[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 19246-19263]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    MAKING CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I come to the floor to speak in support of the 2-year 
bipartisan budget agreement reached by Representative Ryan and Senator 
Murray. I am pleased that the budget agreement passed the House of 
Representatives with overwhelming bipartisan support and that cloture 
was invoked in the Senate today.
  I understand there are many of my colleagues on this side of the 
aisle who are very unhappy with this deal and intend to vote against 
it. My only response to that is I respect their vote, but I would like 
to know what we do in order to avoid another shutdown of the 
government. The American people steadfastly reject a shutdown of the 
government. I have concerns about the budget deal--I think everybody 
does--because of the nature of the way business is done. But to somehow 
vote against it without an alternative to keep the government from 
shutting down lacks some intellectual integrity.
  My support and vote will be based on two important facts:
  It will prevent another government shutdown, which we cannot put the

[[Page 19247]]

American people through or the people of my State through again.
  It goes a long way in alleviating the devastating impact of 
sequestration on our military. Have no doubt that the sequestration has 
had a devastating effect on many aspects of our ability to defend this 
Nation. Don't just talk to our leadership but talk to the men and women 
who are serving. They don't know where they are going to go next. The 
pilots aren't flying, the ships aren't sailing, and the training is not 
being conducted. That is unfair to the men and women who are serving 
their military, and I would remind us that all have volunteered to 
serve this country in harm's way.
  This budget deal will avert another government shutdown and reduce 
the impact of sequestration. It will reduce the deficit by roughly $23 
billion without raising taxes.
  Peggy Noonan is a noted conservative columnist who writes for the 
Wall Street Journal and served in the Reagan administration. She 
observed in a Wall Street Journal op-ed:

       [t]he government is now unable even to pass a budget, to 
     perform this minimal duty. Instead, Congress and the 
     administration lurch from crisis to crisis, from shutdown to 
     debt-ceiling battle. That gives a sense the process itself is 
     broken, and this lends an air of instability, of Third World-
     ness, to the world's oldest continuing democracy. We can't 
     even control our books. We don't even try. That's my context 
     for the Ryan-Murray budget deal.

  She continued:

       Should it be passed? Yes, yes and yes. The good things 
     about it are very good. The idea that Republicans and 
     Democrats are capable of coming to a budget agreement is 
     good. The idea that they can negotiate and make concessions 
     and accept gains is good. The idea the U.S. government is 
     able to produce anything but stasis and acrimony is good. 
     That we can still function even in the age of Obama--good.

  She noted:

       [This] agreement moves us an inch or two in the right 
     direction. Let me tell you what that's better than: It's 
     better than moving a few inches in the wrong direction! And 
     it's better than where we've been, in a state of agitated 
     paralysis.

  Only weeks ago we all witnessed firsthand the impact a government 
shutdown had on our constituents, and none of us wants to go through 
that again.
  In my home State of Arizona, the impact was very significant. Nearly 
500,000 visitors were turned away from Arizona's national parks during 
the shutdown. Arizona lost about $33 million in visitor spending. At 
Grand Canyon National Park, food banks had to rush supplies to 2,200 
employees of the concessionaires inside the park who were furloughed or 
laid off. Arizona spent about $500,000 in donations to reopen the Grand 
Canyon for 5 days during the shutdown.
  The list goes on and on.
  Our approval rating, I would say to my friends on this side of the 
aisle, and our party's approval rating plummeted. The damage was 
severe.
  Now we have an agreement. I repeat to my colleagues who would vote 
against this--both on that side of the aisle and this side of the 
aisle--if you have a better idea, bring it up, let's consider it, and 
let's vote on it because the only alternative to this is a government 
shutdown. Let's not deceive ourselves about why we are voting and what 
we are voting on.
  I admit it is not perfect. I think it has caused heartburn for all of 
us. One potentially problematic provision--and it is problematic--would 
slow the growth of cost-of-living adjustments for working-age--and I 
emphasize ``working-age''--military retirees. Let me point out that the 
COLAs for working-age military retirees under the age of 62 will 
continue to grow after 2015, in most cases more slowly than before.
  The fact is that the chairman of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee--one of the most admired and respected individuals in this 
Senate--has stated that we will review this provision, and we will 
review it in the context of the work that is already being done on the 
Senate Armed Services Committee, and that is a review of all paid 
benefits and aspects of our military that, in the words of former 
Secretary of Defense Mr. Gates that these entitlements in the military 
are ``eating us alive.''
  I would like to give an example. In 2012 military retirees and 
survivor benefit recipients received $52 billion. In 10 years that will 
grow to $59 billion. By 2034 it will grow to $108 billion per year. 
From 2001 to 2011 payments to military retirees grew by 49 percent. 
Every penny of it is deserved. Every penny of it we are proud we gave 
them. But I don't think there is any doubt that we are going to have to 
look at this whole issue of the pay, benefits, retirement, and all of 
that of members of the military in a prospective fashion.
  I am confident that one of the items taken up next year in the Senate 
Armed Services Committee will be what we are passing today, but it will 
be brought up in the context of all of the aspects of personnel costs 
in the military today--keeping in mind that we have an all-volunteer 
service and we are proud and pleased of the fact that we have America's 
finest in the military.
  But I can say for a fact that with this lurching from shutdown to 
shutdown, these draconian effects of sequestration--and I know my 
colleagues know that in 2014 there will be a more severe cut than at 
any time--these brave young men and women are getting sick and tired of 
not being able to do their jobs, and the best and the brightest are 
already making decisions as to whether to remain in the military.
  I wish to mention one small aspect that I think is indicative. About 
20 years ago there was a very large influx of pilots into the civilian 
airlines as airlines began to expand rather dramatically. That very 
large number of pilots is now nearing retirement age.
  There is going to be a dramatic demand for airline pilots, who, as we 
all know, are very well paid. We are offering pilots $225,000 to stay 
in and fly airplanes in the military. Do you know that the vast 
majority of these young pilots, these aviators, are not accepting that? 
One of the reasons they are not signing up is because a lot of times 
they don't fly anymore. They are not operating anymore, and they are 
spending time away from their homes and their families without being 
able to do what they were trained to do. This is only a small example 
of the impact of sequestration on the military.
  I wish all of my colleagues who are members of the Armed Services 
Committee would listen to the testimony of our military leaders who 
tell us that already they may not be able to defend this Nation in the 
most efficient fashion because of the effects of sequestration.
  All I can say is that if I had written this legislation--I think each 
one of us individually would have written it differently, but we 
didn't--the option of shutting down the government and the option of 
further damage inflicted by sequestration I hope would override the 
problems we see with this agreement. I want to promise my colleagues 
that I will work in every way with Senator Levin under his leadership 
next year--remember, this COLA issue does not kick in until 2015--I 
will work with my colleagues under Senator Levin and Senator Inhofe's 
leadership to review this provision in this bill as to whether it is 
fair and whether it needs to be changed.
  Again, I challenge my colleagues who will come to this floor and 
speak against this agreement to tell me what we can vote on and pass to 
prevent another government shutdown, and then I will be pleased to 
support it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. I also rise today to talk about the Bipartisan Budget Act 
of 2013 and to echo many of the reasons for supporting that budget that 
were just spoken about by my colleague from Arizona.
  This is the first Budget Conference Committee in a divided Congress 
since 1986, and compromise leaves every side with something they like 
and something they don't like, but it is what Americans expect us to 
do.
  I applaud Senator Murray, our Senate budget chair, for her leadership 
since our very first Budget Committee meeting in January 2013. I 
applaud Congressman Ryan, the chair of the conference committee, for 
his work with his House colleagues. I was proud

[[Page 19248]]

to be a part of the Budget Committee in this conference.
  Americans want us to find a budget compromise to restore some 
certainty in a way that will help families, help businesses, and help 
our economy.
  The day that I was sworn in as a Senator, before I took the oath of 
office, I was interviewed by a radio station in Virginia. They asked me 
what were the two things I wanted to do most immediately as a Senator. 
Only last week I was reminded what I said. I said: I want the Senate to 
find a budget that will be a budget for all of Congress, and I want to 
end sequester.
  I have done a lot of budgets as a Governor and a mayor. It was 
challenging for me to understand how in February we were here without a 
Federal budget but on the verge of embracing nonstrategic across-the-
board sequester cuts in a way that would hurt so many priorities 
Virginians care about.
  I gave my first speech on the Senate floor in February to urge my 
colleagues to avoid sequester. In the months since, I have visited 
Virginia shipyards, research universities, and early childhood 
education centers and have seen the effect sequester has on Virginians, 
on Americans, and on our economy.
  I am acutely aware of the budget impasse and continuing challenges 
that are imposed upon this economy by gimmicks such as sequester, and 
the absence of a budget for 4 years compounds those things. We have 
seen the harm sequester has done to so many of the priorities we care 
about.
  No manager would embrace indiscriminate across-the-board cuts because 
not everything the Federal Government does is worth everything else. If 
we are going to be making cuts, they should be strategic. There are 
areas in which we shouldn't be making cuts at all. We should be putting 
more money into the budget to do what is strategic and what is 
necessary.
  So what we have done with this budget deal is we have taken a step 
back to regular budgetary order to give certainty to the economy and to 
give certainty to our planners who work for the Federal Government. And 
while we are not replacing all of sequester--and how much I wish we 
were--we will do a lot to reverse some of its worse effects.
  The budget deal is good in a number of ways.
  It replaces $63 billion in sequestration cuts scheduled to go into 
effect in the next fiscal years--2014 and 2015--and replaces those 
nonstrategic cuts with a targeted mix of responsible spending 
reductions and new fees and revenue.
  It increases the top-line discretionary spending level for fiscal 
year 2014 to $1.012 trillion and $1.014 trillion in 2015.
  It provides budget certainty for 2 years. This is something many of 
us in State governments, who have State government experience, have 
long embraced--the virtue of 2-year budgets, which are common at the 
State level because they provide more certainty.
  Under the agreement defense cuts of an additional $20 billion that 
were scheduled to take effect in January will not go into effect, and 
we will find ways to restore funding and avert sequester cuts to 
nondefense accounts as well.
  The bill will let Chairwoman Mikulski and appropriators write full 
appropriations bills to reverse the cycle of widespread continuing 
resolutions. Many folks in the Federal Government tell me that as 
damaging as sequester is, a continuing resolution--that locks in line 
items at the level of last year or the year before that, instead of 
allowing flexibility to deal with these situations--is just as 
dangerous. So our appropriators can now write full-year appropriations 
bills for fiscal year 2014 and 2015.
  With budgetary certainty, our Department of Defense will be able to 
plan and strategize for the future, as will our domestic agencies. We 
will fund critical readiness issues. We will allow the Navy in Virginia 
to continue to work on ship building and repair, which is so critical 
and, above all, we can show the American public that Congress can work 
together in a bipartisan way, which is what we are all trying to do and 
what the American public asks us to do.
  We do know, as Senator McCain and all have mentioned, like any 
compromise this budget compromise is not perfect. I would put on the 
top of my list as the most grievous challenge with the budget 
compromise not something that is in it but something that is not in 
it--the extension of unemployment insurance benefits to the long-term 
unemployed. In this economy, all of the economic data suggests the 
extension of those benefits is not only good for the individuals, they 
are good for the economy itself. The suggestion is the expiration of 
these benefits could cost the country 200,000 to 300,000 jobs. That is 
a weakness in this proposal.
  An additional weakness is the way we have dealt with the cost-of-
living increase for military retirees pre-age 62 who are not disabled. 
I don't agree with that compromise provision. It requires a reduction 
in the cost-of-living increase for certain military pensions. The 
Senate budget that all those currently in this Chamber worked so hard 
on to pass in March did not contain that provision. It was not the way 
we felt we should be dealing with the budget. Obviously, we liked the 
Senate budget, and we found a way to replace sequester without making 
this change to military pensions. But it was added during the 
conference in order to find compromise with the House to move forward. 
Compromise is necessary because absent compromise the very folks who 
will be affected by this particular change will also be affected, 
because we have seen sequester and shutdown and furloughs affect 
military employees. We have seen it affect military operations, and so 
the alternative of brinkmanship and shutdown is no better for our 
retirees than this provision.
  We have heard from Secretary Hagel and Chairman Dempsey that they are 
supportive of the overall framework of the deal and it will help them 
address military readiness challenges. I am pleased Senator Levin, the 
chairman of Armed Services Committee--a committee on which I serve--has 
signaled his intention to review the COLA provisions in the Armed 
Services Committee next year, since it will not be scheduled to take 
effect until 2015.
  I am also disappointed that new Federal employees will be targeted 
for increased pension contributions. We have now increased those 
contributions in a somewhat tiered level for new employees twice in the 
last 3 years. But again, while that compromise is challenging for those 
newly hired Federal employees, the alternative is more challenging, 
because we can't keep going through the uncertainty of shutdowns or 
furloughs. It wouldn't be fair to those employees for us to do that.
  So again, we have replaced a portion of the nonstrategic cuts, and 
that is the way we should go going forward. I will continue to work to 
get rid of the rest of sequestration and replace it with similarly 
targeted strategies.
  For those reasons I urge my colleagues to support this deal. While I 
wouldn't agree with all items in it, that is like any compromise I have 
ever engaged in in my life. All of us who are part of a group--from the 
Senate of the United States to families--know that if you are part of a 
group, it is not always your way or the highway. You have to give and 
expect others to give as well, and that was an important aspect of this 
compromise.
  I will say in conclusion that another aspect of this deal I like very 
much is that it has unified the Virginia congressional delegation. 
There are 13 of us, 11 in the House and 2 Senators. There are 8 
Republicans and 5 Democrats. We get along well and work together well, 
but there aren't many issues like this--big policy issues--where all of 
us agree. In the House last week, all 11 Members of Congress of both 
parties voted for this budget compromise. Senator Warner, as a budget 
conferee, together with all of us in the Chamber right now, are 
supporting this budget compromise. I am glad my colleagues from 
Virginia have pulled together, and I think it is a tribute to the fact 
we have all seen the impacts that the budget uncertainty and sequester 
have caused. I am glad we seem to be on the verge of providing that 
sense of

