[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 165 (Thursday, November 5, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7779-S7786]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS AND RELATED AGENCIES 
              APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I move to proceed to H.R. 2029.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 98, H.R. 2029, a bill 
     making appropriations for military construction, the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other 
     purposes.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, for the information of all Senators, 
there will be a rollcall vote on the motion to proceed to the Military 
Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill shortly after 
lunch. The chairman of that committee, Senator Kirk, is working with 
the ranking member to move that bill across the floor next week. They 
will have a Senate substitute to the bill pending, and Senators will 
then further amend. If Senators cooperate in moving things along and 
scheduling votes on amendments to the bill, we can vote on passage on 
Tuesday night so that Senators can commemorate Veterans Day back home 
with their constituents.
  Obviously, this is going to require some cooperation from all 
Members. However, I encourage those Senators with amendments to the 
MILCON-VA bill to work with Senator Kirk and Senator Tester to get them 
in the queue for floor consideration.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


           Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, 2 weeks ago, the Senate was unable to 
proceed to consider a very important piece of legislation called the 
Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act. The goal of this 
legislation is to protect our communities from criminals who violate 
our laws and who pose a danger to those communities--often minority 
communities themselves. The aim of this legislation is to restore law 
and order across the country by holding those accountable who are 
defying Federal law and refusing to cooperate with the Federal 
Government when it comes to communicating the status of people who are 
illegally present in the country who have committed other more serious 
crimes and refusing to honor Federal detainers.

[[Page S7780]]

  As we discussed the need for this bill, several of my colleagues 
highlighted the importance of this issue, but unfortunately, we lost 
that vote because only 54 Senators voted to proceed to the bill and 
obviously we needed 60 votes.
  I am concerned that this debate does not focus on the people harmed 
the most because of the status quo, and that is why I have come here to 
the floor to talk about the larger problem of violent crime committed 
by those who are here illegally and are not being punished according to 
our laws. I also want to highlight the importance of the victims and 
families across the country who are suffering because we have not taken 
the appropriate action to stop these criminals.
  There is one person in particular whom I wish to talk about today. My 
plan is to come to the floor and tell these stories one at a time over 
the next few weeks.
  This is Javier Vega, Jr., who grew up in La Feria, a small town of 
about 7,000 people in South Texas. Javier was known by the name Harvey 
to his friends, interestingly enough, and he spent his entire life 
thinking of ways to help others before himself.
  From a young age, he knew he wanted to serve in the military, and so 
he volunteered for the Marine Corps and embarked on a military career 
after graduating from La Feria High School. Harvey thrived in the 
Marine Corps. So after leaving the Marines and working day and night to 
put himself through college, he decided the next step in his public 
service was to join the U.S. Border Patrol.
  Harvey's mother said that he approached his work at the Border Patrol 
just like everything else he pursued in life--with diligence, 
dedication to hard work, and trying just simply to be the best he could 
be. He was proud to help protect his fellow neighbors and serve our 
country, and he worked tirelessly to do so.
  But, tragically, Harvey's service to his country was cut short. Last 
summer he was out at one of his favorite fishing spots with his family. 
He loved fishing. It was a family tradition, and Harvey wanted to pass 
along his love for this pastime to his sons. Shortly after he and his 
family members cast their lines into the water on that Sunday 
afternoon, he was ambushed by two men who tried to rob him, and, 
heartbreakingly, the encounter turned violent.
  Harvey's lifelong commitment to protecting those around him--
something he seemed born to do--kicked in instantly. As Harvey and his 
father, and eventually his mother, tried to fend off the attackers, 
tragically Javier ``Harvey'' Vega, Jr., was killed. His father, Javier 
senior, was shot in the hip and still suffers from the wounds inflicted 
that afternoon.
  This was supposed to be another normal weekend fishing with the 
family. But instead, this normal weekend--or what was supposed to be a 
normal weekend of fishing for Javier and his family--turned deadly.
  Who were the killers? They were two illegal immigrant criminals who 
had repeatedly violated our laws, and by that I don't mean they just 
entered the country without the appropriate visa. Both had been 
