[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 19284-19322]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         MAKING CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.J. 
Res. 59, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Resolved, that the House recede from its amendment to the 
     amendment of the Senate to the resolution (H.J. Res. 59) 
     entitled, ``A joint resolution making continuing 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2014, and for other 
     purposes,'' and concur with a House amendment to the Senate 
     amendment.

  Pending:

       Reid motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the 
     amendment of the Senate to the joint resolution, with Reid 
     amendment No. 2547, to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 2548 (to amendment No. 2547), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, obviously I will be brief. I was simply 
trying to engage the majority leader in a simple question. I will lay 
out the question here. I think it deserves an answer, not for me but 
for the American people. Last week I had written the majority leader 
noting that several press reports have stated that he has exempted much 
of his staff, specifically leadership staff, from ObamaCare, from the 
mandate of the ObamaCare statute that we and our staffs go to the 
exchanges for our health care. He has exempted much of his staff from 
that. So I laid out some specific and pertinent and important questions 
related to that in a letter to him dated December 10, last week. I have 
gotten no response. I obviously got no response this morning. In fact, 
he would not even yield for my question.
  I think that is unfortunate. It is unfortunate not because I 
personally deserve an answer, it is unfortunate because this is 
important. I think his constituents and the American people deserve an 
answer. So I restated those four specific questions in my letter. They 
are in my letter. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Hon. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV),
     Office of the Senate Majority Leader,
     The Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Reid: It has been reported that you 
     are the only Member of top Congressional leadership--House 
     and Senate, Democrat and Republican--who has exempted some of 
     your staff from having to procure their health insurance 
     through the Obamacare Exchange as clearly required by the 
     Obamacare statute.
       Millions of Americans are losing the health care plans and 
     doctors they wanted to keep and are facing dramatic premium 
     increases, all as Washington enjoys a special exemption. 
     Given this, I ask you to publicly and in writing answer the 
     four important questions below regarding your office's 
     exemption. I will also be on the Senate floor to discuss this 
     at approximately 4:15 pm today and invite you to join me 
     there.
       First, how did you designate each member of your staff, 
     including your leadership staff, regarding their status as 
     ``official'' (going to the Exchange) or ``not official'' 
     (exempted from Exchange)? Did you delegate that designation 
     to the Senate Disbursing Office, which would have the effect 
     of exempting all of your leadership staff from going to the 
     Exchange?
       Second, if any of your staff is designated as ``not 
     official'' (exempted from Exchange), are any of those staff 
     members receiving official taxpayer-funded salaries, 
     benefits, office space, office equipment, or any other 
     taxpayer support?
       Third, if any of your staff is designated as ``not 
     official'' (exempted from Exchange), did any of these staff 
     members assist you in drafting or passing Obamacare into law? 
     If so, which staff members exactly?
       Fourth, how are the above designations of yours consistent 
     with the clear, unequivocal statement you made on September 
     12: ``Let's stop these really juvenile political games--the 
     one dealing with health care for senators and House members 
     and our staff. We are going to be part of exchanges, that's 
     what the law says and we'll be part of that.''
       I look forward to your clear, written responses to these 
     important questions. I also look forward to having fair, up-
     or-down votes on the Senate floor on my ``Show Your 
     Exemptions'' and ``No Washington Exemptions'' proposals in 
     the new year.
           Sincerely,
                                                     David Vitter.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know we are going to be voting on the 
budget that was negotiated by Senator Murray and Paul Ryan. Sixty-seven 
Senators voted for cloture on that, so we will have a vote on passage 
this afternoon, I think about 4:30.
  But I wanted to raise an issue that has been raised previously--
yesterday; that is, the process by which the Senate is operating where 
no amendments are being allowed either on the budget or on the Defense 
authorization bill, which is the next bill we will turn to by the 
decision of the majority leader.
  I have congratulated Senator Murray and I congratulate Congressman 
Ryan for their negotiation. But I do think there is an error that has 
been identified that needs to be corrected in the bill and which could 
easily be corrected if the majority leader would reconsider his 
decision not to allow any amendments. This specifically has to do with 
the discriminatory way in which Active-Duty military pensions are being 
penalized in a unique way that not even Federal workers who are going 
to be treated differently prospectively, not even civilian Federal 
workers, are being treated in the same way our Active-Duty military 
are.
  Several of my colleagues came to the floor yesterday--the Senator 
from New Hampshire, the Senator from South Carolina and others--and 
pointed out the discriminatory treatment which could easily be fixed. I 
do not have any doubt but that the Senate would--as we attempted to do 
yesterday, the Senator from Alabama offered an attempt to take down the 
amendment tree the majority leader has filled.
  For people who do not follow the minutiae and the detail of what 
happens here in the Senate, the majority leader has basically blocked 
any opportunity to offer an amendment that would remedy this 
discriminatory treatment for our military servicemembers.
  I have heard at least two of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle say: We can come back and do it next year.
  Why do it next year if we could do it now? I believe that if the 
Senate was given an opportunity to make this correction--I don't blame 
the Senator from Washington and Congressman Ryan in their efforts to 
come up with a

[[Page 19285]]