[[Page 19249]]

certainty that will be good for the public and good for the economy.
  With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I want to take the floor today because I 
am very disturbed by the apparent shift in attitude by many elected 
leaders, including some in this body and in the House--the attitude 
towards people who do the work that makes this country run. They do not 
sit behind desks. They do not wear coats and ties every day or 
wonderful clothes. They do not sit in air-conditioned offices. They do 
not clip coupons. They just do hard work. They are the people you run 
into every day when you go into the local coffee shop and you order 
your latte. Maybe you see them when you go out and have lunch at a 
restaurant or you hail a taxi. Maybe you get on a bus or the subway. 
Maybe now, since it is near Christmas time, you go to a department 
store to do your Christmas shopping, and it is that person standing 
behind the counter.
  You think that person is only there for you when you go in there to 
buy your Christmas present. Think about it. She has probably been 
standing there all day long, and after you get out of there, she is 
still standing there to wait on somebody else.
  That is who I am talking about. They are not the big wheels in our 
society. They never thought of themselves as being big wheels, but they 
are the cogs and the inner workings that make our country run.
  There used to be fairly universal agreement that these people are the 
backbone of this country and the foundation of our economy; that our 
job as elected officials is to do all we can to ensure that all working 
Americans have a decent shot at the American dream. We used to agree 
that if someone worked hard and played by the rules, they should be 
able to earn enough to support their family, keep a roof over their 
head, put some money away for a rainy day, and have a secure 
retirement. We used to agree that if one loses their job through no 
fault of their own, especially at a time of chronically high 
unemployment, they should have some support to get them through the 
rough patch while they are looking for new work. We used to agree not 
too long ago, on both sides of the aisle, that no child in this country 
should go to bed hungry at night. I say both sides. I remember McGovern 
and Dole, Dole and McGovern, and the great work they did on hunger in 
America.
  In recent years, it has been alarming to see how these fundamental 
principles and values are being attacked in our public discourse. For 
many, the new attitude is: You are on your own. If you struggle, even 
if you face insurmountable challenges, well, it is probably your own 
fault.
  It just seems to me that there is a harshness in our land, a 
harshness that I think of as sort of borne of a benign neglect toward 
those Americans who have tough lives, may be ill-educated, marginally 
employed or they are just down on their luck. It used to be we only 
heard harsh rhetoric such as that from radio talk show partisans trying 
to get their ratings up. Sadly, it has now become a part of our 
everyday conversation, even in the Congress.
  We hear how minimum wage workers don't deserve a fair increase 
because they are just not worth $10.10 an hour. We hear that unemployed 
workers should be cut off from unemployment insurance because they are 
becoming ``dependent.'' At a time when there are three job seekers for 
every job, we hear it is critical to take away food assistance from 
millions of individuals so that, supposedly, if we take away their food 
and take away their unemployment insurance, they will now somehow learn 
the redemptive power of work. As if young mothers working service jobs, 
laid-off factory workers delivering newspapers, unemployed families 
receiving SNAP benefits--that somehow they need to be lectured by 
Members of Congress about work. These people know what it is like to 
work.
  What happened to our respect--our respect for the people who do the 
work and want to work in our country? What happened to our values, 
basic moral truths that people shouldn't go hungry in the richest 
country in the world? Whence comes this harshness of ours, reminiscent 
of the late 19th century workplace in America? How did we get to the 
point where many of us value the work of day traders pushing paper on 
Wall Street, but we ignore the contributions of the people who work in 
our daycare centers, educate our kids, care for our elderly in the 
twilight of their lives? What about their value?
  I wish the people who are pushing this harsh rhetoric would talk to 
Terrence, a father of three in Kansas City, MO. He works 50 hours a 
week. Don't lecture him about working. Fifty hours a week, two jobs--
one at Pizza Hut and one at Burger King--to try to make ends meet. He 
can barely insure his 15-year-old car or purchase shoes for his three 
girls. Last year, he lost his house. He told the Washington Times:

       We work hard for companies that are making millions. We're 
     not asking for the world. We want to make enough to make a 
     decent living. We deserve better. If they respect us and pay 
     us and treat us right, it'll lift up the whole economy.

  I will bet Terrence never got a degree in economics, but he says it 
better and understands it better than a lot of these economic thinkers 
down at our big banks and these economic think tanks.
  They should speak with Edward, a father in Illinois. Both he and his 
fiancee earn the minimum wage. He said:

       We have three children and our paychecks combined barely 
     cover the necessities like a roof over our heads, gas and 
     lights, and clothes for the kids. We wouldn't be able to make 
     it without government assistance like food stamps and a 
     medical card. There is constant stress because we are living 
     paycheck to paycheck and never have enough money. Everyone 
     needs help sometimes, especially since the economy is so bad 
     and it has made life even harder for working people. This 
     isn't about needing more money for luxury things, we need a 
     raise in the living wage in order to survive.

  Edward and Terrence clearly are not lazy. They are doing exactly what 
we might expect them to do, what we have told them they must do to make 
it in this country. But they are slipping further and further behind, 
through no fault of their own.
  The fact is our economy has changed. It is not working for many 
families right now. We can't stick our heads in the sand and pretend it 
is not true. We shouldn't suggest it is Edward's and Terrence's fault 
or that their kids don't deserve to eat or to wear shoes.
  We as elected officials have an obligation to recognize the 
fundamental truths about the challenges working families face in 
America. We have a duty to support policies which will help these 
families both weather the continuing economic storm and also build a 
brighter future for their children.
  First, we have to acknowledge the truth that while we are slowly 
moving in the right direction, the economy has not recovered, 
especially for those at the bottom of the economic ladder, the Edwards 
and Terrences and others. Jobs are still scarce. Four million people 
have been pounding the pavement for at least 6 months looking for new 
work. There are three job seekers for every job. Our economy is still 
millions of jobs short of what we need.
  In the past when the job market was this challenging, politicians on 
both sides of the aisle agreed the Federal Government had an obligation 
to step in and help the long-term unemployed while they are struggling 
to find work. In fact, the current Federal Unemployment Insurance 
Program was put in place in 2008, under a Republican President, George 
W. Bush, and we did it when the unemployment rate was 5.6 percent. 
Today the unemployment rate officially is 7 percent. We know it is 
higher. That is the official rate. But unofficially, if we include 
folks who want to work full time but can only find part-time work, 
those who have given up actively looking for work, the rate is actually 
13.2 percent. That is

[[Page 19250]]

the real unemployment rate in America.
  So given that the unemployment rate remains high in many parts of the 
country, my colleague Senator Jack Reed and I have introduced a modest 
proposal to extend the current system of federally funded extended 
unemployment insurance until the end of 2014. It is vitally important 
that we do so because it is going to expire in 2 weeks. Almost 5 
million American workers will exhaust their State unemployment 
insurance and lose their last lifeline before the end of next year. We 
are their last lifeline. They are counting on us. How can we think 
about turning our backs on them?
  But instead of joining a call to action, some of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle are actually suggesting that an extension of 
unemployment insurance will hurt jobless Americans. I was rather 
shocked when I heard this from our colleague from Kentucky, Senator 
Paul, on a Sunday talk program. Here is what he said:

       When you allow people to be on unemployment insurance for 
     99 weeks, you're causing them to become part of this 
     perpetual unemployed . . . group in our . . . economy, and . 
     . . while it seems good, it actually does a disservice to the 
     people you're trying to help.

  A disservice? I don't understand this kind of harshness for people 
who are out of work, who have paid into unemployment insurance and they 
are seeking now to get their insurance payments. First of all, this 99 
weeks is not quite right. The maximum is 73 weeks, and that is only for 
those who have been unemployed the longest and it is only in two 
States. Only two States have 73 weeks. Those are the two States with 
the highest unemployment rates. The rest of the States have access to, 
at most, 63 weeks. In my State, Iowa, it is only 40 weeks, not 99.
  Secondly, unemployment insurance is a desperately needed program. 
Let's be clear, unemployed workers are not living high on the hog on 
these insurance payments which average about $310 per week nationally. 
If you are on it for 1 year, that averages about $15,000 per year. 
There are some that are less than that. Mississippi, for example, is 
$193 a week. The truth is they are barely subsisting, barely hanging 
on, not sitting around watching TV. Why? Because there is only one way 
you can collect unemployment insurance benefits. That is, No. 1, if you 
have worked and paid into the system. So you have already earned the 
right to access the insurance you paid for. Secondly, you can only 
collect on the insurance if you are actively looking for a job.
  So contrary to the statement of my colleague from Kentucky, it is not 
a disservice to provide this meager benefit to the long-term 
unemployed, a benefit which they have earned. The only disservice is to 
float this absurd myth that jobless Americans want to be unemployed. I 
think it is offensive to suggest they are lazy and don't want to work. 
To me, it is morally repugnant to conclude that they will somehow be 
miraculously better able to find a job if we simply let their kids go 
hungry.
  That same harsh kind of thinking has also crept into our national 
debate about the most fundamental aspect of our social safety net--food 
assistance. Millions of American families depend upon the SNAP program, 
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. It is what everybody 
thinks of as food stamps. Such a basic thing, having enough to eat, in 
this country. Again, many of these people are in working families.
  In 2011, 41 percent of SNAP participants lived in a household where 
someone was working. Over the last several years, my Republican 
colleagues have sought again and again to slash food assistance for 
these families.
  The House-passed farm bill, engineered by Republicans in the House, 
proposed cutting food stamps by $40 billion over the next 10 years. 
Contrast that to what we passed in the Senate. Under the leadership of 
Senator Stabenow, we passed a farm bill which made some cuts over 10 
years of a little over $4 billion. That was supported by most people on 
both sides of the aisle. The House bill was only supported by the 
Republicans: Forty billion the Republicans wanted to cut versus $4 
billion in the Senate. That would have cut 3.8 million individuals from 
the SNAP program next year.
  Other parts of their proposal would have cut off food stamps and 
benefits in the future for some of the poorest adults, many of whom 
SNAP is the only income assistance they have or it would result in 
throwing 210,000 children out of their free school meals program, 
raising the level so low-income kids would be cut out of their free 
lunch program.
  Yet another provision the House Republicans put into their bill would 
have provided strong financial incentives to States to kick people off 
the SNAP program. The House farm bill would allow States to cut off 
SNAP benefits to most adults receiving or applying for SNAP, including 
parents with children as young as 1 year old, if they are not working 
or participating in a work or training program for at least 20 hours a 
week. That was it. There was no exclusion for mothers with little kids.
  The House bill meant that mothers with young children still in 
diapers could be cut off from the SNAP program even if they don't have 
affordable childcare. Imagine that--forcing a mother to choose between 
employment and safe child care for her child. That is harsh.
  As I said, this is not realistic. We already said there are three job 
seekers for every job, and 48 States have a waiting list for our 
largest training program, the Workforce Investment Act. Are we going to 
tell a young mother with a child who can't get adequate childcare that 
she has to be in a job training program? The lists are so long that you 
can't get in. Are we then going to tell her that she has to work? There 
are three job seekers for every job. What is she going to do?
  Never mind reality. Somehow Republicans seem to think that denying 
food assistance will magically make people find jobs despite the fact 
that jobs don't exist. Getting people into the workforce will require a 
stronger, growing economy with real jobs and strong job-training 
programs that really will help people get ahead. Promoting draconian 
cuts to SNAP programs under this benign-sounding work label does not 
make the effect any less harsh.
  What we have seen in recent years with respect to the SNAP program 
are not concerted and sincere efforts to help people leave the SNAP 
programs because they have gained employment or because our economy is 
get stronger; quite the contrary. Many Republicans want to eliminate 
food assistance for families without regard for the true nature of the 
economy or the effect on those families. In addition to acknowledging 
the fundamental economic truth that our job market has not adequately 
recovered--and for many Americans, programs such as unemployment 
insurance and food stamps are essential to basic survival--we also have 
an obligation to face another, perhaps even more alarming, economic 
reality. For those at the bottom who are working and playing by the 
rules, it is not enough.
  Hard-working people who are working full time--sometimes multiple 
jobs--are not getting paid enough to make ends meet. Full-time workers 
are living in poverty. Families are living in poverty. They go to work 
every day. This is a fundamental failure of our economy. It is 
something I believe we have a moral obligation to address by fixing and 
raising the minimum wage in America.
  I have introduced a proposal that I have worked on for a long time 
with Congressman George Miller in the House--the Fair Minimum Wage Act. 
It would gradually raise the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour, where it 
is now, to $10.10 an hour, then it would link the minimum wage to the 
cost of living in the future. It would be indexed.
  We would also provide a raise in the minimum wage for tipped workers, 
which has not been done in more than 20 years.