deported multiple times but managed to repeatedly find their way back 
into the country, even after committing a long list of crimes.
  In fact, according to some witnesses, these two men had been 
terrorizing the community for months, committing armed robberies and 
carjackings, and, clearly, they were capable of attacking and killing a 
hard-working father on a fishing trip with his family.
  This is a difficult topic for some because some people would like to 
mischaracterize what we are trying to do with this legislation as 
somehow being anti-immigrant. But indeed, legal immigrants and people 
who live in the communities along South Texas--many of them have had 
family members come here from Mexico and elsewhere over the years--
recognize how much people who illegally enter the country and commit 
multiple crimes can terrorize communities and victimize the very people 
whom those who block this legislation say they want to protect.
  I don't raise this issue or this story lightly, but the country 
should know that for the family of Javier Vega, Jr., this is their 
reality. Illegal immigrant criminals who were deported multiple times 
attacked them and killed their son--their father, their brother, and 
their friend. Their lives will never be the same.
  A number of our colleagues voted to block our ability to even 
consider this important legislation that seeks to merely enforce 
existing Federal law and to defund those jurisdictions that defy 
Federal law, and this is the consequence of doing nothing--people like 
Javier Vega, Jr., being victimized by criminals who violate our laws 
over and over and over, and when we catch them and they are deported, 
they simply come back into the country and victimize more people and 
more communities and kill people like Javier Vega, Jr.
  The lives of the Vega family will never be the same, and I know they 
don't want other families in Texas or elsewhere around the country to 
have to suffer like they have suffered.
  It doesn't seem like a lot to ask--that our Federal laws be enforced 
to protect our communities from criminals. That is all the legislation 
attempted to do. Yet there was a concerted effort across the aisle to 
filibuster the bill and prevent us from even considering this 
legislation, along with any suggestions our colleagues might have for 
improving it.
  The goal of the bill, the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect 
Americans Act, is not to keep legal immigrants from entering the United 
States or to disparage law-abiding immigrants. Even the victim's 
mother, Marie, someone with justifiable, personal anger, noted that 
this tragedy does not mean that her family is against immigration--far 
from it. This legislation is narrowly targeted to address the root 
cause of the tragedies like the one I have been talking about, by 
targeting criminal illegal immigrants who repeatedly ignored the rule 
of law and who live with virtual impunity in our country and victimize 
people like the Vega family.
  We can't, in good faith, address immigration reform until the 
American people see us doing more to enforce our existing laws. I have 
been here for a while, and I have heard the arguments across the aisle 
that our colleagues would say: Well, the only thing we need to do to 
fix problems like what the Vega family experienced and otherwise is to 
pass comprehensive immigration reform. But the American people simply 
don't have enough confidence in us if we are unwilling to take the 
necessary steps to see that the laws on the books are already 
enforced--the very laws that would protect people like Javier Vega, 
Jr., and his family.
  We have a lot of work to do to regain the public's confidence, 
because we can do other things that I believe we need to do to fix our 
broken immigration system. It is imperative, it is our responsibility, 
and it is something we referred to in our oath--that we will uphold and 
defend the laws and the Constitution of the United States. It is our 
responsibility to make sure that local governments comply with Federal 
laws and do not prevent the Department of Homeland Security from doing 
its job in enforcing them.
  America's law enforcement community, including heroes like Harvey, 
put their lives on the line every day to protect our citizens. They 
work tirelessly to try to protect our safety.
  I hope our colleagues will come to their senses and stand up for 
those who provide for our public safety and not contribute to a 
situation where other families, such as the Vega family, will lose a 
loved one to the sort of career criminals whom I was referring to 
earlier who killed Javier Vega, Jr.
  I have recently joined with Congressman Filemon Vela to send a letter 
to the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection requesting 
that they reclassify the death of Javier Vega, Jr., as a line-of-duty 
fatality. Everybody in law enforcement knows that you are never truly 
off duty, and Javier's brave actions that fateful day back in 2014 
should be classified as a death occurring in the line of duty, just 
like every other law enforcement officer.
  I look forward to hearing back from the Commissioner on this soon. I 
am thankful to Paul Perez, president of the National Border Patrol 
Council in Kingsville, and to the Rio Grande Valley Union of the 
National Border Patrol Council for helping the Vega family highlight 
this issue.