budget to do what they did. I do blame us if we don't fix it this week 
when it is within our power to do so, and it is within the power of the 
majority leader to allow us to vote on that and to make that happen.
  I don't have any doubt whatsoever that if we were able to come up 
with an appropriate pay-for and a substitute for this cut in military 
pensions, it would pass like a hot knife through butter in the House of 
Representatives when they reconvene.
  Unfortunately, this is a product of the way the majority leader has 
decided to run the Senate. I have another example of that, which I wish 
to turn to. This has to do with an amendment that I have offered on the 
Defense authorization bill, which is a bill we will turn to after 
authorization of the budget. The Defense appropriations bill is a very 
important piece of legislation, and I congratulate Senator Inhofe and 
the House, both in the majority party and the minority party, for 
coming up with a pretty good bill. The problem is once again the 
majority leader has decided to transform the Senate into basically a 
railroad and to jam this bill through this week, probably by tomorrow 
night, without any opportunity to offer any amendments.
  That is a terrible mistake. The last time in recent memory that the 
majority party decided to jam through a piece of legislation was 
ObamaCare. I remember voting on Christmas Eve--something I hope we 
don't repeat this year--and that was a party-line vote in the House and 
the Senate.
  We are discovering, as ObamaCare is being implemented, that a lot of 
the promises that were made to the American people, such as: If you 
like what you have, you can keep it, and the cost of your health care 
will go down an average $2,500 for a family of 4--all of those were 
false.
  That is what happens, the kinds of mistakes that are made, when there 
are not bipartisan efforts to come up with compromise legislation. 
Instead, the majority party uses the power it has to jam things 
through. We make mistakes. Things aren't adequately considered.
  I don't care who you are; we all can benefit from other people's 
ideas and suggestions, and that is the genius of the checks and 
balances under the Constitution and under our form of government. But 
the majority leader has decided to put all of that aside.
  I read today in Politico that he has said he doesn't care that people 
are complaining about his ``my way or the highway'' approach. But it is 
not only about our rights as Senators to participate in the process--it 
is not only about the rights of the 26 million people that I represent 
in Texas, who are essentially being shut out of the process--this is 
about making mistakes that hurt people, mistakes that we would not make 
if we had taken the time in a bipartisan way to try to address some of 
these concerns. This discriminatory treatment of the military pensions 
is one example.
  Another example is when members of Al Qaeda struck our Nation on 
September 11, 2001, they made it clear they viewed the entire American 
homeland as the battlefield.
  We were reminded of this again about 4 years ago when a radical 
jihadist, who happened to be wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army, MAJ 
Nidal Hasan, opened fire at a Fort Hood Army base in Killeen, TX. That 
shooter killed 12 American soldiers, 1 civilian, and shot and injured 
30 more.
  This is a terrible tragedy. I remember President Obama coming down 
for the memorial service where we honored the lives of these people who 
lost their lives in this terrible attack. But no matter how we slice 
it, this was a terrorist attack on American soil, not much different--
except in the means by which it was carried out--than what happened on 
September 11, 2001.
  Prior to committing this terrible terrorist attack, the Fort Hood 
shooter exchanged no fewer than 20 emails with a senior Al Qaeda 
operative, al-Awlaki, who was subsequently killed by a U.S. drone 
attack in Yemen by the President of the United States.
  The shooter, Major Hasan, had become more radicalized over time--and 
this is a problem with our military that seemed to have turned a blind 
eye. But there is also a problem when the Federal Government calls this 
workplace violence and doesn't call it a terrorist attack, which it 
actually was. He opened fire in the name of global jihad in the hopes 
of defending the Islamic empire and supporting his Muslim brothers.
  That is why he asked the late Mr. al-Awlaki if Islamic law justified 
``killing U.S. soldiers and officers,'' and that is why he yelled out 
``Allahu Akbar'' before committing this massacre.
  If a U.S. soldier is killed in Afghanistan by an Al Qaeda-inspired 
terrorist alongside the Taliban, he or she will posthumously be given a 
Purple Heart award and his or her family will receive the requisite 
benefits that go along with losing your life in service to your 
country.
  Yet the U.S. Government has chosen to discriminate against these 
people who lost their lives at Fort Hood 4 years ago at the hands of a 
terrorist, who tragically happened to be a member of the uniformed 
military of the United States, MAJ Nidal Hasan, who has subsequently 
been convicted of these crimes.
  Even though Major Hasan saw himself as an Islamic warrior serving the 
cause of an officially designated terrorist organization, the U.S. 
Government has chosen to treat this as something that it is not, which 
is an ordinary crime or, in the Orwellian use of the phrase, workplace 
violence. It is an exercise in political correctness run amuck. But the 
government's argument is that because the Fort Hood shooter was not 
acting under the direct and explicit direction of a foreign terrorist 
group, the victims of this terrorist attack 4 years ago were not 
eligible for the Purple Heart awards or the benefits that they deserve.
  Al Qaeda, as we know, doesn't issue business cards or staff IDs, so 
sometimes it is a little bit difficult to say which terrorists are 
``officially'' part of Al Qaeda and which ones are not, but the 
distinction is irrelevant. The war on terrorism, as we know, has 
evolved considerably since September 11, 2001. Al Qaeda has evolved 
too. Whether it is in Iraq, Afghanistan, or now Yemen and in other 
places, Al Qaeda has morphed.
  Several months ago, the group's top leader, al-Zawahiri, urged his 
followers to conduct exactly the kind of terrorist attack that occurred 
at Fort Hood and occurred in Boston in 2013. Zawahiri said, ``These 
dispersed strikes can be carried out by one brother, or a small number 
of brothers.''
  Let us imagine that a radical Islamist heard these words, contacted 
an Al Qaeda cleric to ask about killing Americans, and then went on to 
slaughter a number of U.S. soldiers. It shouldn't matter where those 
killings took place, and it shouldn't matter whether the killer had 
``formal'' ties with Al Qaeda or not. There really isn't any doubt 
about Hasan's ties to Al Qaeda or his being inspired by someone who the 
President of the United States put on a kill list for a drone because 
he knew they were recruiting and inspiring attacks against the American 
people.
  If it is good enough for the President of the United States to order 
a drone attack on an American citizen in Yemen, it ought to be good 
enough for this body to recognize this was a terrorist attack because 
of Hasan's inspiration and communication with this very same terrorist. 
We ought to award these families the Purple Heart awards that these 
servicemembers are entitled to and the benefits that they deserve.
  It is clear that these casualties at Fort Hood were part of America's 
struggle against Al Qaeda and the global war on terrorism. They were 
casualties of a war that continues to rage in Afghanistan and that only 
recently claimed an additional four American lives. It also extended to 
places such as Benghazi, Libya, where four Americans were killed.
  Whether or not the Fort Hood shooter had Al Qaeda stamped on his 
forehead is irrelevant. He was unquestionably a disciple of Al Qaeda's 
poisonous ideology, which has fueled death and destruction around the 
globe and here in our homeland.

[[Page 19286]]

  As I have indicated at the beginning, I have sponsored legislation 
that would make the Fort Hood victims eligible for the honors and 
benefits available to their fellow U.S. soldiers and troops serving in 
overseas combat zones. I offered a modified version of that bill as an 
amendment to the Defense authorization bill, which we will take up 
immediately following the passage of the budget legislation this 
afternoon.
  The majority leader has refused to allow a vote on it. We may recall, 
before the Thanksgiving recess, we had, I believe, two amendments to 
the Defense authorization bill, and then the question was what other 
amendments might be offered. The majority leader made clear he wasn't 
going to allow any other amendments--except of his own choosing--thus 
denying the minority any opportunity to help amend and improve the 
Defense authorization bill, one of the most important pieces of 
legislation this body takes up every year.
  So cloture was not invoked, and now in the waning days before the 
Christmas holidays, the majority leader seeks to jam through this bill 
that was agreed upon by basically four people behind closed doors and 
deny me--representing 26 million Texans--and deny those of us who care 
about calling a spade a spade when it comes to terrorism an opportunity 
to offer an amendment on the Defense authorization bill. It is a 
mistake, no less a mistake than denying an opportunity to fix the 
mistake of discriminatory treatment of our servicemembers whose 
pensions are being cut as a result of the budget negotiation.
  Not only has the majority leader refused to allow a vote on this 
Purple Heart awards amendment, he has refused to allow any other 
amendments, both on this budget negotiation or on the Defense 
authorization.
  As I said, the budget agreement passed by the House of 
Representatives would slash military retirement benefits by about $6 
billion over the next decade. I have heard on cable TV at least two 
Members of the other party of this body who said we need to fix that. 
The Senator from New Hampshire has offered legislation, I believe. I 
heard the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Kaine, say we could come in and 
fix this with a scalpel after the fact.
  We don't need to wait; we could do that today. I am confident that we 
could reach an agreement in this body today to remove that 
discriminatory treatment for our active duty military contained in this 
underlying bill, if the majority leader would only listen, listen to 
his own Members, listen to the American people, and listen to those who 
care about our servicemembers and want to make sure that they are not 
treated in such an unfair and discriminatory fashion. But, instead, the 
majority leader has decided ``it is my way or the highway.''
  We know these cuts will even affect combat-wounded veterans who have 
been medically retired.
  My State is the proud home to more veterans than any other State 
other than California, and many of my constituents are outraged that 
the majority leader won't even allow us to vote on this issue.
  I would tell my friends across the aisle, it is going to come up 
again. It came up yesterday, and it will come up again. We will be 
reoffering these amendments to fix this discriminatory treatment as 
long as we are in session, and I hope Members of both parties can put 
politics aside for 1 minute, come together, and address the needs of 
our military families and those who have worked so hard and sacrificed 
so much to preserve our freedom.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KING. Madam President, we are going to have a historic vote this 
afternoon--historic at least in recent history--because for the first 
time in 3 or 4 years we are going to pass a budget--at least I 
certainly hope so. It is historic because, while the process was not 
perfect, it is a budget that was arrived at fundamentally through 
negotiations, through discussions, and through compromise between the 
chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and the chairman of the House 
Budget Committee. We are finally talking to each other.
  This agreement is important. This vote is important for three basic 
reasons. One is that the agreement maintains the momentum of deficit 
reduction that has been in place here since the summer of 2011 when the 
Budget Control Act was passed. In fact, rather than breaking the budget 
numbers, it actually improves them in terms of deficit reduction by 
some $22 billion. And it maintains, as I said, the momentum.
  One of the points that has been lost in the discussion about the 
budget and the budget deficit is that the Federal budget deficit has 
fallen faster in the last 2\1/2\ to 3 years than at any time in the 
past 40 or 50 years. It has fallen from almost 10 percent of GDP to 
under 4 percent of GDP over the past 2\1/2\ years. That is progress.
  I think one of the problems we have around here is that often we 
don't know how to declare victory. We don't celebrate our successes. I 
am not prepared to declare victory in the fight for fiscal 
responsibility, but I am prepared to declare progress, and I think that 
is what we have made when we have more than trillion-dollar deficits 
that have been cut more than in half.
  So the first reason I think this bill should be supported is that it 
is not a budget buster by any means; instead, it is a continuation of 
the momentum toward rational fiscal policies that we have been on, and 
I think it is something we should continue.
  No. 2, this budget bill will finally get us out of the business of 
governing by crisis, of lurching from crisis to crisis and threats of 
shutdown and continuing resolutions year to year, month to month, 
quarter to quarter. It will provide some certainty to the Congress, to 
the government, and to the country about what the budget numbers are 
going to be.
  I think it is important that people realize exactly what it is we are 
voting on today. Essentially, it is one number. It is what is called a 
top-line number. This is not the budget that embodies all the detailed 
decisions about where those dollars go. Those decisions will be made by 
the two Appropriations Committees of the two Houses between now and the 
middle of January. But by providing a number, those committees now know 
what their targets are. They know what their limits are. They know what 
they have to work with. It will enable them to make the kinds of 
decisions on priorities and spending that we should have been making 
all along.
  By governing by continuing resolution, essentially what we are doing 
is using the priorities of last year and the year before and the year 
before that. And then, of course, the sequester on top of a continuing 
resolution is really a double budgetary whammy because the sequester is 
a cut. That is difficult enough to deal with, but it is a cut that was 
designed to be stupid, and it succeeded. It was designed to be so 
unacceptable that Congress would feel they had to find an alternative. 
Unfortunately, this past March that didn't happen. So the sequester, 
which was across-the-board cuts by account, went into place. That meant 
that within the military, within the Pentagon, within the Navy, within 
the FAA, and within the Department of Transportation, each account had 
to be cut. Some accounts probably could use some cutting and other 
accounts desperately needed the funding that was made available. This 
bill relieves the irrationality of the sequester while maintaining the 
sequester's downward pressure on spending.
  Finally, and I think most importantly, what this bill we will be 
voting on this afternoon will do is demonstrate to the country that we 
can do our job.
  I was talking to people in Maine yesterday, and they said: Well, why 
should you be puffing up your chest and pounding your chest about just 
doing what you ought to be doing all along?
  I couldn't really argue with that, except that we haven't been doing 
our job. And the fact that we are now at