[[Page 19251]]

  Let's look at what happened to the minimum wage. If we kept the 
minimum wage at the same level when adjusted for inflation, and made 
that adjustment based on the minimum wage for 1968, which was a pretty 
good economic year, the minimum wage today would be $10.75 an hour. It 
is now $7.25 an hour.
  You wonder why there are more people on food stamps. Look at what's 
happened. By the way, these are people who are working, and they are 
people you see every day. You see them every day when you go in to get 
that coffee, go to that lunch counter or that department store. You see 
these minimum-wage workers every day. If you have daycare for your 
kids, you probably see them there too.
  Again, if we kept at this level, that family making minimum wage 
would have an additional $7,000 every year to spend on necessities. It 
is no wonder that working people turn to the safety net. In fact, a 
recent study found that taxpayers have to pick up the tab for millions 
of working families who are getting minimum wage. We have to pick up 
the tab to the tune of about $243 billion a year. Why? That is what we 
pay for food stamps, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance 
Program, the Earned Income Tax Credit Program, and Temporary Assistance 
for Needy Families. Taxpayers are picking up the tab to the tune of 
about $243 billion.
  If you want to say who benefits from an increase in the minimum wage, 
it is not only the people who are making the minimum wage, taxpayers 
will benefit too because a lot of this would fall by the wayside 
because people wouldn't qualify any longer for the safety net programs.
  Businesses will benefit too. The biggest problems for businesses--
especially small businesses--is the lack of consumer demand and poor 
sales. If you put money back in the pockets of low-income workers, that 
will be a boon to small businesses, and it will be a boon to businesses 
on Main Street because that is where they will tend to shop.
  Many of these low-income workers don't drive out to the suburbs. A 
lot of them don't go online and buy at amazon.com, but they will go to 
their neighborhood stores, and that is where they spend their money.
  In a poll earlier this year two-thirds of small business owners said 
they support raising the minimum wage because they know it will help 
increase consumption and reduce pressure on taxpayer-funded public 
benefit programs.
  We always hear the claim that if you raise the minimum wage, it will 
cost jobs. That is just not true. The most sophisticated empirical 
economic research conducted over the last 2 decades has shown 
repeatedly that minimum-wage increases do not cause job loss--not 
generally, not among teenagers, and not among restaurant workers.
  In short, history shows us time and again that despite all the cries 
of doom and gloom from richly paid lobbyists and well-funded trade 
associations, there is simply no real negative economic consequences 
from an increase in the minimum wage. To the contrary, the benefits are 
enormous.
  The Economic Policy Institute estimates that our bill would pump an 
additional $22 billion into the gross domestic product, thereby 
supporting 85,000 new jobs, and giving workers an additional $35 
billion to spend over the 3 years of the implementation, and, of 
course, more beyond that.
  Fourteen million children in America will have a parent who gets a 
raise because of increasing the minimum wage. Again, this makes a real 
difference in people's lives. They are not going to the Riviera. They 
are not taking vacations to the beach.
  Fifteen million women, 13 million men, 4 million African-American 
workers, 7 million Hispanic workers, and 7 million parents will get a 
raise. It is going to make a real difference in their lives.
  A boost to $10.10 would mean an extra $6,000 a year. Think about what 
that would mean for someone who is making the minimum wage, which puts 
them at $14,000 to $15,000. After 3 years of implementation, they would 
get $6,000 more a year, which amounts to 7 months of groceries, 6 
months of rent, 1 semester at a 4-year public university or 1,600 
gallons of gas. That is a real difference.
  I have heard some say that they think the Earned Income Tax Credit 
should be the answer to the problem of low wages. What this overlooks 
is that the Earned Income Tax Credit only helps families with children. 
Childless adults who work full time at the minimum wage actually earn 
too much to qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit. The minimum wage 
is not enough for a single person to survive on.
  Moreover, just relying on the Earned Income Tax Credit would simply 
shift more costs to the taxpayers rather than requiring employers to 
pay a fair wage. It would actually incentivize employers to pay even 
less in wages, even to workers who don't qualify for EITC.
  The minimum wage raise we are proposing is particularly important for 
millions of tipped workers. They will receive a raise for the first 
time in 22 years. Workers who receive tips will get a raise in their 
base wage. These include not only restaurant servers, but also nail 
salon workers, pizza delivery drivers, coat checkers, parking 
attendants, and many more.
  Right now, under our current Federal law, employers are required to 
pay only $2.13 an hour to tipped workers. So rather than supplementing 
wages, tips have actually, over the last 20 years, replaced wages, 
which is insecure for workers. It often leaves them in poverty. There 
is no predictability when counting on tips. Often workers go home with 
only tips because tax deductions canceled out their cash wages.
  This is an actual copy of a real check made out to a restaurant 
worker in the District of Columbia. It is a paycheck. The check date is 
8/5/2013, and it says $0.00. This is made out to a real person. She got 
a paycheck for $0.00. Why? After they took out her withholding and FICA 
taxes, she didn't make enough to get paid. Some people might say, well, 
she got tips. Maybe. But anyone who gets tips can tell you one day they 
are up and the next day they are down. Sometimes they are good; 
sometimes they are not.
  How do you budget on that? That is like saying the Earned Income Tax 
Credit. I have already pointed out the fallacy of that, but that only 
comes a year later. I am talking about--how do you live from paycheck 
to paycheck when your paycheck is zero? You can't make plans based on 
your budget, and you can't raise a family based on it. No one who works 
for a living should come home with a paycheck that says $0.00 when they 
have worked over 40 hours a week.
  My bill would establish a fair balance between wages and tips by 
slowly--over 6 years--lifting the base wage for tipped workers from 
$2.13 an hour to 70 percent of the minimum wage. That is more in line 
with how the wage for tipped workers worked in the decades that have 
since passed.
  The National Restaurant Association claims it can't afford to raise 
these wages. They say that every time we propose raising the minimum 
wage. The National Restaurant Association opposes any minimum wage 
increase at any time. But they can afford it.
  In fact, the last minimum wage increase from 2007 to 2009, which 
meant raises for workers such as bussers, kitchen staff, and others who 
don't regularly receive tips, didn't hurt the industry. But they said 
so at the time. Here is what they said in 2007. When we were here 
debating an increase in the minimum wage, here is what they said: ``A 
minimum wage increase will cost our industry jobs.''
  That is what they said in 2007.
  Flash forward to 2012. Here is what the restaurant industry said: 
``The restaurant industry not only provided much-needed job growth 
during the sluggish last decade, it also is poised to post steady 
growth well into the future.''
  They can't have it both ways. This is the truth, that they provided 
job growth during that time. More power to them. But don't come and 
tell us that an increase in the minimum wage

[[Page 19252]]

and an increase in the minimum wage for tipped workers is going to cost 
them jobs. That just doesn't hold.
  I will close with one more statement from a real worker whose life 
will be improved if we step up and support the people who work in our 
country. She has a lesson for us. Jackie Perkins works at a restaurant 
in Denver, CO, and she says:

       You are talking about real people. You sit in your ivory 
     tower in the legislature and talk about economics, numbers, 
     jobs, but what you don't understand is there are real jobs 
     and real workers who have families that they need to support, 
     and raising the minimum wage helps me support myself and my 
     family and to advance and to achieve the American dream.

  So I believe in Jackie's dreams and those of all of these hard-
working Americans, as I said earlier, who make the country work, who 
make it operate. As we look ahead to the Christmas season and the new 
year, I hope all my colleagues will take time over the holidays to 
think about all the blessings we have been given and all that we should 
be thankful for. I hope we put ourselves in the shoes of these working 
people who just want to build a better life for themselves and their 
children. Think about the minimum wage retail worker we see when we go 
into the store to shop for that Christmas present, who works hard 
running that cash register, standing on her feet all day, and she can't 
even afford to shop in her own store. Think of the unemployed worker 
who must go to the local food bank because he can't find a job. The 
food stamps have run out and he can't afford that nice big turkey and 
all the dressing and everything else for Christmas dinner.
  I will close where I started. We have to stop being so harsh and 
having these harsh attitudes toward people at the lower economic end of 
the spectrum. They have value too. Their lives have value. Their work 
has tremendous value. The country couldn't exist, couldn't operate 
without people such as they.
  So let's refine our public policies to be a little bit more 
considerate, a little bit more compassionate, a little bit more 
understanding of the tough lives some people have in our society. Let's 
have a compassion that is borne of an understanding that we are so 
privileged to live in the richest country in the world. We can afford 
to make sure people have enough food to eat. We can afford to make sure 
people who are unemployed get unemployment insurance benefits next 
year. We can afford that. We can afford to increase the minimum wage. 
We can afford these things, and we will be a better country socially 
and economically if we do so.
  We have a duty, I believe, to put ourselves in their shoes. We have a 
duty to make sure people who do the work such as that in our country 
get a fair chance to aspire to the American dream.
  So I hope we all have a good holiday season--Christmas and New Year's 
with our families and our friends. I hope we take time to pause and 
reflect also, as I said, on our blessings and our obligations toward 
people who may not be as fortunate as we are. I hope when we come back 
we will support a strong food assistance program, a deserved and long 
overdue increase in the minimum wage, and an extension of Federal 
unemployment insurance, and let's have a new year that is filled with 
less harshness and a little bit more compassion and understanding for 
our fellow Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from 
Washington on the floor who I assume wishes to speak; if not, I ask to 
be recognized for up to 5 minutes and then I will yield to the 
distinguished Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, last Friday I left this Chamber with a 
folder containing most of the information from the Ryan-Murray 
comprehensive agreement on the budget. I left with the ringing of 
suggestions in my ear from some colleagues on the floor that it wasn't 
enough, it didn't do enough, and that we didn't need to pass it. But 
inside me I had that little voice of conscience all of us get from time 
to time that said the time was right to do what was right.
  So on the airplane back to Atlanta, I read the entire agreement. 
Then, when I spent the weekend at home while doing Christmas shopping, 
going out with grandchildren and talking to my wife, I also listened to 
the people of Georgia. I listened to what they said, and there were 
some remarkable things that happened this weekend. At church on Sunday 
following a cantata--and usually I am accosted at church by people who 
have all kinds of various suggestions about what I should or should not 
be doing--but I was remarkably surprised by how many people came up to 
me and said: Thank goodness you all have finally found an agreement 
with predictability on the spending in our Federal budget. I received 
not one negative comment.
  I left church, went to lunch, and then went shopping at the mall 
where I was stopped three or four times by people--some Democrats, some 
Republicans; some I knew, some I did not--again, the same comment: 
Finally, you guys have gotten your act together and you have gotten a 
bipartisan agreement on the budget.
  I went to a dinner party with a lot of partisan activists Sunday 
night. Although there was some grumbling about not getting this or 
that, there was some relief that we weren't going to go through what we 
went through on October 1 and the threats we have gone through in the 
past about government shutdowns and the failure of our government to 
function.
  Then I got on the plane to fly back to Washington yesterday morning 
and, once again, members of the military, people I did not know, people 
I do know; some with the bureaucracy, some not, all stopped and 
generally said the same thing: Finally, it is about time.
  So when I voted earlier today to shut off the debate or end the 
debate and bring to a final vote a vote on the bipartisan budget 
agreement, I voted in favor of it because it is the right thing to do 
at the right time. When the final vote comes in the next 30 hours, I 
will vote for it again. I want to give three precise reasons why.
  No. 1, I have been the voice of a biennial budget in this Congress 
for the last 15 years and in this Chamber for the last 9. I have talked 
about how we need to bring more predictability and more continuity to 
the budget process. I have spoken about how we can't continue to pass 
CR after CR after CR which, on its face, is an admission we cannot do 
our job.
  Jeanne Shaheen, the distinguished Democratic Senator from New 
Hampshire, and I have coauthored the biennial budget proposal. This is 
a biennial budget taking us through 2015, giving us predictability. 
That is something we need to take advantage of and build on into the 
future and replicate over and over as we bring more continuity to the 
budget process.
  No. 2, yes, I know there are a couple of pension tweaks and, yes, I 
know there are some savings in a couple of pension tweaks. But we are 
going to have to do a lot of tweaking in terms of long-term 
entitlements over the next few years if we are ever going to rein in 
the spending. Our biggest problem is not nearly as much as what we 
spend in discretionary spending in 1 year as the obligation and the 
mortgage we are accumulating over decades. This particular proposal 
will save $22.6 billion over the next decade but $100 billion over the 
decade to follow because it accumulates and it compounds and those 
savings on entitlement programs can make a tremendous difference.
  No. 3, and most important, we stumbled and fell last October when we 
decided to shut down the government rather than do our job. I commend 
Senator Murray and I commend Paul Ryan. I want to refer to my 
colleagues a conversation Paul Ryan and I had on Saturday via cell 
phone. I was at Mount Bethel Methodist Church in the gymnasium watching 
my 8-year-old granddaughter play basketball. He was in Wisconsin 
watching his daughter play basketball as well. He called me on my cell 
phone and we talked for about 15 minutes, not as much about