[[Page S7781]]

  We have a duty to help our brave men and women in law enforcement do 
their job by passing this legislation and to regain some of the lost 
confidence the American people used to have in our ability to actually 
do our job and to keep illegal immigrant criminals and repeat offenders 
off our streets.

  This issue is not going away. There are countless other stories in 
Texas and across the country, such as the story of Kate Steinle, out in 
San Francisco, who tragically was murdered by the same sort of repeat 
illegal immigrant criminal who killed Harvey Vega.
  There are a lot more stories to tell--a lot more stories that I hope 
we will tell in the coming days. It is our duty as Members of Congress 
to put a stop to this, and I pledge to keep fighting on behalf of the 
Vega family for legislation that will do just that.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  (The remarks of Mr. Kaine pertaining to the introduction of S. 2256 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are not in a quorum call.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, do I have a limitation on speaking time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no limitation.
  Mr. COATS. I thank the Chair.


                           Waste of the Week

  Madam President, this is my weekly ``Waste of the Week'' speech. It 
is time for another one.
  Let me just say up front this involves Department of Defense 
spending. Now, I am a strong advocate. I am an Army veteran. I have 
served on the Senate Armed Services Committee for nearly two terms. I 
am a strong advocate of a strong national defense, but it doesn't mean 
we give a blank check to the Department of Defense. It means we have to 
scrutinize their expenditures and their engagement in spending 
taxpayers' dollars just as carefully as we scrutinize every other 
agency. Everybody is involved in terms of finding the best and most 
effective way of using taxpayer dollars, hopefully without going into 
debt to do so and hopefully directed to those issues of priority and 
necessity that we have to fund. The Department of Defense of course is 
one of those. Although, as I said, it doesn't mean they get a blank 
check.
  I am deeply disappointed that my Democratic friends across the aisle 
have denied us the opportunity to take up the Department of Defense 
appropriations bill, where we would have the opportunity to offer 
amendments to strike money or to save money that could be used for 
essential, necessary efforts in spending by the Department of Defense.
  Clearly every agency has to do some triage if we are ever going to 
get control of our out-of-control budget and our out-of-control plunge 
into deficit spending year after year, with the debt ever growing. I 
just heard today that we are now at $18.5 trillion in debt, and that is 
going to come back to haunt us in future generations.
  So the triage involves defining what is essential. Is this an 
essential expenditure that only the Federal Government can make? 
Defense spending falls into that category; that is, something that we 
can't leave to the States. Secondly, there is a lot we would like to do 
that may be necessary but is not urgent, a priority, or essential--when 
we have the money to do it. The third category is, Why in the world are 
you doing that in the first place? How can we define those items that 
are not necessary and take those funds and use them? Either give them 
back to the taxpayer or put them toward something that is essential 
rather than continuing to raise the funding, keeping all of the ``why 
we are we doing this in the first place?'' stuff funded year after 
year. We are not being given the opportunity to do that.
  It is beyond this Senator's comprehension that, having established 
the caps with the agreement that passed last week--which I couldn't 
vote for because it kept adding more to our debt and didn't fully 
address the real problem of entitlement spending. But nevertheless, the 
decision was made, and we had to pass it. Now it is simply a process of 
allocating the money within the limits of how much can be spent. That 
is what we are supposed to be able to do, of course, in committee.
  We are also supposed to have the opportunity as Members of the Senate 
to bring forward amendments, to bring forward policy issues, to debate 
on the floor, and hopefully to improve the bill, making it better, more 
cost effective, and efficient.
  OK. Here we go--waste of the week. I think this is the 20th-something 
time I have been on this floor during this year. Every week the Senate 
is in session, I come and do the waste of the week. This week it 
addresses, as I said, the Department of Defense. I want to highlight 
what a recent inspector general Department of Defense report found: 
over $40 million of overspending by the Department of Defense to build 
one gas station in Afghanistan.
  The special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction found 
that the Department of Defense Task Force for Stability and Business 
Operations actually spent $43 million on a single natural gas fueling 
station in Afghanistan. The station was originally projected to cost $3 
million--and we will talk about how ever got to $3 million, let alone 
how in the world this could have gotten to a total of $43 million.
  According to the IG report, DOD spent this money ``to fund the 
construction and to supervise the initial operation of the station. 
Specifically, it spent approximately $12.3 million in direct costs''--I 
guess that was building the station--``and $30 million in overhead 
costs.''
  We are digging in to find out what those overhead costs were, but 
somebody came away with a pretty good profit margin just by submitting 
bills for $30 million in overhead costs which apparently were approved 
and spent and given to the contractors.
  To make matters worse, the inspector general's office found that the 
reasons the gas station needed to be built in the first place were not 
legitimate. They said there is zero evidence that the Department of 
Defense conducted the prior research necessary to identify potential 
obstacles before initiating this $43 million project. Wouldn't you 
think somebody would have said: Wait a minute. What is this for? Where 
is it going to be? How much is it going to cost? Is it worth it? What 
is the projected spending? Is it going to be worth doing this? Does it 
make any sense? The IG office said there was zero evidence in the DOD's 
research that there could be a potential obstacle in going forward with 
this. One of those obstacles is Afghanistan doesn't have the pipeline 
infrastructure to get the gas to the gas station. Another key obstacle 
is that on average it would cost more to convert a vehicle in 
Afghanistan to use compressed natural gas than the average Afghan earns 
in a single year. What all this means is that the Department of Defense 
built a gas station that doesn't consistently have gas or customers, 
all for $43 million.
  Most outrageously, the original $3 million allocated to this project 
was over and above the international norm for building this kind of 
compressed natural gas station. The International Energy Agency 
analyzed global construction costs for similar fueling stations and 
found that construction costs ranged from $200,000 to $500,000 per 
station. It did acknowledge that in nonindustrialized countries such as 
Afghanistan, costs would be on the high-end. OK. The high-end is 
$500,000. It still raises the question, If nobody is going to use it or 
we can't get gas to the station to put into the vehicles, why are we 
doing this in the first place? It also raises the question, Why did it 
cost $3 million in projected construction costs when the average high-
end is $500,000 per station in places like Afghanistan? What do you get 
for $3 million? What they say you get for $3 million ended up costing 
$12 million, and then the final bill is $43 million. What do you get?

  As you can see on this photograph, you get one of these out in the 
desert in Afghanistan. It is a little bit blurry. There is the 
structure. You have some pumps here. They actually did want to prove 
that some cars use this, so there are a couple of vehicles pictured out 
there in the desert. There is a telephone pole, I guess, out there. You 
can

[[Page S7782]]