[[Page 19287]]

least inching toward doing it in the manner we are supposed to is 
progress--at least it is progress in recent history. I think that is 
one of the most important parts of this bill. I think that is the 
signal it sends to the country--that we can, in fact, talk to each 
other; we can compromise; we can make financial and fiscal arrangements 
around here that make sense, that are rational, that are prioritized, 
and we can do our job.
  When I was in Maine last weekend, the most common question I got was 
this: Why can't those people down there talk to each other? Why can't 
they work things out? We do that in our town meetings, we do that in 
our businesses, and we do that in our families. Why can't they?
  Well, in this case, they have. It wasn't a perfect process, but at 
least it involved bipartisan, bicameral negotiations that get us to the 
point where we have a budget we can vote on today. Do I like it? I 
don't like every piece of it. I don't like the pension hit the Senator 
from Texas described. That wouldn't have been in my proposal. In fact, 
I made a proposal at the budget conference that was quite different 
from this one. It wasn't accepted. That is how this place works.
  My favorite philosopher, Mick Jagger, said, ``You can't always get 
what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find you get 
what you need.'' What we need right now is a budget. It is something we 
can work from that gives us some certainty.
  I believe we can fix this pension problem. In fact, I have joined 
with Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire on a bill that would replace the 
cuts to the military pension, dealing with some offshore tax benefits 
that I think is a much more sensible way to fill that $6 billion gap. 
We can do that because the pension proposal doesn't take effect for 2 
years--not until December 2015. So we can fix that, but we have to get 
this budget passed now.
  To answer the question ``Why can't they talk,'' they have talked, and 
I think that is important.
  Now I would like to turn to a slightly different topic, but it is 
related to the budget. In 1997 the Congress passed something called the 
sustainable growth rate, which was designed to control reimbursement 
rates for physicians and providers under Medicare. The problem is that 
it has turned into a monster that reduces physician fees to the point 
where they won't serve Medicare patients unless it is fixed. Each year 
since 2002 we have fixed it year by year, but it is always temporary. 
It is always a patch. In fact, it has gotten its own name in the 
lexicon of Washington: the ``doc fix.'' It is something we have to do. 
Everybody knows we have to do it. But why not fix it for good?
  The Congressional Budget Office tells us that if we fix it once and 
for all, it would cost $116 billion over the next 10 years. That sounds 
like a big number, but it happens that there is a place we can go to 
get that money that I think fits with it very well. In 1990, under 
President George H.W. Bush, the Medicaid drug program was created, and 
because the government was buying drugs under Medicaid in very large 
quantities, they sought a volume discount from the pharmaceutical 
companies--perfectly rational; any of us would ask for a volume 
discount if we were buying in large quantities--and, indeed, Medicaid-
eligible beneficiaries had discounts or rebates on their drugs from 
1990 to 2006.
  In 2006, Part D of Medicare was passed. We provided a drug benefit to 
Medicare recipients. But one of the wackiest parts of that bill said 
that the government could no longer negotiate for volume discounts. I 
hear a lot of discussion around here about private enterprise and 
business and how we should run the government like a business. No 
rational business would buy any product--cars, gasoline, drugs, or 
anything else--in enormous quantities and not seek and gain from the 
sellers some kind of volume discount.
  Senator Rockefeller has introduced S. 740, which essentially says: 
Let's return Medicaid beneficiaries--not all Medicare beneficiaries but 
Medicaid recipients--to the status of prior to 2006, where they will 
get applied to their drug purchases--or the government actually gets--
the same kind of rebates they got for the 16 years from 1990 to 2006. 
This will produce $140 billion over the next 10 years. It will not cut 
expenses to recipients; it will only save the government money.
  It seems to me this is a sensible way to fix the doc fix once and for 
all and to do something that makes sense for the taxpayers, which is to 
acquire for them volume discounts, volume rebates that are available 
today for other Medicaid recipients who aren't under Medicare and for 
the VA, and it puts them on the same status, these so-called dual-
eligibles, people who are eligible for Medicaid and Medicare. Just this 
change would save $140 billion, and it would enable us to fix the doc 
fix permanently. It would also contribute about $30 billion to deficit 
reduction over the next 10 years.
  I think we have a historic opportunity this afternoon to pass a 
budget--the first budget, by the way, produced by a divided Congress, 
where the two Houses were in different political hands, since 1986. And 
I think that is an achievement. It is something that a month ago I 
wouldn't have bet too much on, but I am very appreciative and admiring 
of Chairman Murray and Chairman Ryan for coming together and putting 
their ideological issues aside and coming up with an arrangement, an 
agreement which allows us to have some certainty and which can signal 
to the country that we are, in fact, capable of doing the most 
fundamental responsibility we have, which is to pass a budget.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank my colleague from Maine for his statement and 
support for this effort. This is a historic moment. It has been 4 or 5 
years since we have enacted and passed a budget agreement between the 
House and Senate. In a divided government, we have found many excuses 
and ways around it, but we are facing our responsibility today in the 
Senate. We are hoping that yesterday's procedural vote, with 67 
Democrats and Republicans joining together, is an indication of the 
success we will find later today when this measure comes up for a final 
vote.
  Before I go any further, I wish to salute my colleague, my friend, 
and my fellow leader in the Senate, Senator Patty Murray of Washington.
  A few years ago Patty was given a tough assignment. She was given the 
assignment to chair the so-called supercommittee. I had been involved 
in a lot of deficit negotiations up to that point, and I thought, oh my 
goodness, she is walking into a minefield. Well, she did a professional 
job, a bipartisan effort. It didn't succeed, but she learned in the 
process not only more about our budget challenge but also more about 
the leaders in the budget process. And I think it was that painful 
experience with the supercommittee that set the stage for the much more 
successful negotiation over this budget agreement with Paul Ryan.
  Paul Ryan is no stranger to those of us in Illinois. His 
congressional district borders on our State in Wisconsin. I know Paul. 
I like him. I respect him. We disagree on a lot of substantive issues, 
but I respect him as a person of substance and a person of values who 
tries to solve problems. He showed, with Senator Patty Murray, that 
Democrats and Republicans can sit down in a room together, respect one 
another's differences, and still come to an agreement. What a 
refreshing development in this town where so many times we fall flat on 
our face trying to come up with a solution.
  I also want to commend Paul Ryan, while I am on the subject, for his 
leadership on the immigration issue. It is not easy for him to step up 
as a conservative Republican and support comprehensive immigration 
reform, but he has done it. He came to Chicago and made that 
announcement with Luis Gutierrez, the Congressman from the city of 
Chicago who is the national leader on immigration.
  I only say that because if we have more of that kind of dialogue, 
more of that kind of agreement, we will have a