[[Page 19253]]

the budget proposal as about my granddaughter and his daughter, 
recognizing that if we fulfill our responsibility as representatives of 
the American people in this Congress this year, if we begin the process 
of predictability in appropriations and budgeting, and if we can begin 
the process of recognizing our entitlements are running away from us 
and that our debt and deficit will kill us, maybe--just maybe--instead 
of being the first generation of American politicians to leave our 
children and grandchildren worse off, we will be the first generation 
of American politicians who returned to the sanity of fiscal soundness, 
biennial budgeting, and accountability in the way we do our business.
  I vote for that, and I will vote for the Ryan-Murray budget tomorrow 
when it comes to the floor of the Senate.
  I yield back the remainder of my time and defer to the Senator from 
Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I am here to speak on the budget, but 
until our other colleague from Pennsylvania gets here, I ask unanimous 
consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Disappearance of Bob Levinson

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, over the course of Friday and through the 
weekend there has been the publication, first by the Associated Press, 
of a missing American, a missing Floridian, Bob Levinson, a retired FBI 
agent and that publication has spurred other entities, primarily the 
New York Times, which had been holding the story for a number of 
years--well before the Associated Press ever got the story--to then 
print a story of additional information about the disappearance, 7 
years ago, of Bob Levinson on Kish Island, a resort island in the 
Persian Gulf right off the coast of mainland Iran.
  Of course, we have been searching for any shred of evidence about 
Bob. He has here in the U.S., in Florida, a wife and seven children. 
The length of time he has been missing, unfortunately, seems to have 
met or exceeded the amount of time of almost any American.
  The family, of course, desperately seeks any shred of evidence. They 
were heartened 3 years ago when Christine Levinson, his wife, received 
a secretive email with a video that showed that Bob was alive. In it he 
made statements that he had served the government of the U.S. for 30 
years and: Please help.
  About a year later, she received, also by another circuitous email, a 
photograph of him, obviously later because his hair is long and there 
is a full beard. His hair is silver, his beard is silver. In both the 
video and the last item, the photograph, he appears quite gaunt. Of 
course, we know he has health problems, high blood pressure, and so 
forth, and, of course, we fear.
  We also know that just this morning, on ``CBS This Morning,'' a 
fellow who he was seeing--an American who lives in Iran, a fellow who 
he was seeing on Kish Island--saw him taken by Iranian authorities.
  It is no secret that all levels of the government, including their 
Florida Senator, have reached out to the Iranian Government over the 
years, including the President of the United States when he spoke to 
the newly elected President of Iran when that United Nations meeting 
occurred in September.
  I have spoken within the last couple of days to the Iranian 
Ambassador to the United Nations and reiterated the plea of those of us 
on a humanitarian basis for this family to be reunited with their loved 
one and have offered to the Ambassador, if it would in any way help, 
that I am willing to go to Iran if in any way it would secure his 
release. If the Iranian authorities took him, somebody in the 
Government of Iran knows of his whereabouts.
  I will conclude by saying that for the first time we have what 
appears to be successful talks going on between the two governments 
with regard to the Iranian nuclear program, and those are at a critical 
stage to, hopefully, bear fruit within about 5 months from now.
  What better time for the Government of Iran to show their good will 
than to step forth and produce Bob Levinson so he can return home to 
his family.
  Mr. President, that concludes my remarks on Bob Levinson for the 
moment. I will continue to speak on this matter.
  Now I would like to turn to the matter at hand with regard to the 
budget, since my colleague from Pennsylvania and, of course, our chair, 
the Senator from Washington, are here.
  I would like to take a moment to acknowledge a small but significant 
provision in this budget compromise. It is section 203 of the Budget 
Act of 2013, and it limits access to what is known as Social Security's 
Death Master File, which is important because criminals utilize 
fraudulently the Death Master File to steal people's identities.
  When someone dies, the Social Security Administration puts their 
information into the Death Master File and releases it to the public 
through the Commerce Department. It lists their name, their Social 
Security number, and other personal identification information.
  The public release shortly after death of the Death Master File came 
about as a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit back in the 
1980s. Over time, Federal agencies and industries came to rely on the 
information from the Death Master File. Life insurers use it to know 
when to pay out benefits. Banks and credit card companies use 
information from the file to prevent fraud. A whole host of Federal and 
State agencies, as well as other industries, depend on the information 
for legitimate purposes, including pension funds, unclaimed property 
auditors, and identity theft protection companies.
  But there is somebody else who is using the Death Master File too. It 
is the criminals who are stealing identities, including especially the 
Social Security number. When that is posted online, they are using it 
fraudulently. What are they doing? They are filing an income tax 
return. They are utilizing somebody else's identity--in this case 
easily accessible, the Death Master File--creating a false return and 
getting a tax refund.
  You may find this hard to believe, but this actually happened in 
Tampa, FL. Street crime--hijackings, stickups, burglaries, dope 
dealing--actually dropped because the criminals found a new way of 
being able to steal people's money. They did it with a laptop instead 
of with a crowbar or a gun. Street crime actually reduced because the 
criminals have found a new way.
  They would steal people's identities in many different ways. They 
would go to senior citizens' mailboxes, and they would get their ID, 
they would get their Social Security number. They would go through 
hospital records, and they would get Social Security numbers. They 
would do it a number of ways. But one of the easiest ways was this 
Death Master File.
  I want to tell you about the story of Alexis Agin, the daughter of 
two courageous parents John and Neely, who have joined us today. 
Tragically, Alexis died from cancer 2 weeks shy of her 5th birthday. 
Obviously, no parent should have to go through the pain of seeing their 
child go through this kind of ordeal and then losing the child.
  So you can imagine how they felt when months later they learned that 
someone had used Alexis' identity, obtained from the Death Master File, 
to file a fraudulent tax return, claiming a refund, and the IRS--when 
they tried to correct this--asked them to prove that Alexis was their 
daughter and was not the one responsible for the fraudulent tax return.
  Because I have heard so many stories of innocent Americans whose 
identities have been stolen, this Senator filed this legislation that 
would restrict access to the Death Master File by establishing a 
certification program run by the Commerce Department while still

[[Page 19254]]

allowing access to the Death Master File for legitimate purposes.
  This brings us to the budget agreement. I am very pleased that the 
Senator from Washington has included within this budget that we are 
going to pass--it would be nice if it were today, but it looks as if it 
is going to be tomorrow--what some of us have been calling on for 
years: restricting access to this master file, making it harder for 
criminals to steal identities and therefore making it harder to steal 
taxpayer money.
  That is where this actually has a revenue effect because we are going 
to actually save the U.S. Government money by doing this. We are going 
to save the U.S. Government money that otherwise would be stolen. So I 
thank the courageous chairman of the Budget Committee for including 
this idea in the act and for crafting what used to be S. 676, the 
Identity Theft and Tax Fraud Prevention Act.
  It was never the intent of this Senator or the cosponsors to deny 
access to the master file by the people who need it for legitimate 
purposes. The language in this budget deal would include the file in 
the Freedom of Information Act exemptions so that it will not be 
available to just anyone off the street. However, the Social Security 
Administration and Commerce would still be able to release the 
information in the file for those who need it.
  So I want to ask the distinguished chair of the committee whether is 
it true that as Commerce sets up a certification program, the Social 
Security Administration and Commerce will still be able to release the 
Death Master File to folks who need to use it for legitimate purposes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent to engage 
in a colloquy with the Senator from Florida and the Senator from 
Pennsylvania so I may respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Florida is correct. That is absolutely 
our intention. There is nothing in law that prevents the continued 
public release of the Death Master File while the Commerce Department 
sets up the certification program. This act simply exempts the Social 
Security Administration's death records from freedom of information 
requests under section 552 of title 5 of the United States Code, 
subsection (b).
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, echoing the comments of my colleague from 
Florida, I am pleased that the budget includes language to address the 
fraud that is perpetrated with information from the Death Master File. 
Tax fraud is a large and growing problem. We know that. In 2012, for 
example, the IRS reported that they identified over 1.2 million 
identity theft returns. As of June 2013, they identified 1.6 million 
for this year. Thousands of these cases involve the identities of 
deceased taxpayers. A recent audit of the 2011 tax year identified 
19,000 fraudulent returns from recently deceased taxpayers. Under 
current practice, for $10, criminals can purchase the full name, Social 
Security number, date of birth, and date of death of a deceased citizen 
or legal resident.
  As a member of the Finance Committee, I have worked with my 
colleagues to address this issue. I am pleased to see the language 
limiting access to the Death Master File in the budget deal.
  As Commerce begins its rulemaking, it is essential to strike the 
correct balance. The reality is that the Death Master File is used by 
companies across Pennsylvania and the Nation to prevent fraud and 
provide other essential consumer protections. Banks, investment 
companies, insurers, and numerous other businesses run this file to 
ensure the identity of those accessing their services. Striking the 
correct balance in the regulatory process is critical to ensuring the 
continued legitimate use of this information.
  Businesses and those who contract for assistance with fraud 
prevention and other businesses must maintain access to the file. 
Furthermore, access must remain available as those regulations are 
promulgated.
  In short, as a certification program is set up, it is important that 
we get it right. The Death Master File is critical to fraud prevention 
and must remain available to legitimate users. To that point, I ask the 
Senator from Washington, the distinguished chairwoman, is it the 
intention of the Bipartisan Budget Act for the Commerce Department to 
seek input from stakeholders as it creates the certification program to 
ensure legitimate users maintain access to the file?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from Pennsylvania is correct. 
We intended for Commerce to follow notice-and-comment rulemaking 
procedures in the establishment of the certification program.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I want to close by again thanking the 
distinguished chairwoman of the committee. She has been a quiet hero, 
and the proof is in the pudding of all of her labors. She deserves the 
praise of the country that we have a budget, No. 1, but I also thank 
her for making it a lot more difficult for criminals to steal the 
identities of those who have passed on.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have decided to support the budget 
agreement, though it is by no means the budget solution that I would 
have written and it contains some imperfections.
  Following up on earlier remarks today in a colloquy on the Senate 
floor by my colleagues from Florida, Pennsylvania, and the Senate 
Budget Committee Chair, Senator Murray, I wish to provide some 
instructive remarks about the Death Master File provision of the budget 
agreement. The Death Master File is a data set compiled by the Social 
Security Administration, and made available to various researchers and 
business interests through the Commerce Department. Many researchers, 
genealogists, and businesses use the data for bona fide reasons 
including fraud prevention, ancestry research, identifying remains of 
deceased individuals, retirement plan administration and prevention of 
improper payments. As long as they can show the Commerce Department 
that they have rigorous privacy protections and protocols put in place, 
they should be able to become certified by Commerce to have access to 
the Death Master File data.
  I concur with what much of what my colleagues have said in their 
recent colloquy about the Death Master File provision of the budget 
agreement. Specifically, I wish to reiterate the need for balance in 
the regulatory process and in the rulemaking procedures that the 
Commerce Department is called upon in the budget legislation to 
undertake. We need a robust rulemaking process, where all interested 
parties are afforded the time and opportunity to adequately express 
their interests. And, importantly, we need to ensure that during that 
process, there will be access to Death Master File data for bona fide 
purposes, including fraud prevention, identifying remains of deceased 
individuals, forensic and other genealogical research, prevention of 
improper payments, and assurance of proper payments.
  As the budget agreement is currently written, there appears to be 
some confusion and ambiguity concerning implementation of the 
regulatory process and rulemaking procedures that the Commerce 
Department is to undertake and whether access to data in the interim, 
when rules are being promulgated and aired, will be assured. I must say 
that a more robust and inclusive process for arriving at the Death 
Master File provision of the budget agreement could have eliminated the 
confusion and ambiguity that has arisen. The Finance Committee, of 
which I am the Ranking Member, has jurisdiction over the manner in 
which the Social Security Administration governs Death Master File 
data, and the Finance Committee has expertise that could have been 
called upon. Unfortunately, that was not the case, as the Death Master 
File provision of the budget agreement was not processed through 
regular order with adequate Finance Committee input.
  Mr. President, it is becoming far too common for important 
legislation to bypass committees of jurisdiction and for it to be 
written by legislators who