see we are not talking about the middle of a city.
  So that is what you get. That is what you get, folks, for $43 million 
of expenditures. This is almost beyond the pale. It is almost something 
that you come down here and say: This can't be true. You can't make 
this stuff up. This is an example, though, I am afraid, of a lot of 
other overspending which we are going to dive into. But this one 
example alone illustrates that someone is making some very bad 
decisions and that taxpayers' dollars were not, at the least, properly 
stewarded by someone.
  American taxpayers deserve an answer to this fraud, to this waste. 
Why did we pay $43 million to build this gas station when there was no 
research justifying building it in the first place? They want an 
explanation of why this particular project was $40 million over budget, 
and even the budgeted price was significantly higher--8 to 10 times 
higher--than the projected average cost of building something like this 
in a third-world country. Taxpayers need an explanation of how and why 
this could have ever happened, and there needs to be a full 
investigation. We need and will demand answers.
  What has been illustrated is a perfect example of why not only my 
constituents but the American public feels that Washington can no 
longer be trusted and that no one in Washington gets it. Well, I get 
it. I get it, and we ought to all get it. We ought to be just as 
outraged as our constituents in terms of our performance here. This is 
totally unacceptable.
  As has been said, this Senator is one of the biggest supporters of a 
strong national defense as anyone standing on this Senate floor, but we 
are weakening our defense and not allocating our money to the 
essentials that we need to support our soldiers in the essential tasks 
they have and the equipment they need. We are doing this kind of stuff, 
and it has to stop.
  Our waste of the week is now totaling over $117 billion of identified 
waste, and who knows what the total would be if we could comb through 
every agency. Our former colleague Tom Coburn used to say there is a 
good $1 trillion if added all up. I don't know if it reaches that or 
not, but we are well on the way. We are at $117 trillion, and these are 
the things I have identified and addressed coming to the floor this 
year.
  Hopefully my colleagues will pay attention. We can't get the big 
things done. The President won't sign anything or engage in anything 
relative to the real gorilla in the room that is going to take us down 
economically, which are the runaway entitlements. Despite all the 
efforts, many of them bipartisan, the President has said: No, no, no, 
no, no, not on my watch.
  The spending is continuing to go up, but the least we can do until we 
get somebody more responsible as our leader in the White House and 
until we have the will and courage to take on what we all know needs to 
be done to get our fiscal house back in order--in the meantime, we can 
at least stop this egregious spending and waste of taxpayer dollars 
through fraud and abuse.
  I am going to continue to do this. Next week we have lined up in our 
office what we will do, coming down virtually every day to do this and 
not run out of examples of how taxpayers' dollars are being wasted.
  As you can tell, I am getting worked up about all this. Somebody 
needs to get worked up about this because it is not happening and we 
are spending money, and the public has given up and thrown up their 
hands and said we are dysfunctional, and they are right.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Udall and Mr. Heinrich pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 2254 are printed in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. HEINRICH. Madam President, I yield to my colleague from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                          Tribute to Amy Jishi

  Mr. PETERS. Madam President, I rise to recognize the heroic efforts 
of Amy Jishi, a Michigander who serves as a transportation security 
inspector at Detroit Metropolitan International Airport. I just spoke 
to her a few moments ago on the phone and thanked her for her brave 
actions.
  Recently, while leaving work at the airport Amy observed an accident 
at a traffic light. She noticed that one of the cars was leaking 
gasoline and a fire had started underneath it. Without hesitation, Amy 
selflessly placed herself in harm's way to offer assistance and to warn 
others about the fire, and she worked to free the driver from the 
vehicle, despite a stuck door, and was able to free him shortly before 
the car burst into flames. Afterwards, Amy told a reporter, ``When I 
saw the accident, the only thought that went through my mind was to 
help them.''
  Amy is a lifelong resident of Dearborn Heights and has worked with 
the Transportation Security Administration in Detroit for 8 years. She 
and her TSA colleagues across the Nation work to keep the American 
people and the traveling public safe each and every day.
  As a member of the Senate Homeland Security committee, it is a 
privilege to hear the stories of the men and women at the Department of 
Homeland Security who work around the clock and around the world to 
keep our country safe. These individuals are dedicated to public 
service and are willing to put Americans' safety and well-being above 
their own, and they deserve the recognition, as well as the resources 
and policies that will continue to position them for success in the 
mission they take so seriously and personally.
  I would like to recognize Amy's selfless action, quick thinking, and 
dedication to her fellow Americans. Because of her actions, a young 
driver was able to walk away from what would have been a terrible 
tragedy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. I thank the Presiding Officer.


                           SAVE Benefits Act

  Ms. WARREN. Madam President, exactly 3 weeks ago the Social Security 
Administration made a very quiet announcement. Next year, for just the 
third time since 1975, seniors who receive Social Security won't be 
getting an annual cost-of-living increase.
  Two-thirds of seniors depend on Social Security for the majority of 
their income. For 15 million Americans, Social Security is all that 
stands between them and poverty. But not one of these Americans--not 
one--will see an extra dime next year. Millions of other Americans 
whose benefits are pegged to Social Security--millions who receive 
veterans' benefits, disability benefits, and other monthly payments--
won't see an extra dime either.
  These are tough times--but not for everyone. According to most recent 
data from the Economic Policy Institute, CEOs at the top 350 American 
companies received on average a 3.9-percent pay increase last year. 
That is a lot of money because the average CEO pay at one of the top 
350 American companies was a cool $16.3 million in 2014. On average, 
they got more than half a million dollars each in pay raises. So CEOs 
get huge pay raises while seniors, veterans, and others who have worked 
hard--70 million of them--will get nothing. Why? It is not an accident; 
it is the result of deliberate policies set right here in Congress.
  Social Security is supposed to be indexed to inflation so that when 
prices go up, benefits will go up, too. But Congress's formula looks at 
the spending habits of only about a quarter of the country, and the 
formula isn't geared to what older Americans actually spend. 
Projections for costs of core goods and services, projections that 
remove the components of prices that are the most uncertain and 
erratic, show that inflation is up about 2 percent, but seniors, who 
usually get a boost on January 1, won't see an extra dime next year, 
mostly because of falling gasoline prices, which just don't mean as 
much to millions of seniors who don't commute to work. Meanwhile, 
seniors who are trying to cover things such as rent and exploding 
prescription drug prices are left out in the cold. It is all Federal 
policy.
  What about those huge CEO bonuses? They are also the consequence, in 
part,