[[Page 19288]]

better Congress and the American people will know it. Right now we are 
languishing in approval ratings across the country, and a lot of it has 
to do with the fact that we spend too much time fighting and not enough 
time trying to find solutions.
  This budget agreement is a solution. Is it perfect? Of course not. 
There are parts of this budget agreement I don't like at all. But I 
have come to learn that if we are going to get anything done in 
Washington for the good of the people of this country, we have to be 
prepared to accept in an agreement some things we might not agree with. 
We found that with comprehensive immigration reform. We will find it 
today with this budget agreement.
  This plan isn't perfect, but it is going to enable us to avoid a 
shutdown of the government. Did we or did we not learn a lesson just a 
few months ago? We shut down the government of the United States of 
America for 16 days. One Senator came to the floor on the other side of 
the aisle speaking 21 hours in an effort to inspire others to join him 
in the shutdown--and, sadly, it worked. For 16 days, 800,000 Federal 
employees or more were sent home with the promise that eventually they 
would be paid, and millions of Americans were denied the basic services 
of our government during that government shutdown.
  We managed to emerge from that with the promise that we would fund 
our government with a continuing resolution until the middle of 
January. But then the burden fell on Patty Murray and Paul Ryan and the 
members of that conference committee to come up with a solution, and 
they did. That is what is before us today.
  Those who are voting no don't have an alternative. They don't have a 
plan. They are just angry or upset or basically opposed, but they don't 
have an alternative. If it means they would want another government 
shutdown, so be it. But thank goodness an overwhelming bipartisan 
majority in the House of Representatives voted for this plan. 
Yesterday, if I am not mistaken, we had 12 Republicans join us and all 
55 Democrats, so 67 voted in favor of this bipartisan budget plan.
  What is especially important to me as a member of the Appropriations 
Committee is not only is it avoiding another government shutdown, it is 
a 2-year plan. I said to Senator Murray when she called me with the 
details: That is one of the strongest arguments in favor of this I can 
imagine, to think now that the Appropriations Committee can sit down 
and do its work for the rest of this year with a budget target number.
  I have a pretty substantial responsibility on the Appropriations 
Committee. I chair the subcommittee on defense and intelligence. In 
that subcommittee, our bill alone is about $600 billion, or just a 
little south of that, and it embodies almost 60 percent of all 
discretionary spending of the Federal Government. We are going to get a 
chance now--and I have already sat down with Congressman Frelinghuysen 
of New Jersey, who chairs the same subcommittee in the House--to work 
out a bipartisan appropriations bill for the defense of America. Is 
there anything more important than our national security? We have to 
start there, and we are going to be able to do it now in a thoughtful 
way because of this budget number. Those who are voting no would cast 
us again into the darkness--a continuing resolution.
  For those who are on the outside looking in, a continuing resolution 
is akin to saying to a family: Listen, next year we are going to give 
you the checkbook ledger from last year. Keep writing the same checks 
for the same amount, and we are sure everything will work out. It 
doesn't.
  Instead, because of this budget agreement we can start looking at 
ways to save money which will not harm our men and women in uniform and 
will keep America strong and create a national defense.
  We are going to also work in this bill to start to repair America's 
fraying social safety net--in other words, protecting the most 
vulnerable in America--because this agreement stands for the premise 
that we are going to treat defense and nondefense spending and cuts 
equally. That was an agreement we started. It is one they honored with 
us.
  We have made real progress in the last 4 years to cut our Federal 
deficit in half. We are going to cut the deficit even further under 
this bipartisan plan but in a much more thoughtful way. I am going to 
be voting yes for the budget and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  I see the Republican leader on the floor, and I know he has a very 
busy schedule. I do want to leave with one closing thought. There is 
another deficit in America beyond our shrinking budget deficit that is 
even more dangerous to America's future; that is, the rapidly 
deteriorating situation many working families are facing. We have an 
opportunity deficit in America. President Obama called this opportunity 
deficit the defining challenge of our time, and I believe he is right.
  We don't begrudge anyone wealth and success in America. We celebrate 
it. But we also believe in fairness. We believe in the dignity of work. 
We believe, if you work hard and follow the rules, you ought to be able 
to provide for your family with the basics of life and with the dream 
of an even better life for the next generation. That is the promise at 
the heart of America's economy, and for too many families today, it 
feels like a broken promise. We are losing the balance between personal 
wealth and our commonwealth to a winner-take-all ideology that is 
hurting our economy and our democracy.
  Market capitalism has generated enormous wealth for America's 
economy. But for more than 40 years, the benefits of economic growth in 
America have gone increasingly to those at the top--while the middle 
class shrinks and the poor slip deeper into the quicksand of 
inescapable poverty. Think about this: in 1970, the top 1 percent of 
earners took home 9 percent of America's income. Today they take home 
nearly a quarter. The top 1 percent holds more than one-third of the 
Nation's overall wealth, while the bottom half of America controls less 
than 3 percent. The richest 400 Americans--the top one-tenth of one 
percent--now own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans 
combined. America is the wealthiest Nation on Earth. Corporate profits 
and the stock market are hitting records highs. Yet millions of workers 
are actually making less money today in real dollars than they did 20 
years ago. We have more children growing up in poverty than in any 
other industrialized Nation. And our infant, maternal and child 
mortality rates are the highest among advanced Nations. Social 
mobility--the ability to work your way up the economic ladder--is now 
lower in the United States than it is in Europe.
  What does that tell you about the American Dream? Income inequality 
is worse in America today than it is in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, the 
Ivory Coast, Pakistan, and Ethiopia. And then there is this: Since the 
official end of the Great Recession in 2009, 95 percent of all income 
gains in the U.S. have gone to the wealthiest 1 percent. There's a 
reason the YouTube chart Wealth Inequality in America has gotten more 
than 13 million views. The American people know that our economy isn't 
working for average working folks. It's like a bumper sticker that 
said, ``The economy isn't broken, it's fixed.'' The rules have been 
rewritten over the last four decades to concentrate more and more 
wealth at the very top, at the expense of everyone else.
  The United States is not alone in this; growing income and wealth 
inequality are global problems. But these problems are growing faster 
in America than in any Nation. We would do well to listen to Pope 
Francis, who, in his recent ``apostolic exhortation''--a sort of open 
letter to the faithful--described trickle-down economics as a system 
that ``has never been confirmed by the facts.'' It is created, in the 
Pope's words an ``economy of exclusion and inequality'' and ``a 
globalization of indifference.''
  Pope Francis asks:

       How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly 
     homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the 
     stock market

[[Page 19289]]

     loses two points? We are thrilled if the market offers us 
     something new to purchase, in the meantime all those lives 
     stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they 
     fail to move us.
       Today everything comes under the laws of competition and 
     the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the 
     powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves 
     excluded and marginalized: without work, without 
     possibilities, without any means of escape.