[[Page 19255]]

do not necessarily have the depth of knowledge and expertise necessary 
to avoid writing laws that either do not work or contain glitches, 
ambiguities, and confusing language. In my opinion, we need to return 
to regular order where committees of jurisdiction are the places where 
issues in their jurisdiction are debated, processed, and agreed upon in 
a bipartisan fashion. Certainly, committees of jurisdiction must be 
consulted when others decide to write legislation that involves issues 
that lie squarely within their jurisdictions. That will be the surest 
route to preventing a reoccurrence of the ambiguity and confusion that 
has, unfortunately, arisen from the Death Master File provision of the 
budget agreement.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, we are watching America pass from the 
hands of the ``greatest generation'' to the hands of the debt-paying 
generation with nothing to show for it but the bill. For months 
Republicans have challenged President Obama to fix the Federal debt, to 
save entitlement programs that Americans depend upon, and to rescue 
young Americans from being forever known as the debt-paying generation.
  Earlier this year, for example, I called on the President to show the 
same kind of leadership that President Johnson did on civil rights, 
that President Nixon did on China, that President Carter did on the 
Panama Canal Treaty, and that President Reagan did on Social Security. 
Confront your own party. Say what needs to be said. Do what needs to be 
done. This has not happened.
  I appreciate very much the efforts of the Senator from Washington and 
Representative Ryan to try to bring certainty to the budget process. 
That is why I voted today to allow a vote on the House-passed budget 
agreement. It seems to me, at least, that a Republican Senator could 
allow a vote on legislation passed by the House of Representatives with 
the support of the House Republican leadership and two-thirds of the 
House Republicans, so I voted yes to allow a vote.
  However, I am going to vote against the Ryan-Murray budget amendment 
because it avoids the Federal Government's single greatest challenge; 
that is, reducing the growth of runaway entitlement spending. Instead, 
it spends savings that should be used to strengthen Medicare, to 
strengthen pensions, and to strengthen the air transportation system.
  I believe in user fees. When you build a highway, you have a gas tax 
to pay for the highway. You do not raise the gas tax to pay for 
education. You do not raise the gas tax to pay for a health program. A 
user fee is related to the service it provides. This budget agreement 
does not withstand that test.
  It would have been much better to pay for this budget agreement by 
using a small part of the almost $1 trillion in entitlement savings 
that Senator Corker and I have suggested in the Fiscal Sustainability 
Act or with meaningful entitlement savings from the President's own 
budget.
  The Fiscal Sustainability Act that Senator Corker and I have 
suggested would slow the growth of out-of-control mandatory spending 
by, among other things, recommending a more realistic Consumer Price 
Index. This is a Consumer Price Index that most economists have said is 
more realistic in its assessment of what the increase in the standard 
of living is. The monthly difference between the current Consumer Price 
Index and the more accurate Consumer Price Index is about $3 per month 
for the average beneficiary, which is less than the average cost of a 
gallon of gasoline. This modest change would help to slow the growth--
not cut but help slow the growth of mandatory entitlement spending. The 
purpose of that is to help make those programs solvent so beneficiaries 
can depend on them.
  The Medicare trustees have told us that Medicare will not have enough 
money in it in 13 years to pay all of the hospital bills. What are 
seniors going to think of Senators who in 2013 did not take the steps 
to make Medicare solvent? We could do that if we would begin to adopt 
some of the recommendations in the Corker-Alexander Fiscal 
Sustainability Act or in the President's own budget. He also 
recommended a smaller version of the more realistic Consumer Price 
Index. He recommended several hundred billion other dollars of changes 
in entitlement programs that Republican Senators might be able to agree 
with.
  To go back to the Consumer Price Index, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office, we could save $162 billion over 10 years 
if we adopted a more realistic Consumer Price Index for entitlement 
programs. That is twice as much money as we needed for the budget 
agreement. The rest could have been used to reduce the debt today, and 
the reduction would be even more in future years.
  As I emphasized before, the purpose of reducing the growth of 
entitlement spending is so the programs are solvent, so a Medicare 
beneficiary does not get to a point in 13 years and say: Why does 
Medicare not have enough money to pay for all of my hospital bill?
  Here is another way we could have cut wasteful spending: Eliminate 
the wind production tax credit. The Senator from West Virginia and I 
have written a letter to the Finance Committee and suggested we do 
that. Here we are in the budget agreement struggling to find $63 
billion over the next 10 years. Where could we find $63 billion? That 
amount about equals what we could save if we did not extend the wind 
production tax credit each year for the next 10 years.
  So any way you slice it, we could either have taken some of the 
President's suggested savings in entitlement spending, some of Senator 
Corker's and my suggested savings, we could have taken half of the 
savings from the more realistic Consumer Price Index, paid for the 
budget agreement that way, and then I could have voted for it because 
we would have moved money from the out-of-control side of the budget to 
relieve the sequester, and we would have done what we should have done.
  What I have to ask with all respect is, Where was the President in 
all of this? I mean, if Lyndon Johnson can pass a civil rights bill and 
Richard Nixon can go to China, if Jimmy Carter can pass the Panama 
Canal Treaty and Ronald Reagan can work with Tip O'Neill on Social 
Security, why can't President Obama get involved with his own budget 
recommendations and help us begin to deal with entitlement spending, 
which everybody knows is the single biggest problem we have facing our 
country?
  Washington could learn a lot about debt and taxes from Tennessee. 
Tennessee's tax burden ranks third lowest of any State, it has the 
lowest per capita debt, and it balances its budget every year. All that 
did not happen by accident. I was Governor when we needed three big 
road programs. Instead of borrowing the money, we paid for it as we 
went. We used user fees, the gasoline tax, but we applied that to the 
roads. Guess where we are today? We have one of the best four-lane 
highway systems in America and zero road debt. While other States have 
billions of dollars of road debt, we have zero. So all of our gas tax 
money goes to keeping one of the best four-lane highway systems in the 
country. Those policies have paid off. According to the Department of 
Labor, Tennessee is the fourth best State in the country in net new 
jobs.
  Getting debt under control is the foremost problem we have facing our 
country. If we do not do that, the people who depend upon Medicare and 
other important programs will be not able to depend on them to pay 
their hospital bills. Runaway spending is going to leave our young 
Americans forever known as the debt-paying generation.
  We are watching America pass from the hands of the ``greatest 
generation'' to the debt-paying generation with nothing to show for it 
but the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  (The remarks of Ms. Warren pertaining to the introduction of S. 1837

[[Page 19256]]

are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Ms. WARREN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Unemployment Insurance

  Mr. REED. I come again to the floor to remind my colleagues that in 
11 days 1.3 million Americans will lose their unemployment insurance. 
With the goal of providing certainty to these families that they will 
continue to have access to this vital lifeline, I and my colleague from 
Nevada, Senator Heller, are introducing a bill that would extend 
unemployment insurance compensation benefits for 3 months.
  I hope this sensible and bipartisan approach will provide a path 
forward to extending the program through 2014, which will give families 
and our economy more time to recover.
  In many parts of the country, recovery is just getting underway. My 
own State of Rhode Island has 9.2 percent unemployment. There are 
States throughout the country that have over 8 percent unemployment. 
There are some States that are doing well and we are very pleased they 
are. But for the millions of people who are still looking for work, 
they need this help.
  This program is designed so workers continue to look for work while 
they receive very modest compensation. In my State the average is about 
$354 a week. That is not the kind of money that is going to induce 
someone to simply sit back and collect. It is going to provide some 
support for them to just put food on the table.
  This safety net is not only there for them, it is for everyone, as 
23.9 million Americans have received these Federal benefits since the 
start of the program in 2008. Some, thankfully, have found work and 
returned to work. But all of them, in a very critical time, received 
assistance and support. They only qualified for the support because 
they worked. This is a program that is based on one fundamental 
principle--they have worked long enough to qualify for these benefits. 
As a result, I think we have to go ahead, follow through, and not leave 
1.3 million people, on December 28, literally with nothing, in many 
cases.
  As we look by household, the number of Americans this program has 
helped rises to about 69 million people, not only the workers but their 
families, sons, daughters, and spouses. In fact, it includes about 17 
million children who would not have received support without the 
benefits provided by this program.
  In terms of income, over 40 percent of those households new to 
receiving UI in 2012 had household income between $30,000 and $75,000. 
That is an important point to make. These are working families. These 
are people who were enjoying a reasonably good living and suddenly, 
because of many changes, globalization, downsizing, you name it, they 
are without a job in a very difficult job market.
  They went from people with good, solid, middle-class jobs to 
desperately looking for work. At least this program gave them some 
support as they made that great effort to look for work.
  This program has been and continues to be a crucial benefit to 
millions of American households all over the country and of nearly 
every conceivable demographic background. That is why it is such a 
significant part of our recovery too. Its expiration will hurt 
families.
  It has been estimated that if we do not extend this program over the 
next year, we will lose 200,000 jobs. And the logic of this program is 
very compelling. People who receive these benefits, people who used to 
make $50,000 a year, for example--and many of them did--they are not 
going to go ahead, turn around, take these benefits and just sort of 
squirrel them away or go off on a vacation. This is about paying the 
rent and paying for fuel in a cold winter or a hot summer in the South 
and Southwest. It is about making sure their children get a little 
something. Again, about 17 million children have benefited over the 
last several years--since 2008--from this program.
  This is absolutely critical. It is critical to our economy. It is not 
only the right thing to do, it is the economically smart thing to do. 
It has been estimated that without the extension of unemployment 
insurance, we will lose .2 percent of GDP growth this year, and this is 
at a time when we all very sincerely profess that our No. 1 job is 
jobs--getting people back to work and growing the economy. And if we 
grow the economy, that has many beneficial effects. Not only does it 
lower the number of people who need this type of assistance, but as a 
result of that and other activities, it begins to lower our deficit.
  For so many reasons, both economic and central to our purpose as a 
government--which is when people who have worked hard run into a 
situation where they lose their employment through no fault of their 
own, this is something that is there for them, and I hope we can move 
forward on it.
  I am so pleased Senator Heller has stepped up and has joined me, and 
I will join him, in urging all my colleagues to give us the opportunity 
not only to bring this legislation up but for at least 3 months to 
extend it so we can look longer term. Some of my colleagues have raised 
some very interesting points about how perhaps there are reforms 
necessary for the program. Well, in the context of a program that 
expires on December 28, it is hard to take the legislative time and 
insight to develop reforms that will work for everyone. But if we can 
extend this for at least 3 months, we will have that opportunity.
  Mr. President, again, I will return. This is not the last time I will 
speak on this point. But I did want to come back and remind people that 
this program is central to so many families. It is an important part of 
continuing our economic expansion, and it is particularly difficult at 
this time of year when 1.3 million Americans in this holiday season are 
facing a cutoff of benefits that to many of them are the difference 
between paying the rent, paying the mortgage, and keeping the kids in 
their sports programs or doing those things families in America need to 
do.
  With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about an 
issue about which I am deeply concerned.
  While I certainly appreciate the work done by Congressman Ryan and 
Senator Murray on the recent budget agreement, in my view there is a 
provision in this agreement which makes it a deal breaker. That 
provision is, there is $6 billion taken from our current military 
retirees over the next 10 years from their cost-of-living increases to 
pay for this budget agreement.
  I do not believe we have to take from the backs of our men and women 
in uniform to pay for more spending. I believe there are other ways we 
can find $6 billion in the trillions and trillions we will spend over 
the next decade, rather than taking it from the men and women in 
uniform who have sacrificed the most for our country.
  What troubles me most about this particular provision of this budget 
agreement is our military retirees under the age of 62 were singled 
out. There are some changes to the contributions that Federal employees 
will have to make to their retirement, but those changes are only made 
prospectively to new hires.
  Our men and women in uniform were not grandfathered under this 
agreement. They are the only ones singled