[[Page S7783]]

of congressional policy. A report released just last week from the 
Center for Effective Government and the Institute for Policy Studies 
details how taxpayers subsidized CEOs' huge pay packages through 
billions of dollars in giveaways, including subsidies such as special 
tax-deferred compensation accounts and a crazy loophole that allows 
corporations to write off obscene bonuses as a business expense.
  Companies can make their own decisions on how much to compensate 
their executives, but because of the laws Congress has passed, American 
taxpayers are forced to subsidize these multimillion-dollar pay 
packages.
  It is time for Congress to make different choices. If we do nothing, 
on January 1 more than 70 million seniors, veterans, and other 
Americans won't get an extra dime. While Congress sits on its hands and 
pretends there is nothing we can do for seniors or vets, while Congress 
claims there just isn't any money to fix the problem, American 
taxpayers will keep right on subsidizing billions of dollars' worth of 
bonuses for highly paid CEOs. It is a choice. Congress can spend 
taxpayer money subsidizing billions of dollars for bonuses for 
corporate executives or Congress can use that very same money to help 
70 million people who live on Social Security, veterans' benefits, and 
disability payments. Congress makes the choice.
  That is why I am here today, along with a number of my colleagues, to 
introduce the Senior and Veterans Emergency Benefits Act. The SAVE 
Benefits Act will give seniors on Social Security, veterans, those with 
disabilities, and others a one-time payment equivalent to an average 
increase of 3.9 percent--the same tax-subsidized pay increase top CEOs 
received last year.
  We can increase pay for seniors and vets without adding a single 
penny to the deficit simply by closing one of the many tax loopholes 
that subsidize these giant pay packages for executives. In fact, 
according to the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration, 
closing this loophole will create enough revenue to help seniors and 
vets and there will still be enough money left over to help extend the 
life of the Social Security trust fund. This should be a bipartisan 
act. Nobody wants to see seniors struggle to pay their grocery and 
utility bills. Everybody should want to extend the life of Social 
Security.
  Both Democrats and Republicans have expressed contempt for this tax 
loophole. Back in 1993, Congress passed section 162(m)--a Tax Code 
provision designed to rein in excessive corporate compensation--but the 
provision includes so many loopholes, most corporations just get around 
them. In fact, in 2006 Republican Senator Chuck Grassley said that 
``sophisticated folks are working with Swiss-watch-like devices to game 
this Swiss-cheese-like rule.'' In 2009 Republican Senator John McCain 
and Democratic Senator Carl Levin introduced a bill to shut down access 
to this loophole for corporate stock options. Just last year, the 
Republican chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee included 
reform of this loophole as part of his flagship tax reform bill. So 
let's just do it. Let's close the loophole, and let's use the money to 
give seniors and vets the support they need.

  Think about what this change would mean. That 3.9 percent is worth 
about $581 a year, a little less than $50 a month. I know that is a 
rounding error for those top corporate executives who are pulling in an 
average of over $16 million each. But Social Security payments average 
only about $1,250 a month, and millions of seniors who rely on those 
checks are barely scraping by. A $581 increase could cover almost 3 
months of groceries for seniors or a year's worth of out-of-pocket 
costs on critical prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries. That 
$50 a month is worth a heck of a lot to the 70 million Americans who 
would have just a little more in their pockets as a result of this 
bill. In fact, according to an analysis from the Economic Policy 
Institute, that little boost could lift more than a million people out 
of poverty.
  We all know someone who lives on Social Security--every single one of 
us. We know family members, a friend, a neighbor, people who worked 
hard all their lives and who now rely on Social Security checks to get 
by. Giving seniors a little help with their Social Security and 
stitching up these corporate tax write-offs isn't just about economics; 
it is about our values. For too long we have listened to a handful of 
powerful folks who have had one message: Cut taxes for those at the 
top, cut rules and regulations that keep businesses honest, and let 
everybody else fight over the scraps. We have tried that approach, and 
now we have a retirement crisis. Guaranteed pensions are gone, and 
401(k)s and IRAs have been decimated by the stock market. Fewer and 
fewer people can afford to save for the future. We tried it, and it was 
a complete failure.
  These same powerful folks will tell you there is nothing we can do to 
help 70 million seniors, veterans, Americans with disabilities, and 
others who will not see an extra dime this year. They will say we can't 
afford it. They will say we can't do anything to expand Social 
Security. They will say we need to gut Social Security in order to save 
it. They will say all of this, exactly at the same moment that we 
continue to shovel billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies out the 
door for corporations to boost pay to their highest paid executives.
  That is the problem. The money is there, only right now it goes to a 
handful of CEOs because that is where the law written by Congress sends 
it. But Congress can make a different choice--a choice that reflects 
our deepest values, a choice to give a boost to 70 million Americans 
who have earned one, a choice to lift over 1 million people out of 
poverty, and a choice to extend the life of Social Security. It is all 
about choices--millionaire and billionaire CEOs or retires, vets, and 
disabled Americans.
  I ask my colleagues to support the SAVE Benefits Act. January 1 will 
be here soon, and we need to make a choice now.
  Madam President, I yield to my colleague from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
  We spend a lot of time here on the floor of the Senate talking about 
how our States are different. That happens in the House of 
Representatives where I served as well. But there is one thing that 
certainly unites all of our States and, frankly, one thing that unites 
all of the front desks of our Senate offices, and that is this: We have 
all been flooded with phone calls from the thousands upon thousands of 
constituents in each one of our districts who are furious that they are 
going to get no increase in Social Security at the beginning of next 
year. Despite the fact that prices for virtually everything that fixed 
income seniors are paying for are going up, they are getting absolutely 
nothing to try to compensate them for those cost of living increases.
  We are hearing from people like Kevin in Bridgeport, who said:

       Dear Senator Murphy, I am a lifelong resident of 
     Bridgeport. . . . I am 63 years old . . . living on SSDI due 
     to a rare disease of the spinal cord. . . . Since my only 
     source of income is SSDI, I am concerned about the recent 
     announcement that there is going to be no COLA increase for 
     2016. If there is anything you can do to reverse this 
     decision, millions of Americans like myself would be greatly 
     helped and greatly appreciative.