  Economic justice must be a central concern of the Catholic Church, 
the Pope says. But it is not the Church's responsibility alone. The 
Pope writes that mere handouts are not enough. I quote:

       We must work to eliminate the structural causes of poverty. 
     It is vital, that government leaders and financial leaders 
     take heed and broaden their horizons, working to ensure that 
     all citizens have dignified work, education and health care. 
     I beg the Lord to grant us more politicians who are genuinely 
     disturbed by the state of society, the people, the lives of 
     the poor.

  Those who are unmoved by moral appeals might want to listen instead 
to the economic case for reducing economic inequality. America's 
widening income and wealth inequities have recently drawn warnings from 
the Federal Reserve Board, the Organization for Economic Cooperation 
and Development, and the IMF, the International Monetary Fund. Listen 
to this warning, from a recent IMF analysis. I quote:

       Some dismiss inequality and focus instead on overall 
     growth--arguing, in effect, that a rising tide lifts all 
     boats. [But w]hen a handful of yachts become ocean liners 
     while the rest remain lowly canoes, something is seriously 
     amiss.

  In countries with high levels of inequality like the United States, 
the IMF warns, ``growth becomes more fragile,'' economic crises like 
the Great Recession become more frequent, and economic expansions are 
shortened by as much as one-third. Slower growth leads to fewer jobs 
created and even greater inequality--a vicious cycle. In fact, IMF 
economists found that inequality seems to have a stronger effect on 
growth than several other factors, including foreign investment, trade 
openness, and exchange rate competitiveness. Rather than being 
conflicting goals, the IMF economists concluded, reducing inequality 
and bolstering growth, in the long run, might be ``two sides of the 
same coin.'' That is certainly true in an economy such as ours, in 
which 70 percent of the U.S. economy depends on consumer spending.
  It has taken years to reach these levels of inequality in America and 
it may take years and sustained effort by Congress to restore broad-
based growth to our economy, the kind of growth that benefits all 
Americans, not just the wealthiest few.
  The Affordable Care Act is a powerful start. No longer will tens of 
millions of Americans--most of them working people--have to worry that 
they are just one illness or accident away from bankruptcy. Small 
business owners will be able to spend less time searching for 
affordable health plans, and more time creating jobs.
  Next, we need to restore the bottom rung on the ladder out of poverty 
and into the middle class by raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 
an hour. According to a Wall Street Journal/ABC News poll, 63 percent 
of Americans--two-thirds of Americans--strongly favor boosting the 
federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour. $7.25 an hour, 40 
hours a week, 50 weeks a year, works out to $14,500 a year--40 percent 
below the poverty line. Clearly, we can't boost the American economy on 
poverty wages. Studies and our own history show that raising the 
minimum wage will create jobs--because in America, consumers are the 
biggest job creators.
  If you want to help poor children escape poverty, one of the best 
investments you can make is in effective pre-school. We know that. It's 
been proven. Yet, according to the OECD, the U.S. ranks 28th out of 38 
leading economies in the proportion of four-year-olds in education. The 
budget before the Senate restores funding so that many of the children 
kicked out of Head Start classes because of sequester cuts will be able 
to return to school. This is still only a fraction of the children who 
need quality pre-school. President Obama has set universal pre-school 
for every child in America. That should be our goal. Because the future 
belongs to those who are best-educated.
  Here's another staggering fact about the new economy: For reasons 
that include automation, globalization and the loss of good-paying 
manufacturing jobs, more than half of Americans will experience near-
poverty for at least some part of their lives. More than half. Here's 
another sobering fact: According to the National Employment Law 
Project, about two-thirds of the American jobs lost in the Great 
Recession were in middle-wage occupations--the kind of jobs that don't 
require a safety net. But these middle-wage occupations have accounted 
for less than one-fourth of the job growth during the recovery. 
Weakening the social safety net at the same time America is losing 
middle-class jobs can only hurt families and our economy. We need to 
strengthen America's social safety net so that temporary economic 
setbacks don't spiral and trap families in inescapable poverty.
  We need to invest in infrastructure.
  And we need to restore the ability of working people to choose to 
join or form a union so that they can bargain collectively for fair 
wages and safe working conditions. Labor and management, working 
together, built the American middle class. Labor and management, 
working together, can help to restore and grow America's middle class.
  Years ago, Bobby Kennedy said that America's gross national product 
measures a seemingly endless variety of commercial transactions. But, 
he said, the gross national product does not measure many other things, 
such as ``the health of our children.''

       It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our 
     wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our 
     devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, 
     except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us 
     everything about America except why we are proud that we are 
     Americans.

  For 40 years, a series of political and economic choices has widened 
economic inequality in America. Those choices have hurt many families. 
They have made our economy less fair, less stable, and less prosperous. 
And they have hammered away at one of the promises that made us most 
proud to be Americans: the promise that if you work hard, you can make 
a better life for yourself and your family. This budget will help us 
redeem that promise and reclaim that pride. I ask my fellow Senators to 
vote with us for economic fairness and shared prosperity.
  After we pass this budget, after we get our appropriation bills 
underway, we are going to come forward and--I hope in a bipartisan 
manner--address some of these pillars of income equality in America: an 
increase in the minimum wage, an opportunity to make sure through the 
Affordable Care Act that every family has an opportunity for health 
insurance in America, a press conference which I will have later today 
with Senators Warren and Reid on the whole student loan debt crisis 
facing so many families. We have reached a point now where the student 
loan debt in America is greater than the credit card debt. It has 
devastating impacts on working families across America.
  These and so many others should be part of an agenda to repair the 
opportunity deficit, and I hope Republicans will join us in a 
bipartisan effort.
  I yield the floor.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I am going to proceed on my leader 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The leader has that right.


                      Pikeville Listening Session

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I rise to give voice to the people of 
eastern Kentucky who are hurting due to this administration's war on 
coal.
  Recently, I traveled to Pikeville, KY, in the central Appalachian 
coal fields to hear firsthand from coal miners, their families, those 
in the energy industry, and others about how their

[[Page 19290]]

communities are being ravaged by EPA's excessive, overly burdensome 
regulations on coal.
  The EPA didn't want to listen to these folks. I tried to get the EPA 
to have a hearing in eastern Kentucky, and they refused. So I did it. I 
held this listening session to put a human face on the suffering that 
is being felt in Appalachia due in large part to this administration's 
war on coal. I want to share with my colleagues just a little bit of 
what I heard in that listening session down in Pikeville a few days 
ago.
  This is a picture of Howard Abshire. He is a former production 
foreman and a fourth-generation coal miner. In the audience during his 
testimony was his son right behind him, right here, Griffin. He is a 
fifth-generation coal miner. What the father and son have in common is 
they are both out of work. Both the father and the son are 2 of over 
5,000 Kentuckians who have lost their jobs in the war on coal--two of 
the casualties of the President's war on coal, Howard and Griffin, out 
of work.
  Howard is holding up a piece of coal in his left hand. Coal mining is 
what the EPA wants to stamp out, but coal is also the powerful 
substance which powers our homes, provides light and heat and fuels the 
commerce of goods and services worldwide.
  ``This is coal,'' he said. ``This keeps the lights on.'' Howard is 
only one of many coal miners laid off for lack of coal mining work. 
This is what he said:

       Look in our schools. Look in our nursing homes. Look in our 
     pharmacies. We're hurting.
       We need help. We don't want to be bailed out. We want to 
     work.