[[Page 19257]]

out under the agreement to have their benefits cut.
  What I find most appalling is the question we pressed and we pressed 
the Department of Defense for an answer to, and that is: What happens 
to our disabled veterans?
  Many of us have been to Walter Reed. We have seen the injuries our 
men and women in uniform have sustained fighting on our behalf in 
Afghanistan. Some did multiple tours in Afghanistan and also served our 
country in Iraq. When you have a disability that occurs in the line of 
duty, you are entitled to a disability retirement, and this agreement 
will also cut the cost-of-living increases for our disabled veterans, 
which I find appalling, particularly with some of the horrific injuries 
too many of our men and women in uniform have sustained in defending 
our country and taking bullets for us all.
  Under this agreement, an E-7--sergeant first class--who retires at 
age 40 could stand to lose $72,000 by the time he or she turns age 62. 
To put that in perspective, the average retirement for an E-7 is 
roughly $25,000. So in that period, this cut of 1 percent to their COLA 
could equate to $72,000. Think about the impact that has on our 
veterans and our men and women in uniform who have done so much for our 
country. Why are they being singled out in this agreement?
  The other issue I wish to raise is this notion about which some have 
said: We have to vote for this agreement or we are going to face 
another government shutdown. I think that is a false choice. We may be 
in a rush to get home to our families for the holidays, but the notion 
we can't find $6 billion somewhere else on a bipartisan basis for our 
men and women in uniform is a false one. We can keep this government 
open, we can address the budget issues, but we should not do so on the 
backs of our men and women in uniform singled out in this agreement.
  Right now, as this agreement stands, the so-called amendment tree has 
been filled. That means any amendments which either side would want to 
offer cannot be offered right now because the majority leader has 
filled every part of the amendment tree, not allowing individual 
Members to offer amendments.
  Were I allowed to offer amendments, I have filed two amendments which 
would address this issue for our military and have found other pay-fors 
to address the issue. Those are just two ideas which I came up with. I 
am sure if we committed in this body to working on this issue, we could 
quickly find $6 billion that would not be taken from the backs of our 
men and women in uniform and would not be taken from the backs of our 
disabled veterans, who have already suffered too much on behalf of our 
Nation. I do not believe this is too much to ask of us.
  We are blessed to be in this country and blessed to enjoy the 
freedoms we enjoy in this country because of our men and women in 
uniform and what they have done to defend our Nation.
  Make no mistake, a military retirement is not like any other 
retirement. When you retire from the military, you understand that you 
can be called back. You can be called back at any time. And who is most 
likely to be called back? Our younger veterans. In fact, since 2001, 
thousands of our veterans who thought they were going back into 
civilian life have been called back by our government to serve their 
Nation again. They didn't get to say yes or no. They agreed to do that 
even though they thought they would be retired. That is what 
distinguishes a military retirement from other retirements, or an 
average civilian retirement.
  They earned this for defending our country. I believe we should 
fulfill our responsibility to them, and that they should not be singled 
out. Of all the groups to be singled out, they should not be the group 
to be singled out, especially after everything they have done for our 
Nation.
  I ask that we take a few moments in this body and come up with $6 
billion some other way instead of taking it from the backs of our men 
and women in uniform. Why don't we have an amendment process that would 
allow us to address this issue and allow us to fix this now?
  To those who are saying: We will fix this later, that is such a 
Washington answer. For those who are serving our country right now in 
Afghanistan, what kind of comfort is that to them that we will fix this 
down the line after we vote on this agreement? How about fixing this 
now?
  I ask my colleagues to fix this now on behalf of our military, the 
best in the world, those who have sacrificed the most for our country.
  If this body is to pass this agreement, I would call on our Commander 
in Chief to veto this agreement. Bring us to the White House. Make the 
House and the Senate sit together so we can resolve this issue. As the 
Commander in Chief of this country, don't accept the cuts to the 
military and have our military retirees singled out, particularly our 
disabled veterans, in this agreement.
  We can get this done. We can get this done before the holidays. Yes, 
we will suffer some personal inconvenience, but think about that. That 
is nothing compared to what our veterans have done for us and continue 
to do for us every single day in this great country.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I join with the Senators from New 
Hampshire and Alabama in trying to urge the body to take a pause here 
and see if we can right a wrong before it matures. The good news is 
that we have a bipartisan agreement to try to fund the government in a 
fashion where we will not have a government by crisis. I appreciate 
that. I understand how hard it is to reach a consensus around here.
  My objection is not to the deal as a whole. I appreciate the fact 
that sequestration relief occurred for our DOD budget for 2 years, and 
nondefense spending, and it was paid for. I appreciate that very much 
because sequestration has really cut into our ability to defend this 
Nation in a dramatic fashion, and to have it paid for is also a worthy 
goal and the right thing to do.
  The point Senator Ayotte, Senator Sessions, and I are trying to make 
is that a budget is about your priorities. What we are doing today is 
telling everybody in America what is important to the Congress, the 
Senate, and the House when it comes to getting a budget passed for 2 
years and how we should pay for it. Here is what I can't understand: Of 
all the groups in America you would go to and single out, unlike any 
other group, to pay for the offset and come up with some money out of 
their pocket to get this budget deal passed--which doesn't keep us from 
becoming Greece, by any means, but I do applaud the effort--we picked 
the military community.
  Here is what we have done to our military retirees, past, present, 
and future: We have taken their cost-of-living adjustment and reduced 
it by 1 percent until they get to age 62. If you are an E-7, a master 
sergeant in the Air Force, who retires at 42 in 2015, by the time you 
get to 62, this 1-percent reduction a year of your COLA amounts to 
almost $72,000 in lost benefits.
  Do you know how much a master sergeant with 20 years of service makes 
in retirement? It is less than $25,000 a year. So that almost $72,000 
number requires the master sergeant to give up 3 years of retirement, 
because $24,000 to $25,000 a year is what they make for a 20-year 
period, and the cost of the COLA reduction is almost $72,000, so 
basically you have taken 3 years of their retirement away to do a 
budget deal that could be accomplished without having to do that to our 
military.
  By the way, nobody else in the country is doing this. No Social 
Security recipient has given up a dime. The COLA formula for the 
military is exactly the same as Social Security and other COLAs that we 
get around here.
  Should we look at reforming our military retirement pay pension 
benefit system? Yes, because it is unsustainable in the future. 
Entitlement growth in the military is real, just as it is on the 
civilian side. Nobody has ever envisioned doing it this

[[Page 19258]]

way, to take the military retiree community and retroactively apply a 
benefit cut to them that takes $6.3 billion out of the retiree 
community. These are the people who have been fighting the wars for 20 
years. These are the people who have been serving continuously since 9/
11, overseas and at home, trying to protect the Nation, and this COLA 
reduction doesn't just apply to people who have retired and are in good 
health at 40 or 42 or 45, it also applies to people who are medically 
retired. Someone who has had their legs blown off in Afghanistan or 
Iraq, and most likely will not be able to get a second job, is going to 
lose thousands of dollars in this cost-of-living adjustment, and nobody 
else in the country is so situated.
  Can we do better? You better believe it. Here is what Congress told 
the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission. We 
set up a commission last year to advise the Congress next year on how 
we can fairly adjust retirement packages to make the personnel costs 
more sustainable in the Department of Defense in the future and how we 
can do that fairly.
  Do you know what we told the commission. We mandated that any change 
they recommend has to grandfather existing forces and retirees. We put 
it in the law that created this commission. We put a restriction on the 
commission's ability to come up with pension, pay, and benefit reform 
by saying: You cannot apply it to people who have signed up and are 
expecting certain things. They are grandfathered.
  We should have told ourselves that. We limited the commission, but we 
do exactly what the commission is not allowed to do. I don't know how 
my colleagues are going to explain this when they go back home. I hope 
somebody will ask what you are trying to accomplish. Trying to have a 
bipartisan budget that avoids a government shutdown is good, but asking 
the people who have been on the front lines of defending this Nation, 
who have been in the military for 20 years--and do you have any idea 
how many times the average military family moves in 20 years? Do you 
have any idea how many schools their children will attend because they 
move every couple of years? Do you have any idea what it is like to 
serve this country since 9/11?
  All I can say is if we want to find $6.3 billion over the next decade 
to pay for this budget deal, we can find better alternatives than this 
if we take some time.
  If my colleagues don't like what Senator Ayotte is doing, there are 
other ways. I am not asking a Democrat to defund ObamaCare to keep the 
government open. I am not asking a Democrat to take away a safety net 
from a group of Americans who are struggling. I am not asking a 
Republican to raise taxes. I am asking both of us, before Christmas, to 
rethink what we are doing here and take a little bit of time to fix a 
problem that, quite frankly, is unconscionable.
  If you make over $250,000 a year in retirement, you receive $109 a 
month for a subsidy to pay for your Part D prescription drug bill. Here 
is what I would say: If you want to pick on rich people, let's do it. 
To me, $250,000 puts you in a category of living pretty good. Why in 
the world does our government give you $109 a month to pay your 
prescription drug bill when we as a nation are broke? That subsidy 
alone is worth $54 billion over the next 10 years. What if we took some 
of that money? What if we went to the $250,000 retiree and said: Would 
you give up some of your subsidy to pay your drug bill so military 
retirees don't have to lose the retirement benefits they have earned 
and have fought so hard to defend this Nation for so long? I bet they 
would say yes.
  Here is the point: We are going to rush through this. If you ask me 
what bothers me the most about this, it is how insensitive we have 
become as a nation. We trip over ourselves to welcome the troops home 
when they come back from deployment. Members of Congress want to be 
there when the Guard unit leaves. We want to show how much we love the 
troops. That is a good thing.
  Every American--Republican, Libertarian, vegetarian, Democrat--we all 
love the troops, but your Congress is expressing that love in a very 
strange way.
  How far have we fallen? Do we have no shame? As a body elected by the 
American people to make sure the Nation is well run, what is the proper 
first role of the Federal Government? To defend the Nation. Tell me how 
to defend this Nation without people willing to die for it.
  The budget doesn't defend this Nation. The CBO, the OMB, and all 
these acronyms do not defend the Nation against radical Islam. I am 
urging my colleagues in a spirit of bipartisanship and common decency: 
Do not single out the military retiree who has served so long and so 
hard and ask them to give so much when others are doing almost nothing.
  As to our Federal employees, you are being asked to contribute more 
to the Federal retirement system, and I am sure that is a burden. But 
what do we do to Federal employees? We say that everybody who is in the 
system today does not share that burden. They are grandfathered. It is 
only for people who are hired in the future.
  As to the military retiree, thank you for all of your hard work. Boy, 
do we have a deal for you.
  This is not going to stand. This is going to pass because everybody 
is hellbent on getting out of here and going home and celebrating a 
bipartisan breakthrough, and we are going to talk about how we have 
become functional again. I do appreciate the effort to become 
functional, but to me, in our effort to become functional, we have lost 
our way and, quite frankly, lost our soul. Any political body that 
would do this in the name of good government has forgotten what 
government is all about. It is for, by, and of the people.
  I will tell you right now, from the CEO to the doorman, when they 
hear about what we have done to pay for a budget deal at the expense of 
the military retired community, they are not going to be very 
appreciative. I promise this: If we don't fix it now, not only are we 
going to review it, we are going to fix it.
  To our President: There is only one Commander in Chief. How could any 
Commander in Chief sign a bill that does this? Call us down to the 
White House, put us in a room, Republicans and Democrats, and don't let 
us out until we find a $6.3 billion offset that doesn't do injustice to 
the military retired community. If I were the President, I sure as hell 
would do that. Nobody would be going home until we got this right.
  So the President owes a duty to the troops greater than anybody 
because he is their Commander in Chief. I don't know whether we are 
going to get this fixed. The train is running, and the retired military 
community is on the tracks, and a few of us are trying to get them off. 
I promise their families that if we fail today, we are going to come 
back at this tomorrow, over and over and over, until the Congress finds 
its soul.
  I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first of all, my good friend from South 
Carolina is a mind reader. He always looks at you and figures out what 
you are going to say and then he says it better.
  There are a couple of things that haven't been said during this 
discussion, and I want to mention them, and then I know we are going to 
vote. One is that our military was told--and I talked to several of the 
groups, the military retiring groups and others--that they would be 
grandfathered in. Now, I want everyone grandfathered in if we are going 
to do something like this. Certainly, in one installation in my State 
of Oklahoma, we have 13,000 civilian employees who are going to be 
grandfathered in, and I want them to be grandfathered in. That is the 
right thing to do.
  People make career decisions predicated on what they are told at the 
time. And these military guys--and I look around the room and most of 
the Senators who are in here have spent a lot of time, as I have, in 
Afghanistan and Iraq, and we talk to these guys in