  Or there is Fred from Wolcott, who said:

       I understand the lower gas prices have kept the CPI lower 
     with the result [being] no [Social Security] increase in 
     2016. Many of us do not drive or drive a limited amount and 
     the lower gas prices do not place additional funds in our 
     pocket.
       Meanwhile, the cost of beef, chicken, eggs and milk etc., 
     the things we live on have risen, and have reduced our 
     purchasing power. Many on Social Security have no other form 
     of income.

  Adeline of New Fairfield, CT, says:

       My husband and I were very disappointed that we did not 
     receive our cost of living raise in our check. . . . Please 
     let that be the last time. With all the medical deductibles 
     and food and clothes and taxes going up, it gets 
     discouraging. . . . We are up in age and not in the best of 
     health and because of that we are unable to get a job. 
     [Social Security is what we depend on.]

  These stories can be multiplied millions of times over, and all over 
our districts. What are we going to do about it? Are we going to sit 
here, as we do with issue after issue, and offer no response to the 
millions of our constituents who are telling us that they are going to 
have trouble making ends meet? Or are we going to make a

[[Page S7784]]

choice? Are we going to make a choice to end an unjustifiable loophole 
that allows corporations to hand over millions of dollars to their CEOs 
virtually tax-free or are we going to invest in the millions of seniors 
and disabled across this country who are going to have a hard time 
living and making ends meet if we don't make the change involved in the 
piece of legislation that we are announcing today? The SAVE Benefits 
Act is going to save the lives of seniors who without a cost of living 
increase are going to have trouble affording medication and food. It 
really comes at no cost to the corporations that are right now 
receiving an unjustifiable tax benefit--one that Congress really never 
intended.
  Congress passed and has accepted as part of our tax law for 20 years 
this provision that doesn't allow companies to take a tax benefit for 
salaries over $1 million. It is not surprising that companies found a 
way around that provision because it exempted performance-based pay. So 
bonuses and stock options could be handed over with full tax benefit, 
and that became the standard for compensation packages. All of a sudden 
it wasn't about salary any longer, and it became about this 
performance-based pay.
  You live in a world today in which there is this perverse system--the 
more corporations pay their CEOs, the lower their tax bill is.
  It is not going to hurt corporations to simply have to pay taxes on 
the bonuses above $1 million that they send to their CEOs and big 
executives. They are going to continue paying their CEOs a lot of 
money. A lot of them live in Connecticut. I don't have any fear that 
there is going to be a rapid diminution in the amount of money that 
CEOs are making, but at least those companies will pay taxes on those 
exorbitant salaries. We will be able to use that money to make sure 
that their customers--the people who are buying the goods that these 
big companies make--actually have the purchasing power with which to 
enter and be active in the economy.
  I guess that is the piece of economics that I will end on here. By 
putting $50 more a month into the hands of frail, poor seniors and 
disabled, you are providing an enormous economic benefit to the 
economy, because all of that money is going to go into the economy.
  Let me tell you what a senior living at or below the poverty line is 
going to do with $50 a month. They are going to put it into food. They 
are going to put it into medicine. They are going to put it into Main 
Street businesses. The fact is that when you decide instead to 
subsidize salaries of above $1 million, that money isn't going back 
into the Main Street economy. Maybe a portion of it is, but a lot of it 
is ending up in giant accrued pensions and savings accounts or in 
offshore investments--not in the Main Street economy.
  This is not just the right thing to do for these seniors who are 
crying out to every single one of our offices to do something about 
this unjustifiable lack of a COLA, but it is the right thing to do for 
the economy at large because the money is going to find its way into 
all sorts of crevices and corners of this economy that badly need that 
kind of infusion.
  I wish to thank Senator Warren for introducing this legislation. I 
wanted to come down to the floor to lend my voice to it and for it on 
behalf of the hundreds and hundreds of seniors in Connecticut who are 
contacting and calling our office asking for the Senate to do 
something.
  With that, let me yield to my colleague and friend from Connecticut, 
Senator Blumenthal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I am grateful to my colleague and 
friend from Connecticut for quoting some of the literally hundreds of 
letters that both of our offices have been receiving from Social 
Security recipients and also from veterans in my State. I suspect my 
colleagues from Massachusetts have been receiving the same letters. I 
want to thank Senator Warren for her leadership on this issue but also 
Senator Reed, who joined me some years ago in seeking to close the 
loophole that is fundamentally undermining not only the fairness but 
the effectiveness of our Tax Code.
  Let's understand what this loophole means to us as taxpayers. The 
performance pay loophole means that effectively unlimited corporate tax 
deductions are provided for executive pay. Put aside the issue of 
whether this pay makes sense or is fair, whether you agree or disagree 
with these gargantuan amounts. Who should pay for those extraordinary 
amounts of compensation? This loophole means that you and I as 
taxpayers are the ones who shoulder at least part of the burden. We do 
it because the money lost to the Federal Government as a result of this 
tax deduction must somehow be gained in some other way. Guess where it 
comes from. It comes from you and me--not from those corporations that 
can deduct it. It comes from you and me.
  Senator Reed and I have sought over the years to close this loophole 
to make sure that the tax-deferred compensation for corporate 
executives and the performance pay loophole are effectively closed and 
the Tax Code is made fair. But Senator Warren has introduced a new and 
profoundly important element to this fight. And that is this: How 
should we use the proceeds from closing this loophole? The answer is 
this: In recognition of the reality that current economic burdens are 
falling hardest on people who least can afford them--seniors, veterans, 
and families who depend entirely or in significant part on benefits 
through Social Security and the VA--should be given the benefit of 
closing this loophole. Why? First of all, because it is the right thing 
to do.
  The current measures of the cost of living fail to measure the cost 
of living for them. That is because we don't all buy the same thing. 
The index or the formula that is used to calculate costs-of-living 
increases fail to measure the real economic burden on certain groups, 
namely our seniors and our veterans. You have heard very eloquently and 
powerfully from my colleagues, from Senator Warren and Senator Murphy, 
about the impact on our Social Security recipients.
  I am here as the ranking member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs 
Committee to say that those benefits affect 25,000 veterans in 
Connecticut who receive VA compensation for a service-connected 
disability, more than 2,000 survivors or dependent children who receive 
VA compensation, and 4.3 million veteran beneficiaries nationwide. They 
earned their benefits through their sacrifice and service to this 
country.

