnibus bill, known as the 
mega bill, that has already been offered on the floor.
  There is a very simple, straightforward solution that we should adopt 
before either of those two options. It is S. 1856, which would repeal 
section 403 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. S. 1856 meets this 
criteria of paid in full. It is simple and straightforward. It has no 
pay-for because there is no need for an offset when we are talking 
about fulfilling our promises to our brave and dedicated veterans, who 
have given on the battlefield their all, who have given us, in service 
and sacrifice--even before they reach combat or even if they had no 
combat--the kind of contribution to our national security and our 
national defense that merits these cost-of-living adjustments.

  As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I listened to the 
testimony of Acting Deputy Secretary of Defense Christine Fox that it 
was not consulted in the drafting of the cuts in COLA--the cost-of-
living adjustments--and does not support the reduction in military 
retiree benefits enacted through section 403 of the Bipartisan Budget 
Act of 2013.
  If there is a need to combat fraud in any of our programs, let the 
Department of Justice increase the vigor and effectiveness of 
enforcement efforts. If there is a need to repair a statute, to prevent 
waste or fraud or corruption, we should deal with that issue separately 
and distinctly. If there is a need to reduce the debt and the deficit--
and I agree we should be mindful of fiscal responsibility--we ought to 
do it without breaking our promises to veterans. We ought to keep those 
promises without worrying about the debt that could be cut by other 
measures. And we should adopt those other measures rather than 
demanding a payback or an offset or whatever the terminology may be.
  In the next 5 years, we will see 1 million Americans leave the U.S. 
military.

[[Page S883]]