  Howard doesn't want to be bailed out. He wants to work.
  Seated next to Howard is Jimmy Rose. Jimmy Rose is a veteran. He 
fought in Iraq. He is a former coal miner. Jimmy was perhaps the most 
famous attendee at the listening session because he brought attention 
to the war on coal to a national television audience on ``America's Got 
Talent.'' Jimmy is a songwriter and singer. He used his song ``Coal 
Keeps the Lights On'' in his competition in ``America's Got Talent,'' 
and it spoke directly to the hardship in his community caused largely 
by the war on coal. This is Jimmy Rose right here, and here is what he 
had to say:

       It's in our heritage, it's in our blood.

  Addressing the Obama administration, Jimmy said:

       Look at what you're doing, and who you're affecting . . . 
     Coal mining is a way of life, just like I say in the song. 
     Don't kill our way of life. I hope one day I can always say 
     coal kept the lights on.

  I also heard from Monty Boyd, the owner of Whayne Supply Company and 
Walker Machinery, mining and construction equipment distributors that 
serve Kentucky, Indiana, West Virginia, and Ohio. The companies employ 
1,900 people and operates 25 stores.
  Whayne Supply this year celebrated 100 years of operation. Yet this 
is what Monty had to say:

       At a time when I should be excited about our future, I am 
     full of concern and uncertainty because our future outlook is 
     bleak due to the regulatory ambush on the coal industry by 
     the EPA.

  He went on to say:

       Coal in Kentucky is more than just mining. It is the 
     driving force that keeps our energy rates affordable, keeps 
     our manufacturing sector competitive, and is the economic 
     life blood of eastern Kentucky.

  Monty went on:

       I am disheartened to continually see the federal government 
     and the EPA take such an anti-business stance that destroys 
     an industry that is vital to our regional economy. The 
     federal government appears to be choosing the winners and 
     losers in regard to the energy sector of America.

  Those are strong words from someone with a good perspective on 
Kentucky's coal industry.
  I also heard from Anita Miller, over here in the photograph. She is a 
manager of safety for Apollo Fuels in my State. She has worked in the 
industry for more than 15 years. Here is what Anita had to say:

       My son walked earlier than my daughter . . . every time she 
     would try to stand up, he would either knock her down, or put 
     his hand on her head so she couldn't stand. This is what is 
     happening to the coal industry.

  Anita went on to say:

       Every time we try to stand up for ourselves, someone either 
     knocks or holds us down. . . . You can't really buy anything 
     or make plans for the future because you don't know what the 
     future holds.
       My wish is that the people who are trying so hard to 
     destroy the coal industry would just stop for a minute and 
     think about the hot showers they take, the lights they turn 
     on, and that first hot cup of coffee in the morning, and 
     remember that it came from electricity powered by coal.

  I couldn't agree more with what Anita says. It is apparently too easy 
for EPA bureaucrats and the Obama administration to make decisions that 
have a huge impact on the people of eastern Kentucky. They don't think 
about the consequences and, I might add, without bothering to meet face 
to face with the people they hurt.
  The EPA schedules listening sessions for its new regulations only in 
cities far away from coal country, both geographically and 
philosophically; cities including New York, Boston, Seattle, and San 
Francisco. They held 11 listening sessions in all, but the closest one 
to eastern Kentucky was in Atlanta, requiring Kentuckians to make a 14-
hour round-trip drive simply to attend. So it is pretty clear from the 
location of all these listening sessions the EPA did not want any real 
input.
  That is why I convened a listening session in Pikeville that resulted 
in the powerful testimony I have shared with my colleagues today. Since 
the Obama EPA would not come to Kentucky, I brought the voices of 
Kentuckians to EPA. We held three panels composed of those in the coal 
industry, miners and their families, and local elected officials to 
illuminate the disruption in these communities caused in large part by 
the war on coal. Many of my constituents filled out comment cards and 
my office delivered them yesterday to the EPA, along with the hearing 
testimony.
  I want to leave my colleagues with the comments of one Kentuckian, 
Justine Bradford, who is a retired teacher in Pikeville. Here is what 
Justine wrote:

       Dear EPA, will you please tell Santa Claus all we want for 
     Christmas this year is to be able to work.

  This is Justine Bradford: Tell EPA to tell Santa all we want for 
Christmas this year is to be able to work.

       Here in eastern Kentucky we, too, are real people. Please 
     help us find a job. Come and walk in our shoes.

  The people of eastern Kentucky believe in coal, and with good reason. 
The abundance of coal in America and in Kentucky in particular is a 
God-given resource. For decades it has powered our factories, 
transported our goods, and warmed our homes.
  Yes, the blessings of coal come with the responsibility to use it in 
an environmentally friendly way. But they also come with the 
responsibility to see that hard-working Kentuckians who rely on coal 
for an honest day's work and steady pay are given every chance to earn 
that. And they come with the right of all Americans to take full 
advantage of this God-given domestic resource to produce clean, cheap, 
and safe energy.
  These things have been true for many decades. There is no reason they 
should not still hold true now. Eastern Kentucky must look for some 
economic opportunities beyond coal, and I support that, and I know the 
people of the region can accomplish greatness. It is vital that we 
consider eastern Kentucky's future. But let me make this point: It is 
equally vital that we not give up on eastern Kentucky's present. As we 
consider eastern Kentucky's future it is important that we not give up 
on eastern Kentucky's present, and coal is the key to the present in 
eastern Kentucky.
  The Obama EPA has the testimony I heard in Pikeville. Whether they 
want it or not, they have it. Eastern Kentucky is going to continue to 
push back in this war on coal. The war is not over yet, not by a long 
shot. This President will be gone in 3 years and the coal will still be 
in the ground. The people of the region are resilient and they will 
keep fighting.
  I am very hopeful for a positive outcome in eastern Kentucky and the 
Appalachian region and I am going to defend them in every way I can.

[[Page 19291]]