  This issue is about keeping faith with our veterans and making sure 
we leave no veteran behind. They earned those benefits through their 
service as well as sacrifice--sometimes unimaginable sacrifice. They 
earned those benefits through injury and wounds on the battlefield, and 
those benefits are necessary to ensure a smooth transition into 
civilian life for service-disabled veterans and their families who 
often face enormous and staggering additional costs and a reduced 
ability to work.
  To ensure that these vital benefits correspond to the actual cost of 
food, housing, clothing, gas, and other basic elements of daily life, 
the VA is authorized to adjust them--adjust them for inflation--and the 
index they use is the one that Social Security relies on as well. That 
is the connection to veterans. And that volatile formula, as I have 
said, too often fails to reflect the actual cost of living for this 
group of people, leaving millions of our veterans, as well as our 
seniors, without a realistic chance to keep pace.
  Our disabled veterans deserve better. It is that simple. They deserve 
better than what is happening to them right now. They deserve real 
compensation that recognizes rising real-world costs, escalating living 
expenses that are painfully squeezing them, as well as our seniors, and 
they deserve a fair raise and a fair choice.
  I urge my colleagues to join with us. Close this loophole, make the 
Tax Code fairer to all taxpayers, and also make sure our seniors and 
veterans get what they need and deserve, to live with the basic 
necessities that are essential to them. We need to keep faith with our 
veterans and make sure the greatest Nation in the world recognizes the 
greatest of its heroes, our veterans.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor to my colleague and great friend from Hawaii, 
Senator Hirono.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.

[[Page S7785]]

  

  Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, last month the Social Security 
Administration announced some disappointing news. For only the third 
time in 40 years Social Security beneficiaries will not receive a cost-
of-living or COLA increase in January 2016.
  In Hawaii, one out of four seniors relies on Social Security as their 
only source of income. They are struggling to keep a roof over their 
heads, pay for medicine, and buy groceries--basic necessities. Many 
Hawaii seniors have told me their stories about how costs for essential 
goods keep rising while the Social Security checks do not.
  Meanwhile, by contrast--and we heard this from my esteemed colleague 
the Senator from Massachusetts--the CEOs of the wealthiest companies in 
America are doing great. The average CEO at America's top 350 companies 
saw a raise of 3.9 percent just last year. Since the economic recovery 
of 2009, these CEOs have seen their pay increase by a whopping 54.3 
percent. I have nothing against hard-working people, including CEOs, 
getting a raise. If CEOs came up with a good idea and they are managing 
a successful company, that is great for them, their companies, and one 
hopes for the company's employees, but did you know taxpayers are 
partly footing the bill for CEO pay raises?
  The Tax Code today has a ``performance pay'' loophole that provides 
tax subsidies for high-level corporate executive compensation packages. 
That is why I am proud to join Senator Warren and others in introducing 
the SAVE Benefits Act. Our bill would provide a modest cost-of-living 
increase next year, the same 3.9 percent increase our Nation's top CEOs 
received this year. This would mean an average payment increase of 
about $580 for our seniors. This is money that makes a huge difference 
to all of our seniors. This one-time COLA payment would also apply to 
veterans' benefits--as my colleague Richard Blumenthal just focused 
upon--Federal disability insurance, and equivalent State or local 
retirement programs. To pay for this one-time COLA, our bill would 
close the tax giveaways to the wealthiest CEOs. Closing the performance 
pay loophole is a bipartisan idea, even supported by the former chair 
of the House Committee on Ways and Means in his tax reform proposal.
  In the long run, we should also modernize the formula Social Security 
uses to calculate COLAs each year, and that is why I introduced the 
Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act, which would base COLAs 
on a more accurate formula of what seniors actually buy, the Consumer 
Price Index for the Elderly or CPI-E. The CPI-E gives more weight to 
items seniors actually buy, such as medicine, housing, and home energy 
costs rather than electronics or clothing that younger workers buy more 
of. My bill would pay for the CPI-E by requiring millionaires and 
billionaires to pay the same rate into the Social Security trust fund 
that everybody else pays year-round. Otherwise, under the current law, 
once workers earn more than $118,500 in the year, they stop paying the 
payroll taxes that support the Social Security trust fund.
  I was on the Senate floor last month and shared the story of one of 
my constituents from with Wahiawa, and it bears repeating. She wrote to 
me recently and said:

       I find it incredible that there are people who actually 
     believe that Social Security is too generous. The average 
     Social Security benefit is a whopping $14,000 a year, and 
     we've only seen an average 2 percent COLA over the past five 
     years. I can assure you my health care costs have far 
     exceeded that tiny increase.

  Congress needs to listen to seniors like her and act to provide this 
modest one-time increase to help seniors make ends meet in 2016 and to 
change the way COLA is calculated. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
letting seniors in Hawaii and seniors all across the country have this 
one-time boost to their Social Security payments.
  I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the SAVE Benefits Act as well as 
the Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act.
  I yield the floor to my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Markey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Hawaii for her 
eloquent statement on this very important issue, and I thank the 
Senator from Massachusetts Senator Warren for once again, as usual, 
putting her finger right on the heart of a huge issue in our country.
  We have seniors, veterans, and SSI recipients across our country who 
will receive zero this year in terms of an increase in their benefits 
that they have so rightly earned by their service to our country. What 
Senator Warren is essentially saying is, Who really built this country? 
Who made this great country the place that we live in today? The truth 
is grandma and grandpa built this country. Grandma and grandpa got up 
every single day, went to work, built this incredible economy, and now 
that they are in retirement, grandma and grandpa are being told for the 
next year they don't get a raise. They don't get anything. They don't 
get a cost-of-living adjustment. They don't get any increase at all. 
They built this country. The veterans who are seniors, they protected 
this country. The veterans who are disabled, they built this country, 
they protected this country.
  What Senator Warren has done so accurately is essentially point out 
that there was a big loophole in our laws, and that loophole is a 
corporate compensation loophole that allows unlimited corporate 
deductions for executive performance pay.
  What have we learned over the last 20 years in America? The rich are 
getting richer, but the people at the bottom are not. All this bill 
says, quite simply, is, Let's have the raise go to the seniors for 1 
year. Let's have the raise go to grandma and grandpa. Let's give them a 
reward for the incredible benefits that have been flowing 
disproportionately to the upper 1 percentile. Let's give them the 3.9-
percent raise. Let's give them the kind of comfort and thanks they 
deserve for all of their hard work.
  What happens too often in Congress is that grandma and grandpa just 
get forgotten. There is a constant debate over whether grandma and 
grandpa are getting too much in Medicare, too much in Medicaid, and too 
much in Social Security benefits. ``We must solve that problem,'' say 
too many people here and around the country.
  No, grandma and grandpa are not the problem. By their hard work every 
single day for their entire lives, by getting up, going to work, and 
creating these great families who make us the greatest country on the 
planet, they are the ones who created this incredible wealth that we 
have in our society.
  I think we all owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Senator Warren 
because she has found a quite brilliant way to frame this debate on the 
Senate floor and for our country because it really does force us to all 
step back and ask the question of who contributed the most to our 
country over the last generation--a small handful of people at the top 
or everyone in the country who got up every single day who are the 
people we now call grandma and grandpa. I don't think we should be 
shortchanging them. I think Senator Warren's bill is the right way to 
solve that problem in order to make sure they get what they deserve. I 
thank Senator Warren for her great leadership on this issue.
  I yield to the Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I want to speak on the MILCON-VA bill. 
We have 1 minute. We are going to take a giant leap of faith that the 
majority is going to do the right thing by our veterans and by this 
country. I will vote to proceed on this bill with the hope that Members 
of this body are finally ready to honor our commitment we made to the 
veterans of this country.
  As everyone knows, for most of the year, the Senate Appropriations 
Committee was crafting appropriations bills that fit under disastrous 
spending caps put forward by the majority's budget resolution. As a 
member of the VA appropriations subcommittee, I was especially 
concerned that because of the budget resolution, we were underfunding 
the VA by over $850 million. This shortchange to our veterans would 
have been a disgrace.
  Back in May when I introduced an amendment in the committee to 
provide an additional $857 million to the VA--$857 million the VA needs 
to do its job--every Republican on the Appropriations Committee voted 
against my

[[Page S7786]]

amendment. I find it troubling that there are some so quick to send our 
troops into harm's way but neglect them when they return from war. That 
is exactly what happened, and we saw an appropriations bill that 
underfunded veterans health.
  The good news is that under the budget agreement we voted on this 
last week, that Senators in this body supported, we are going to fix 
the problem. It is now time to show the American people that we can 
govern responsibly by standing up for our veterans.

  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I know of no further debate on the 
motion to proceed to H.R. 2029.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the motion.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. 
Moran), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from 
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley), and the Senator from Vermont 
(Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 299 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Boxer
     Graham
     Merkley
     Moran
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Vitter
  The motion was agreed to.

                          ____________________