As troops come home from Afghanistan, as the military downsizes, the 
Marines and the Army reduce the number of men and women serving in 
uniform, 1 million Americans will leave the military. That number 
consists of individuals' lives--it is not just a statistic--individual 
stories of heroism and bravery on the battlefield, of invisible wounds, 
as well as horrific visible injuries; invisible wounds involving the 
issues of post-traumatic stress and chronic brain injury. More than 
one-third of them, perhaps as many as a half of all of those young men 
and women leaving the military, will bear those invisible wounds of 
war.
  We need to provide them with the health care, job counseling, skill 
training, jobs, and treatment for those invisible wounds of war they 
deserve and they have earned. That is the purpose of the bill I have 
helped to draft with Senator Sanders' leadership, the omnibus bill that 
will address those issues.
  I am hopeful, also, we will adopt the VOW to Hire Heroes Act, to 
extend tax credits for employers who hire those veterans, tax credits 
that expired at the end of last year. My bill would restore them.
  But let us now urgently and immediately adopt S. 1856--a simple and 
straightforward measure to restore justice to the Federal pension 
system for military retirees. Let us not balance our budget on the 
backs of our brave veterans. Let us restore those pensions to the level 
we promised and keep our promises as a nation to the military veterans 
who have kept our freedoms strong.
  Mr. President, that is the end of my remarks. I thank you. I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Blumenthal for his 
remarks, and I am going to utilize the same chart he had in a moment 
because I think it says it all. It was my colleague Mark Begich who 
first used this terminology--that our soldiers have paid for this 
benefit already and to get distracted by a discussion on how much to 
hurt children in order to restore these benefits is not worthy, in my 
opinion, of the men and women in uniform. So I am proud to stand up in 
support of Senator Pryor's commonsense bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed 
for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Senator Pryor's bill is a restoration bill. It restores 
fairness and justice to our military veterans. It repeals the cuts to 
cost-of-living adjustments--we call them COLAs--for military retirees 
under the age of 62.
  I see the Senator from Alaska just came in the Chamber, and I want to 
reiterate how much I appreciate his leadership. I say to Senator 
Begich, his analysis of this important restoration bill--restoring 
fairness and justice--was so right when he said our veterans have paid 
in full, and to get into some conversation of who do we hurt in order 
to pay these veterans is not worthy of our men and women in uniform. I 
want to thank him for his leadership.
  Repealing these COLA cuts, well, that is the right thing to do. We 
are talking about men and women in uniform who have served our Nation 
bravely for more than 20 years. I have to say, as I stand up in strong 
support of the Pryor amendment in restoring these benefits to our 
veterans, I adamantly oppose the Ayotte amendment, which is hurtful to 
children, very hurtful to children, and I will get into that later.
  When these veterans first put on the uniform and they promised to 
protect and defend our Nation, we made them a solemn promise to provide 
them with the care and benefits they earned. These men and women have 
sacrificed so much for us and, tragically, too many of them made the 
ultimate sacrifice.
  In my State of California, we lost 892 service men and women in Iraq, 
and we have lost 411 in Afghanistan. We cannot break faith with those 
who put their lives on the line for our Nation. We hear about people 
who have served 4 deployments, 5 deployments, 6 deployments--I have 
heard of 10 deployments.
  When this benefit was diminished as part of the budget deal, everyone 
knew we would have to move quickly and change it. We knew right away. 
That is what we are trying to do. We are not offering a slew of 
amendments on unrelated matters that hurt children and risk losing this 
very simple premise: that we honor our men and women in uniform.
  We want a simple vote. Either you are for the vets or you are not for 
the vets. It is pretty simple. Thirty-five organizations are supporting 
this. We must recognize that when you attach unrelated amendments that 
have nothing to do with veterans, you slow down the bill. We all know 
that. It is a way to derail things.
  Look what my friends tried to do on unemployment compensation--get us 
off on some discussion of how to pay for all that in an emergency 
situation with the long-term unemployed; and that rate is so high 
historically. Then we said: OK, we will play on your turf. We will 
agree. We will find a pay-for. We found a pay-for they said they liked. 
No. It was not good enough for them. We only got 59 votes. We needed 
60. If anyone thinks that was not planned, I have a plot of land to 
sell you in a dump somewhere. Come on. We know how it goes around here. 
Don't tell me 59 and no more. Please. Those are games. This is not an 
issue we should be playing games about--restoring veterans' benefits.
  So what we have in the Ayotte amendment is an amendment which demeans 
an entire population--an entire population. The amendment is 
antichildren, it is anti-immigrant, and it does not do one thing to 
help our veterans. But it will hurt some of our young DREAMers. We know 
the DREAMers. We have met the DREAMers--those children who came to the 
United States through no fault of their own, but now they want to 
contribute to our great society by staying in school and staying out of 
trouble. But yet the Ayotte amendment attacks the childcare tax credit, 
which impacts some of these DREAMers and which protects 1.5 million 
children from falling into poverty every year.
  Honestly, this Ayotte amendment is so mean-spirited, so unnecessary, 
I just hope it is defeated soundly. The U.S. poverty rate is now the 
highest it has been in 20 years, with 22 percent of children living in 
poverty. Why would someone come down to the floor and attack children? 
Twenty-two percent of children live in poverty.
  Low-income immigrant families who claim the child tax credit earn an 
average of $23,000 a year, and they use this tax benefit to provide for 
their children's basic needs, including food, rent, and clothing.
  This tax credit, which Senator Ayotte would essentially take away 
from a whole group of people, is an incentive to do the right thing. 
These low-income families are working hard. They are earning money. But 
they need a tax break to help care for their children.
  My Republican friends are always fighting for tax breaks for the top, 
top, top--for the top. What about the people struggling, who are 
working and earning $23,000 a year? Where are my friends on raising the 
minimum wage? So far I have not heard of their support. I hope they 
will change their mind. Where are my friends on giving unemployment 
insurance to those who through no fault of their own cannot find a job 
and who paid into that insurance system? Where are they? They are 
absent. They offer amendments they know are going to get us off track, 
distract us, and bring the bill down. But we are not doing it this 
time, I hope. I hope we will say no to the Ayotte amendment because it 
is an amendment that guts a very important tax break.
  So let's be clear. To claim the child tax credit, which is what 
Senator Ayotte's amendment wants to weaken, families have to file 
taxes. So we are talking about tax-paying families. The child tax 
credit only goes to working people who earn money and pay payroll 
taxes, who pay State and local taxes, and any other taxes they may owe.
  This Ayotte amendment is an outrageously disproportionate response to 
a problem the Internal Revenue Service is addressing. The IRS has 
implemented changes to improve enforcement. They are working with the 
Department of Homeland Security to make sure fake documents do not slip 
through the cracks.
  Let me be clear. If a person commits fraud in this program, as in any 
other

[[Page S884]]

program, we should go after that person. The law is on the books. I ask 
Senator Ayotte, look at the law. The law says: If you commit in any way 
fraud in the filing of this credit, and you are found guilty of a 
felony, you will be fined not more than $100,000--$500,000 in the case 
of a corporation--or imprisoned for not more than 3 years, or both.
  So here we have a situation where if fraud is committed by anyone 
claiming this child tax credit, they can go to jail for 3 years and be 
fined $100,000.
  But what does Senator Ayotte do? She takes a brush and she paints it 
all across America to immigrant families with children and says: We do 
not trust you. I think it is so offensive. It is not fair for law-
abiding, tax-paying families to lose their child tax credit because of 
fraud that might be committed by a few.
  I have worked with a number of my colleagues. They have identified 
billions and billions of dollars of tax-avoidance schemes in this 
country. We have corporations that use tricks so that they pay zero in 
taxes. I do not see Senator Ayotte--and I hope she will do this in the 
future--come down to the floor and rail against these wealthy 
individuals and corporations. No. She just goes after the weakest 
constituency--children. Children. Why should any of us attack children, 
literally take food out of the mouths of children? Why?
  We need to keep our promise to the veterans, but we should keep our 
promise to the children. You do not say: I will restore one promise, 
but I will break another promise. We already have a law on the books: 
If anyone is guilty of fraud in this program, they go to jail for 3 
years; they could be fined up to $100,000.
  I just think it is so wrong. It is so wrong.
  We can do this.
  I wish to close by reading from Sister Simone Campbell, executive 
director of NETWORK, a national Catholic social justice lobby. I know 
Senator Durbin has quoted this. I hope I am not being too repetitive, 
but her words ring to my heart.
  Some of you know about Nuns on the Bus. These were nuns who saw the 
injustice in some of the budgets that came before the Congress. They 
went on a bus and they said: Please do not cut funds for the most 
vulnerable people. That is not America. We are already losing the 
middle class.
  The Presiding Officer knows that 400 families are worth more in this 
country than 150 million Americans. I want us to think about that--400 
American families are worth more than 150 million Americans. Surely we 
can do better than hurt our most vulnerable children as we aim to 
restore benefits to our veterans.
  This is what Sister Simone Campbell says about the Ayotte amendment:

       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.

  This is Sister Simone:

       Sen. Kelly Ayotte 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. The 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.

  I have such respect for Sister Simone Campbell and the work of 
NETWORK because they do not just read the gospel and go to church and 
practice their religion, they live it. They live it. When they see 
things happening on this floor that hurt the most vulnerable people, 
they speak out. That is what Nuns on the Bus did. That is what Sister 
Simone Campbell says.
  This is what she says further:

       Ayotte says she understands families' needs, yet she 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 the condition 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 . . . The 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.

  As I sum up, let's go back to our other chart. Senator Pryor, Senator 
Begich, and a group of Senators, I believe including Senator Shaheen, 
Senator Hagan, and Senator Landrieu--I believe they are all on this 
proposal.
  With their sacrifice, military retirees paid in full. They paid in 
full. And to offer amendments that have nothing to do with the subject 
matter but open an entire battle on immigrant families, who are working 
so hard, because there are some examples of fraud, just as there are 
examples of fraud in corporate America--unfortunately, there are 
examples of fraud all across America, including in politics. But I have 
to say that to go after the most vulnerable children and the most 
vulnerable families and try to convince this Senate that is something 
fair--I think it is off the mark. I hope we will reject the Ayotte 
amendment. I hope everyone will read what Sister Simone says:

       The proposal to go after children 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.

  I want to remind everyone that if anyone commits fraud in this 
society, I will be the first one on the floor saying: Go after them. We 
already have a law that is very clear. Anyone who commits fraud in 
connection with the child credit, the refundable credit, shall be 
guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not more 
than $100,000--$500,000 in the case of a corporation--or imprisonment 
of not more than 3 years or both.
  If the Justice Department or the IRS is not doing enough to go after 
this fraud, I have to say, let's call the folks in charge and let's 
tell them we want to make sure there is an effort. Write a letter. But 
do not say--because a few people are doing a bad thing and should go to 
jail for it, do not take your paint brush and paint every immigrant 
family who has dreams with this. This is an outrageous thing to do, 
especially to claim that you are not doing anything to hurt children 
and you are doing it to help the veterans. The veterans have paid in 
full.
  Let's vote for the veterans--for the veterans and for the children. 
You vote for the veterans by voting for Pryor. You vote for the 
children by voting no on the mean-spirited Ayotte amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor today in support of 
S. 1963, a bill to restore the 1 percent COLA cut for military 
retirees.
  We must honor the sacrifices our military men and women--and their 
families--have made at home and abroad. We can do this by making sure 
that they have a government on their side and that promises made are 
promises kept.
  Our men and women in uniform face specific challenges when it comes 
to their own financial security. It can be difficult to save for 
retirement while serving abroad or to build equity in a home when 
relocating every few years. Having a COLA you can depend on and plan 
for is crucial to building financial security.
  That is why I fully support restoring the 1 percent COLA for all 
military retirees. As chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, I 
included a provision in the fiscal year 2014 omnibus spending bill to 
cancel the COLA cut for working-age disabled veterans and survivors of 
departed members. This provision was an important downpayment toward 
restoring COLA for all military retirees.
  Today we must finish the job to ensure that no military retiree has 
his or her COLA reduced. There are smarter and fairer ways to save 
money than reducing COLAs for men and women who served in uniform. We 
can start by closing tax loopholes for businesses sending jobs overseas 
or canceling outdated Dust-Bowl farm subsidies.
  Rather than targeting veterans for budget savings, we should be 
working together to make sure they and their families are supported 
medically, financially, and emotionally.
  Today is the day to right this wrong, and I encourage my colleagues 
to support this legislation.

[[Page S885]]

  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.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded and that the nominations be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________