[[Page 19259]]

the mess hall, and they talk about how they happened to get in. They 
make these decisions, and then we come along and take it away.
  I think it has been said enough, the example of the gunnery sergeant 
at age 42, having been in for 20 years, and it is going to cost him 
some $72,000, but not much is said about the officers. For the 
officers, it is actually a lot more than that. An O-5 officer at that 
agency under the same circumstances would lose $124,000. These are not 
wealthy people; these are people who depend upon this for their 
retirement.
  They were told, as I mentioned, that they also--the military people--
would be grandfathered in. Now, anytime one is grandfathered in, then 
obviously they change the rules and the new people making a career 
decision will make it predicated on those circumstances of retirement 
that are there at that time.
  I have to say this: Tomorrow we are going to be involved in the bill 
that was put together by the big four. It is the NDAA. It is a must-
pass bill. We will pass it. I can't imagine there won't be the votes to 
pass it. But I can tell my colleagues this: If we had known this was 
going to come up, we would have addressed this in the NDAA. This is 
something that could have been addressed and could have been offset.
  So I agree with everyone who has spoken on this issue. I think it is 
very difficult to understand how this could happen. We do know this: 
One of the differences between civilian employees and military 
employees is that we can't recall civilian employees.
  We have a figure here. Are my colleagues aware that we actually have, 
since September 11, 3,456 military retirees who have been recalled to 
duty? Every one of them is going to be affected by this. This is a 
travesty we cannot allow to happen.
  I applaud my friend from Alabama for bringing this up, and hopefully 
we will be able to correct it. We are going to have a vote right now, 
and I hope this is a solution to it. Then tomorrow we will have a 
chance to get into the details about the NDAA bill, which is a very 
significant bill that addresses provisions such as this.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank my colleagues for their 
heartfelt remarks about the cuts in this bill that will immediately 
impact the retirements of American military. They are subject to 
recall, to Active Duty. They are expecting these payments. Other 
departments and agencies and government employees are not going to get 
their retirement reduced; only people who served in the military. It is 
not correct, and it should not happen.
  What I want to emphasize to all of my colleagues and highlight for us 
here today is that the legislation before us now was brought forth in a 
way that will not allow any amendments. If people have an idea about a 
problem with this legislation that was agreed to in secret by a couple 
of Senators--I suppose maybe some staff involved, so they agreed to 
this language. It is the first time we have seen it. It is the first 
time it has been before the light of day in the Senate, and we find 
problems with it, real problems.
  If people ask schoolchildren, if people ask senior citizens in 
America, if a bill hits the floor of the Senate and it has bad 
provisions in it, what can Senators do, well, they will say that 
Senators offer an amendment and they fix it. Isn't that what we were 
taught? Isn't that what the history of the Senate is all about? It is a 
place where people can debate and amend and improve legislation. But we 
are in an odd and unusual circumstance--not so odd in recent years.
  The majority leader of the Senate has sought recognition, as he is 
able to do, and he has filled the amendment tree, and nobody can get an 
amendment. Nobody can get a vote on this amendment to fix this part of 
the legislation that plainly needs fixing. It is not available to us. 
That is awfully hard to believe. It is awfully hard to believe that in 
the great Senate--as Senator Robert Byrd said, there are two great 
Senates: the Roman Senate and the American Senate; and he defended it 
and its rights and priorities. But we have one leader of the Senate, 
supported by his colleagues, who says: We don't want amendments because 
we might have to take tough votes, and all we want to do is rubberstamp 
this agreement, this bill written in secret, and we want to pass it 
without any amendments.
  How did that become the policy of America? How did that become the 
policy in the Senate? What justification can be given to the concept 
that duly-elected Senators can't stand up on the floor of this body and 
defend the rights of their constituents and their States by offering 
amendments to improve legislation?
  Tomorrow we are going to have the Defense spending bill, authorizing 
the expenditure of over $500 billion--$500 billion-plus--to fund our 
military. A lot of people have ideas about how to improve that bill. We 
are not going to get a single amendment because the majority leader has 
filled the tree and he is going to deny the Members of this body, who 
represent millions of people in their States--and really we represent 
everybody--the right to offer amendments to improve that bill. It is 
contrary to our tradition. It is contrary to our heritage. It is 
contrary particularly to the heritage of the U.S. Senate, where open 
debate and discussion is so important.
  I thank Senator Wicker. He spoke this morning. I thank Senators 
Ayotte, Graham, and Inhofe, who shared their thoughts about the lack of 
wisdom in this legislation.
  I am going to offer a tabling motion, and the purpose of it will be 
to remove the parliamentary maneuver of Majority Leader Reid and allow 
us to have a vote. So what is this motion about? This motion will 
remove the filling of the tree, and it will allow the Senate to vote on 
this amendment to strike the military retiree pay cut--and other 
amendments, perhaps, but this amendment in particular. I believe that 
is in the tradition of the Senate. I believe it is extremely important.
  So, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
motion so that I may offer a motion to concur with amendment No. 2572 
which is filed at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I 
will object, first, as many of my colleagues here know, I have 
dedicated much of my career to fighting for our Nation's veterans and 
our military families. I am the daughter of a World War II veteran. I 
am the first woman ever to chair the Senate Veterans' Affairs 
Committee. I have worked tirelessly time and again to safeguard the 
health care and the benefits and services that those in our uniforms 
have sacrificed for. So obviously any provision that impacts them or 
the benefits our servicemembers have earned is of great concern to me.
  As is true with any very difficult compromise, there are certain 
policy changes in this bill I would never have made on my own. 
Thankfully, though, we wrote this bill in a way that will allow 2 years 
before this change is implemented--2 years--so that Democrats and 
Republicans can keep working together to improve this provision or find 
smarter savings elsewhere. In that time I know there is an armed 
services-mandated military retirement commission due to report their 
findings, which would give both Chambers time to legislate a solution 
before any COLA change is ever implemented.
  I also know the senior Senator from Michigan, the chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee, has indicated he is going to move forward 
with efforts to review this change before it takes effect, and I 
support that effort. I am quite sure other Members of the Senate will 
look for ways to replace these savings in a different way. In other 
words, we can and we will look at other hopefully better ways to change 
this policy going forward.
  But opening this bill to changes today, after the vast majority of 
Congress has voiced their support for a deal that ends the repeated 
crises we have faced in this Nation, is not the solution. In fact, 
jeopardizing this deal

[[Page 19260]]

right now only threatens our national security, and it will force 
layoffs of those very servicemembers and civilian military personnel so 
many Members have come out here to speak on behalf of.
  As with any bill, the oversight process in Congress will move forward 
the moment we pass it, and there is no doubt that improvements will be 
made where they are needed. But this motion, I say to my colleagues, is 
an effort to bring down this bill, to stop us from moving forward, and 
for that reason alone it should be voted down. Therefore, Madam 
President, I object to the unanimous consent request.
  Mr. WICKER. Will the distinguished chairman yield on her reservation?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I still have the floor, I believe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I believe that is correct.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the Senator for a question.
  Mr. WICKER. I don't mean to prolong this, but I wish to ask this of 
the distinguished chairman.
  I think everyone should understand that although the Senator from 
Washington chairs the committee and was a member of the conference 
committee, this is not a report of the conference committee. The 
question I wish to ask is, Did the negotiators realize, when this COLA-
less-1-percent provision was inserted in the conference committee, that 
it would mean $80,000 lifetime out of the retirement pay of the typical 
enlisted retiree? Did the conferees realize the magnitude of what they 
were agreeing to? Did the two negotiators agree to the magnitude of 
what they were sending to the House and Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Alabama yield to the 
Senator from Washington to answer that question?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I would be pleased to yield to the 
Senator without yielding the floor to answer that question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I would suggest that the Senator ask 
that question to Chairman Ryan. But I would say again, as many of us 
have talked about here today, this is not the deal Democrats would have 
written on our own. It is not the deal Republicans would have written 
on their own. Nobody got everything they wanted, and we each had to 
give up some things to get to where we are today, again, to bring us 
back to a time of certainty because without a budget moving forward 
today, we would be facing a time in a few short weeks where there would 
be dramatic changes and cuts to, in particular, our Department of 
Defense, meaning furloughs and layoffs and a threat to our national 
security, as so many Members of the military have told us.
  So I hope we can move forward. I know we are going to go through some 
parliamentary inquiries and a motion here in a minute. But I hope our 
Members would take the time to say, ``What is the end process here.'' 
and vote with us to not change this at this point and to allow us to go 
forward and bring certainty to so many families across this country at 
this holiday season time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama has the floor.
  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I wonder if the Senator from Alabama 
would yield to me for 60 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the Senator without yielding the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WICKER. Thank you, Madam President.
  I would ask the Senator from Alabama, it seems to me no one wants to 
claim parenthood of this very onerous penalty on the retired 
servicemembers of the United States of America. I would have to infer 
from the answer of the Senator from Washington that she was not aware. 
One percent from COLAs sounds so innocuous, but when it comes to 
$130,000 for officers and $80,000 for enlisted people, it is real 
money.
  This is a penalty, and it is hitting the people who step forward and 
volunteer to serve our country and protect our security. So until 
someone is willing to step forward and claim ownership, I have to 
assume the negotiators did not know the impact this would have on our 
military retirees. It seems to me the Senator from Alabama has devised 
a way to surgically remove this provision, pay for it elsewhere, and 
send it back to the House. I think we would be doing them a favor, 
frankly.
  I thank my friend from Alabama for yielding.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Well, I thank the Senator.
  I would note that Senator Ayotte, who has spoken, Senator Graham, and 
Senator Wicker, along with myself, were conferees on the budget 
conference committee and that this was supposed to be the kind of thing 
we would discuss. But we were not called to the final discussion, and 
now this legislation is brought to the floor that we did not have time 
to approve in advance.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator yield for a second?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I say to Senator Graham from South Carolina, I am 
pleased to yield for a question.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator.
  To follow on what Senator Wicker said, I have been trying to find out 
how this started to begin with too. Whose good idea was this?
  So I called the Secretary of Defense, and he said: We did not do 
this. I talked to Chuck Hagel, and he said: This did not come from us. 
Because I said: What are you all doing over there? Please understand, 
Senator Graham, this did not come from us.
  I think Senator Wicker knows the exact number. But if you are a 
military retiree, on your DD214 form--I do not know if the Senator from 
Alabama knows this, but when you get your retirement, your discharge 
DD214 form, at the bottom it says: Subject to being recalled.
  Does the Senator know how many military retirees have been recalled 
since 9/11?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I do not, I say to Senator Graham.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I think the Senator from Mississippi may have the exact 
number, and it amounts to a brigade of soldiers, almost.
  I ask the Senator from Mississippi, what is the number?
  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, if the Senator would yield for an answer 
to that question, precisely 3,456 DOD retirees--the very people we are 
penalizing in this provision--have been recalled to Active Duty since 
September 11, 2001.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I say to Senator Graham, you are a full colonel in the 
Air Force, still serving in the Reserve.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. Take my pay.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Bless your heart. But it is a fact that this retirement 
pay is really more than retirement pay, is it not? It is really an 
income, a source of payment that ensures that the person can be 
recalled. So it is part of the right to recall you, a compensation for 
that.
  Mr. GRAHAM. The answer is that when you retire after 20, you are 
subject to being recalled as long as you are physically able. I know 
one individual who was recalled at age 56 who was a JAG officer who had 
been out of the military for years. He set up his practice, and he 
said: Can they do this? I said: Hey, man, you are the lawyer. Of 
course. Read it. You know they can do this. And they did, only because 
we had to, and he went and did his part.
  I bet you that of those 3,400, some of them were volunteers and some 
of them were not. But the cost-of-living adjustment is to make sure 
their retirement over time maintains its value. That is why we have a 
cost-of-living adjustment.
  How much money do you make if you are a master sergeant after 20 
years of service? It is less than $25,000 a year in retirement. So 
these people do not become millionaires when they retire. Try to raise 
a family of four on $25,000 without a COLA. So the COLA is designed to 
keep the benefit vibrant over time. When you do a COLA minus 1 percent, 
it does diminish the value of the package.
  Here is what gets me the most. If we did it for everybody in the 
country,