                                  NDAA

  Madam President, the National Defense Authorization act is one of the 
essential pieces of legislation the Senate considers every year. This 
is legislation, obviously, that authorizes funding for our troops and 
the equipment and the support they need to carry out their mission. 
This is legislation that--along with the funding that follows in the 
appropriations bill--puts muscle behind America's most important 
strategic objectives across the globe.
  Yet, under the Democratic majority, this bill has basically 
languished since last summer. About 6 months--6 months--have elapsed 
since the Armed Services Committee first reported the bill out of 
committee. Now, with just days to go before Christmas, after wasting 
valuable time ramming through political appointee after political 
appointee, the majority wants to rush this crucial legislation through 
without the debate it deserves. They want to push it through the Senate 
without even giving the minority the ability to offer more than a 
single amendment--just one.
  To give some perspective, 381 amendments were proposed to this bill 
last year. We agreed on 142 of them. The year before that, hundreds 
were again proposed and many were agreed to. That is the way the Senate 
used to operate.
  Keep in mind that all this follows right on the heels of the 
Democrats' ``nuclear'' power grab just a few weeks back. So this is 
what has become of the Senate under the current Democratic majority--
rules and traditions of the Senate that have served us well for years 
are broken or ignored in the interests of a short-term power grab. Some 
of the most important legislation that we consider as a body is rushed 
through at the last minute without any real opportunity for debate or 
amendment.
  As some have suggested, the Senate has become a lot like the House 
under the current Democratic leadership. From the standpoint of the 
minority, it is actually a lot worse. Committee chairmen have been cut 
out of the process. Senators who thought they would have an opportunity 
to legislate have been told they are basically irrelevant, and 
evidently so are the rules. Senate rules are now just as optional to 
Washington Democrats as the ObamaCare mandates they decide they do not 
like--the Senate rules are just as optional as the ObamaCare mandates 
they decide they do not like--all of which obviously makes a mockery of 
our institutions and our laws, and all of which suggests this is a 
majority that has zero confidence in its own ideas. This is a majority 
that cannot allow the minority to have a meaningful say when it comes 
to nominees. This is a majority that will not allow Members to offer 
amendments when it counts.
  Why? Because of a fear that the minority might actually win the 
argument and carry the day. That is exactly what we are seeing with the 
NDAA. The majority leader will not allow a robust amendment process 
because he cannot stomach a vote on Iran sanctions. He knows the 
administration would lose that vote decisively, and he knows that many 
members of his own caucus would vote alongside the Republicans to 
strengthen those sanctions. So, rather than allow a Democratic vote 
that might embarrass the administration, the majority leader simply 
will not permit that vote to happen.
  Here is another consequence. By denying the Senate the ability to 
legislate, debate, and amend the National Defense Authorization Act, 
the Defense Appropriations Act and additional Iran sanctions, and by 
refusing the Senate the ability to vote on the authorization for the 
use of force against Syria, the majority leader has abdicated this 
Chamber's constitutional role in shaping and overseeing national 
security policy.
  Without considering these matters, the Senate has been unable to 
address the programs, policies, and weapons systems necessary to make 
the President's strategic pivot to the Asia-Pacific theater real. Are 
the programs in place adequate to address China's aggressive 
encroachment upon the territorial and navigational rights of other 
nations in the region? Through defense legislation have we considered 
the necessary tradeoffs to fund adequate force structure--have we done 
that? Can we execute this pivot and maintain adequate force structure 
in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean? We will not have any of that 
debate--no debate at all.
  We have been denied the opportunity to consider additional Iran 
sanctions. Despite the assertions of the administration that it has 
worked with Congress to craft the current sanctions regime, each time 
sanctions have been enacted during the Obama administration these bills 
have basically been forced upon the President. He did not want any of 
them. Despite the fact that the administration concedes that sanctions 
have brought the Iranians to the negotiating table, it is actively 
working to forestall additional sanctions tied to the verification of 
the interim agreement.
  The Senate should not be denied a vote concerning Iran. The President 
retains the power to veto anything we pass. What are our policies 
preventing the ungoverned portions of Syria from becoming a terrorist 
safe haven? Unfortunately, we will not be having that debate this 
session of Congress. What is our policy on capturing, interrogating, 
and detaining terrorists? And if we had a coherent policy, would it 
survive after we draw down our forces in Afghanistan? We will not have 
a chance to have that debate either.
  This is not simply a matter of denying the minority a voice in 
shaping foreign policy; it is an erosion of the responsibility of the 
Senate. We have given President Obama a free rein in shaping these 
matters, and our allies in Asia and the Arab world are now questioning 
our commitment to remaining forward deployed and combat ready.
  More importantly, the courageous men and women who defend us every 
day should not have to suffer from these tactics.
  Still, despite the egregious abuses we are seeing here of the 
legislative process, the underlying bill is an important bill. It 
contains the authorization needed for key military construction 
projects on our military bases, for multiyear procurement that is more 
efficient--that actually saves taxpayers money--and for the combat pay 
and special pay our troops deserve. It also, fortunately, extends the 
prohibition on bringing Guantanamo Bay prisoners into the United 
States, a provision that I and many other Americans strongly support. 
It also authorizes funding for the next generation of aircraft 
carriers, something central to the success of the President's pivot to 
the Asian theater, something I mentioned earlier.
  In short, there are a lot of good things in this bill, even if the 
process that got us here was completely unacceptable.
  Let me be clear: The bill before us would be markedly improved if 
Senators were allowed to offer amendments and more than just a day or 
two to debate them. The Democrats who run the Senate need to think hard 
about what they are doing. This is just about the only regular order 
legislation we ever consider anymore. It is one of the only chances 
Senators can count on to offer important amendments. Now the Senate 
Democratic majority is even trying to shut that down too. We do not 
even do Defense authorization anymore, open to amendment.
  I remind my colleagues on the other side, one day they will find 
themselves in the minority again. One never knows how soon that might 
occur. They should think long and hard about what they are doing to 
this institution, because the Senate is bigger than any one party or 
presidential administration.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, 
Senator Blunt, Senator Blumenthal, and soon to be joining us Senator 
Graham, to speak about our Cybersecurity Public Awareness Act of 2013.
  It is now broadly accepted in this body that the cyber threat posed 
by criminals, foreign intelligence, and military services, and even 
terrorists, is enormous and unrelenting. But useful information about 
cyber attacks

[[Page 19292]]

and cyber risks still is not consistently available to consumers, to 
businesses or to policymakers.
  The legislation the four of us have introduced, the Cybersecurity 
Public Awareness Act, is an important first step toward fixing this 
problem.
  Senator Blunt has earned a reputation for working with colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle, particularly on issues of national security. I 
was very glad to have the opportunity to work with him last year as 
part of a bipartisan group of Senators seeking a sensible middle ground 
on cybersecurity legislation. He has brought his keen understanding of 
national security issues to bear on this important problem, as well as 
his expertise on public and private collaboration. So I thank the good 
Senator from Missouri for the opportunity to work together.
  Likewise, Senator Graham, as my colleagues know, has a long track 
record of bipartisan legislative accomplishments and a passion for 
issues of national security. On our Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on 
Crime and Terrorism, where together we are the chair and ranking 
member, Senator Graham has been a worthy partner in our work to improve 
America's cyber readiness, including our readiness against economic 
espionage and trade secret threat. I thank Senator Graham for his 
continuing leadership and partnership as we introduce this bill to 
improve public awareness of the cyber threats facing our country.
  I am pleased also to be joined by my colleague Senator Blumenthal. We 
were attorneys general together. We serve on the Judiciary Committee 
together. We are northeasterners together. I know he brings to this 
Chamber a deep understanding of the tools at the disposal of law 
enforcement, as well as the challenges of adapting to a swiftly 
evolving threat.
  Americans' privacy is routinely violated by criminals who steal 
credit card information and Social Security numbers or even spy on us 
through the webcams of our personal computers. Bank accounts and 
businesses, local governments and individuals have been emptied 
overnight. Sensitive government networks have been compromised. The 
networks that run our critical infrastructure, the basics we depend on 
for heat, for communications, for commerce, have been compromised, 
raising the prospect of a cyber attack that could bring down a portion 
of the electric grid or disrupt our financial system.
  Even our Nation's long-term economic competitiveness is at risk. 
General Keith Alexander, the head of the National Security Agency and 
Cyber Command, has said, for example, that the theft of trade secrets 
through cyber hacks has put us on the losing end of the largest illicit 
transfer of wealth in history. Yet most Americans are still unaware of 
the full extent of this threat.
  Why? Cyber threat information is often classified when it is gathered 
by the government or is held as proprietary when collected by a company 
that has been attacked. As a result, Americans are left in the dark 
about the frequency, extent, and intensity of these attacks. Raising 
awareness of cyber threats is an important element of Congress's work 
to improve our Nation's cybersecurity.
  The Cybersecurity Public Awareness Act of 2013 takes up that 
challenge. Building on legislation I previously introduced with Senator 
John Kyl, it will increase public awareness of the cyber threats 
against our Nation and do so in a matter that protects classified, 
business-sensitive, and proprietary information.
  The bill addresses several different elements of the cybersecurity 
awareness gap. It enhances public awareness of attacks on Federal 
networks by requiring that the Department of Homeland Security and the 
Department of Defense report to Congress on cyber incidents in the 
``.gov'' and ``.mil'' domains. As we work to protect the American 
people from cyber attacks, we must first understand the nature of 
attacks on our own systems and what we can do to ensure that those 
attacks are not successful.
  The bill tasks the Department of Justice and the FBI to report to 
Congress on their investigations and prosecutions of cyber intrusions, 
computer or network compromise, or other forms of illegal hacking. 
Those reports also must detail the resources they devote to fighting 
cyber crime and any legal impediments they find that frustrate 
prosecutions of cyber criminals. It is not enough just to try to stop 
hackers when they are coming after us; we must also identify and 
prosecute the people responsible for cyber crimes wherever they may be.
  In addition, the bill requires the Securities and Exchange Commission 
to report to Congress on the corporate reporting of cyber risks and 
cyber incidents in the financial statements of publicly traded 
companies. The purpose of this requirement is to make sure American 
businesses are adequately informing their shareholders of any material 
information shareholders should know relating to cybersecurity.
  Last, the bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to report 
to Congress on the vulnerabilities to cyber threats in each critical 
infrastructure sector: the electric grid, the gas and oil markets, the 
banking sector, and others. When it comes to protecting our critical 
infrastructure from cyber attacks, there is no margin of error. Failure 
in this area could mean a blackout in a major American city or a 
serious disruption of the banking system on which our economy depends. 
That is why we must fully understand the threats to these sectors and 
do what we can to stop them.
  These are ways in which the Cybersecurity Public Awareness Act will 
help to better inform the American people about the nature of the cyber 
threats we face and help us in Congress make the informed decisions 
about how to better protect against these threats.
  We have more work to do to improve our Nation's cybersecurity, but a 
key first step is to ensure that members of the public, businesses, 
shareholders, policymakers, and other cybersecurity stakeholders have 
an appropriate awareness of cyber vulnerabilities, threats, and 
opportunities. I look forward to working with Senator Blunt, with 
Senator Graham, and with Senator Blumenthal to get this bill passed 
into law, and I thank them each for their helpful cooperation and their 
insight.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I will follow up on what Senator Whitehouse 
has been talking about. Last year he and I tried to find the middle 
ground on this issue where Members of the Senate and the House would be 
willing to move forward together to try to deal with it. Largely, the 
potential damage and the potential danger of what the cyber threat 
means are both unknown and, if we do know about it, we don't quite 
understand what we could do about it or should do about it. So we are 
coming together here with Senator Blumenthal and Senator Graham to try 
to do what we can to have more information available as we move 
forward.
  There is no question that cyber breaches are serious. There is no 
question that they are a growing threat to our country's security. In 
my view, there is no question that it is our greatest vulnerability and 
a threat we might not see coming if we don't do the right things, 
particularly as it might relate to the critical infrastructure outside 
of what the government monitors. Cyber attacks by criminals, foreign 
intelligence, military service, and terrorists have increased in 
frequency and increased in what we see as the sophistication of those 
attacks. These are very dangerous for our country. They are certainly 
potentially dangerous in terms of the financial infrastructure, the 
critical infrastructure, the ability to defend the country. These 
incursions have already resulted in billions of dollars of lost 
intellectual property, millions of Americans have had their identities 
stolen, increased vulnerability to our critical infrastructure that is 
now so dependent on the cyber network for it to function. Also,

