[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.
____________________