[[Page 19261]]

that would be one thing. These are the only people in America who get 
this special good deal.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank Senator Graham. I think he 
made the defining point there, that this is a one-sided reduction of 
retirement benefits to people who served in the military, not impacting 
lots of others.
  I want to return to the central point. This bill that will be voted 
on tomorrow--final passage--cuts military retirement by $6 billion. 
That $6 billion is counted in the numbers of the proponents of the 
legislation toward their justification for spending more money the next 
2 years. They say they are paying for it by reducing this $6 billion 
over time. It is mandated. It is not an option in the bill. We should 
not pass legislation that does that.
  So what I would propose is that we not go along with Majority Leader 
Reid's determination to run the train over the men and women of our 
military, that we slow down and we follow the regular process of the 
Senate, not fill the tree, and allow amendments to be voted on on this 
substantive matter.
  So parliamentary inquiry, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Is it correct that while the majority leader's motion 
to concur in the House amendment with an amendment to which the 
majority leader has also offered a second-degree amendment is pending--
while it is pending, no Senator is permitted to offer an amendment to 
the House-passed spending package?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SESSIONS. So let me repeat to be sure my colleagues and I 
understand the situation. The Chair has just told the Senate that I 
cannot offer an amendment to the House-passed spending bill that would 
strike the military retiree pay cut because the majority leader has 
filled the tree with his own amendments. I have read the majority 
leader's amendments, and I see they merely change the date of enactment 
by a few days.
  Further, parliamentary inquiry, Madam President: If a motion to table 
the majority leader's motion to concur with an amendment is successful, 
would there be an opportunity for me to offer a motion to concur with 
amendment No. 2572?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, there would.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Again, summarizing for my colleagues, the Presiding 
Officer is telling this Senate that if there can be 51 votes to table 
the current amendment tree to the House-passed spending bill, then 
there will be an opportunity for me or other Senators to offer by 
motion a motion to concur with the amendment that strikes the military 
pay cut.
  So, Madam President, in order to make a motion to concur with 
amendment No. 2572, I move to table the pending motion to concur with 
an amendment offered by the majority leader, and I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I would just state to all of our 
colleagues that this motion is an effort to bring this bill down----
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, there is no debate on a motion to 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Debate is not in order.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 280 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--54

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
  The motion was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, Section 401 of the Bipartisan Budget Act 
of 2013 creates a new category of employee called a further revised 
annuity employee and would require further revised annuity employees to 
contribute additional amounts into the Civil Service Retirement and 
Disability Fund. It is the intent of Congress for the Office of 
Personnel Management to create a new normal cost for the further 
revised annuity employees, and to ensure that the retirement plan not 
be underfunded.
  Additionally, it is the intent that for the new further revised 
annuity employee plan that the only determinant of whether an 
individual is a Federal Employee Retirement System, FERS, employee or 
Member, as opposed to a FERS revised annuity employee or FERS further 
revised annuity employee, is through application of the FERS revised 
annuity employee test. And that the new further revised annuity 
employee test only differentiates between FERS revised annuity employee 
coverage and new FERS further revised annuity employee coverage.


                        Transboundary Agreements

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I want to briefly discuss Section 304 of 
the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, which contained an amendment to the 
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. I was disappointed to see that the 
amended Section 32 requires submissions regarding future transboundary 
hydrocarbon agreements be made to the Speaker of the House, the Senate 
Majority Leader, the chair of the Committee on Natural Resources of the 
House of Representatives, and the chair of the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources in the Senate. This language fails to mention the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, an omission I find curious in light 
of the Foreign Relations Committee's jurisdiction over international 
agreements. I would like to yield to my colleague from Washington in 
order to clarify that this language was not intended to negate the 
Foreign Relations Committee's jurisdiction of transboundary hydrocarbon 
agreements.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator for his question, and I appreciate 
his leadership as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I 
understand his concerns and can assure him that the language in the 
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 was not intended to alter or negate the 
Foreign Relation Committee's jurisdiction.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the Senator from Washington for her response, 
and I appreciate the tremendous work she has done to arrive at a budget 
agreement. Due to the importance of this issue, I want to seek 
additional confirmation of this point. The February 20, 2012 Agreement 
between the United States of America and the United Mexican States 
Concerning Transboundary Hydrocarbon Reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico 
went through the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources with 
the approval of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee because the 
implementing legislation was narrow and addressed the ability of the 
Department of the Interior to carry out the agreement. However, the 
Foreign Relations Committee engaged in robust oversight of this 
agreement in meetings with high-ranking officials at the Department of 
State and the Department of the Interior, including the

[[Page 19262]]

submission of a detailed letter with several questions, which received 
a lengthy response. These actions reflect the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee's intention to retain oversight of transboundary hydrocarbon 
agreements, and to reserve the right to draft and oversee implementing 
legislation for future transboundary hydrocarbon agreements.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee. It is quite clear by the extensive work the committee has 
done on the U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreement that the 
committee has an expertise in international agreements and should play 
an integral role in the oversight of future transboundary hydrocarbon 
agreements. The language in the Bipartisan Budget Act was not intended 
to undermine the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's jurisdiction with 
respect to any matter that would be properly before it.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the chair of the Budget Committee for her 
responses.


                     Not-For-Profit Loan Servicing

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the 
chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Murray, and several of my 
colleagues regarding the not-for-profit student loan servicing 
provisions in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013.
  Is it your understanding and intent that the not-for-profit servicing 
provision in this act does not require the termination of the existing 
Federal loan servicing contracts of any not-for-profit servicers who 
are currently servicing Federal loans?
  Is it further the understanding and intent of the chairman of the 
Senate Budget Committee that the Education Department will continue to 
enter into contracts with not-for-profit servicers based on their 
performance?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont is correct. It 
is my intent that existing contracts to use the services of not-for-
profit servicers are not terminated by this bill and that they will be 
permitted to compete with the Department of Education's title IV 
servicers for additional accounts. I know several of my colleagues also 
feel strongly about this issue. I would like to recognize the following 
Senators to also join in on the colloquy: Senators Leahy, Harkin, 
Alexander, Hatch, Shaheen, Begich, Grassley, King, Baucus, Tester, and 
Murkowski.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if I may join in this colloquy, I am glad 
for the clarification from the senior Senator from Washington and am 
pleased to know it is her legislative intent for the Department of 
Education to continue to use not-for-profit servicers and maintain 
their existing contracts and that not-for-profit servicers will be 
permitted to compete in the future for additional accounts. Like other 
not-for-profits around the country, the Vermont Student Assistance 
Corporation, VSAC, has provided counseling services and low-cost loans 
to students and Vermonters for more than 40 years. Since then, VSAC has 
worked hard to establish and maintain strong and longstanding working 
relationships with Vermont's higher education institutions, as well as 
K-12 schools, to provide outreach programs critical to the economic 
vitality of Vermont. In their new role servicing Federal loans, VSAC 
has consistently received praise from their customers and scored high 
in customer satisfaction surveys. In fact, when Congress switched to 
direct lending we ensured that not-for-profit servicers would continue 
to service Federal loans because of the superior customer service 
experience that not-for-profits servicers have consistently provided. I 
am glad that Congress is continuing to recognize the importance of not-
for-profit servicers in our communities and intends to allow for their 
continued role of servicing Federal loans and helping more students 
gain access to college and more students to complete their degrees.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as chairman of the Health, Education, 
Labor and Pensions Committee, which holds jurisdiction over the 
servicing of our Federal student loan programs, it is my understanding 
that the intent of the budget agreement is to allow for the 
continuation of the existing not-for-profit servicer contracts and that 
they will be permitted to compete based on performance with the 
Department of Education's title IV servicers for additional accounts, 
so that students receive the best possible service and taxpayer funds 
are used efficiently.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for 
engaging in this dialogue and appreciate the Senator from Washington 
clarifying that it is the intent of the budget measure for the 
Department of Education to continue to use not-for-profit servicers for 
the Federal loan program and that these entities should be permitted to 
compete for additional loan volume in the future.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont and the 
Senator from Washington for providing clarification on this issue. I am 
happy to hear that the legislative intent of the budget deal is to 
continue the use of the not-for-profit student loan servicers and that 
they will be permitted to compete in the future for additional 
accounts.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with 
the comments of the senior Senator from Washington and am pleased to 
know it is her intent that not-for-profit servicers, like the New 
Hampshire Higher Education Loan Corporation and the NHHEAF Network, 
will be able to continue their important work and that they will be 
able to compete in the future for additional accounts.
  For over 50 years, the New Hampshire Higher Education Loan 
Corporation and the NHHEAF Network have provided critical college 
access, financial education, and default-prevention programs to 
students in New Hampshire and across the country. The New Hampshire 
Higher Education Loan Corporation's dedicated staff services a national 
portfolio over 250,000 borrowers, helping them to manage repayment of 
almost $5 billion in student loans. These professionals play a uniquely 
important role in helping students to succeed in postsecondary 
education, and I am pleased that it is the Senator from Washington's 
intent to allow them to continue their work.
  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I rise as well to thank the senior Senator 
from Washington for her insight and to echo the comments from my 
colleagues, especially my good friend from Alaska. The not-for-profit 
student loan servicer in my State, the Alaska Student Loan Corporation, 
does an outstanding job of servicing student loans. They take a 
proactive and supportive role with the accounts they receive from the 
Department, and I want to ensure they will be able to continue to 
participate in this important program. I was pleased to learn that the 
chairman's intent in including this language was not to exclude not-
for-profit servicers from competing for additional servicing accounts.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with 
the comments of the senior Senator from Washington and am pleased to 
know it is her intent that the use of not-for-profit servicers 
continues and that not-for-profit servicers will be permitted to 
compete on an equal basis in the future for additional accounts.
  Mr. KING. Mr President, I wish to associate myself with the comments 
of the senior Senator from Washington. I am pleased to know that it is 
her intent that the work of not-for-profit servicers advances and that 
they will continue to be allowed to compete for additional accounts in 
the future. In Maine, two not-for-profit servicers, the Finance 
Authority of Maine and Maine Education Services, provide essential 
services to Maine students through financial literacy education and the 
servicing of Federal student loans. Indeed, not-for-profit servicers do 
meaningful work across the country, and I am glad to know it is the 
Senate Budget Committee Chairman's intent to continue to allow these 
State agencies and nonprofits to play a role in servicing federal 
student loans.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would also like to associate myself with 
the senior Senator from Washington, my colleague from Vermont, and my 
colleague from Montana. Our Montana

[[Page 19263]]

servicer, the Student Assistance Foundation, provides vital services to 
Montana students by delivering financial aid education, scholarships, 
and grants. I am therefore pleased to know it is the intent of the 
chairman of the Senate Budget Committee that not-for-profit student 
loan servicers will continue to play a role in the servicing market and 
will be permitted to compete for future servicing contracts.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise to share in this important 
discussion and would also like to associate myself with the comments of 
the senior Senator from Washington and my colleague from Montana. The 
Student Assistance Foundation is a strong employer in Montana, 
representing nearly 200 jobs, and I am pleased to know it is the chair 
of the Budget Committee's intent that the use of not-for-profit 
servicers continues. I am also pleased that not-for-profit servicers, 
such as the Student Assistance Foundation, will be permitted to compete 
in the future for additional accounts.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to know it is the intent 
of the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee--the chief Senate 
negotiator for the Bipartisan Budget Act--that nonprofit servicers will 
continue to play an important role in servicing Federal student loans, 
both now and in the future. I strongly support this intent and the 
vital public service role that nonprofit and State agency servicers 
have played in Federal student loan programs on behalf of Federal 
student loan borrowers and the American public. I will be one of those 
who will expect the Department to pay close attention to congressional 
intent in this matter. I also look forward to working with my 
colleagues on both the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 
Committee and the Appropriations Committee to ensure that this intent 
is carried out.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman of the 
Senate Budget Committee, who coauthored this legislation, for 
clarifying that it is not the intent of the bill's authors to require 
that existing contracts with not-for-profit student loan servicers be 
canceled and that such servicers will continue to be able to compete 
for additional Department of Education contracts in the future. Not-
for-profit servicers provide students in Maine and across the country 
with important financial counseling services, and I am pleased to know 
that they will continue to be allowed to compete to perform this work 
under this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 1 hour of my time postcloture to 
Senator Sessions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The Senator from Washington.

                          ____________________