[[Page 19293]]

of course, what happens to that infrastructure, whether it is the 
transportation infrastructure or the energy infrastructure or the 
utility infrastructure if they are compromised, and we don't know where 
that attack is coming from or how to meet it or how to prevent it, that 
is what we are trying to talk about in this legislation and trying to 
deal with.
  As early as 2007, cyber intrusions into the U.S. Government agencies 
and departments resulted in the loss of data that would be equal to 
everything across the street in the Library of Congress. Walk through 
the Library of Congress. Look at everything that is there. We have lost 
that much government data since 2007. At the same time, reliable 
information about cyber attacks and about cyber risks remain largely 
unavailable to consumers, unavailable to businesses, and unavailable to 
policymakers. Threat information affecting, as my friend from Rhode 
Island said, ``.gov'' and ``.mil''--the military side of what we do in 
the government and the nonmilitary side of what we do in the 
government--is largely classified. So we, frankly, don't have much 
information about what they are doing every day, what they are fighting 
every day, and what the increased threat may be.
  There are other entities people may be familiar with, such as 
``.com,'' ``.net,'' and ``.org,'' domains that withhold information 
from the public because they don't want to needlessly concern their 
customers with using what is available or, in some cases, impact 
stockholders, if the stockholders knew how vulnerable a particular 
network might be. So I am glad we are working together to try to make 
this legislation, the Cybersecurity Public Awareness Act of 2013, just 
that.
  The two key words here are ``public awareness.'' We have looked at 
this long and hard to figure out where the path is that we can move 
forward on, not just to introduce a piece of legislation but a piece of 
legislation that our colleagues would respond to, a piece of 
legislation our colleagues will look at and say: Of course, we need to 
know more than we know now about this and, through us, the people we 
work for need to know more. This gives us a greater understanding of 
the number of threats and the tools available to repeal those threats 
without needlessly compromising any of those tools that would be 
available to repel threats.
  This bill works to provide public awareness of the danger of cyber 
attacks in our government and in private sector networks. It does that 
by instituting new reporting requirements for Federal agencies charged 
with monitoring and responding to cyber threats. Specifically, the bill 
would require national security and law enforcement agencies, including 
the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, and the 
Department of Justice, to submit reports to the Congress on what the 
attacks were on the Federal network and what the level of 
investigations are of cyber crime. What other obstacles are out there 
to appropriate public awareness of what they put on the Internet, how 
they put it on the Internet, how vulnerable we may be to things that 
happen now that manage so many of the daily aspects of our lives in the 
cyber world, and what we are doing about it. We want to know what the 
cybersecurity threats are, and we want to create an understanding so 
that there is a way to respond, so there is a way to share information, 
and so there is a way to make this work better.
  This bill includes provisions to enhance awareness of threats against 
our critical infrastructure. As I have said before, the critical 
infrastructure, whether it is financial, utility infrastructure or 
transportation infrastructure, all are things that now are so woven 
into the cyber networks that the ability to suddenly manipulate, the 
ability to infiltrate, is all there, and we want to be sure we are 
looking at those threats in the right way. It is clearly complex. There 
is somebody out there right now thinking about things that we wouldn't 
want them to think about as to how they can manipulate and use these 
networks in dangerous ways.
  It is complex, and it is critical to our national security 
challenges. Our response cannot and should not be to break down on 
partisan lines. It should not be a response that we decide we can't do 
anything because we can't figure out how to work together.
  Again, I am pleased to be working with my colleagues on this issue. 
Senator Blumenthal and Senator Whitehouse both have backgrounds as 
attorneys general of their States and understand the importance of both 
honoring and enforcing the law and protecting us in this new area of 
vulnerability.
  We can't prevent cybersecurity threats, but we can respond to those 
threats; however, in my view, we can't really respond to those 
threats--and in the view of I think everybody who will be speaking 
about this issue today--without public support. Having more information 
will make a difference. Understanding how big this problem is will make 
a difference. Working together to try to solve it is absolutely 
essential. I believe this is our greatest vulnerability as a society, 
and it is a vulnerability that will increase over time or decrease over 
time, and that largely is up to how we deal with it.
  Again, I am glad to join my colleagues, and I look forward to hearing 
what Senator Blumenthal has to say about this, and I appreciate the 
important background he brings to this debate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I am pleased and honored to join my 
colleagues this morning, Senators Blunt, Whitehouse, and Graham. They 
have been leaders on issues involving national security and defense and 
particularly in the intelligence and cyber area.
  Senator Blunt has a long record of bipartisan leadership in this 
body, as well as in the House of Representatives and in government 
generally, in addressing issues without regard to partisan 
predilections or biases. He has not only led but produced results.
  Senator Whitehouse has tirelessly pursued this area of cybersecurity. 
To his great credit, he has been with the movement for making our 
Nation more secure and also making the public more aware about the need 
for action in this area.
  In truth, there is a saying that ignorance is bliss, but in truth, in 
areas of national security, that is rarely the case. In this instance, 
ignorance can do great harm and it is a source of peril. Our Nation is 
largely ignorant about the threats posed by national security and, more 
importantly, about the potential responses that must be mobilized to 
secure our infrastructure, our critical innovative information, and 
many other areas where we are at risk from a diverse source of threats. 
It is not only foreign governments, such as China; it is teenage 
hackers in eastern European countries, it is terrorists around the 
world who mean to do us harm and put their own movements at an 
advantage, and it is also competitors in the private world who seek 
competitive advantage against our own private enterprise companies that 
have intellectual information and assets. As a result of these cyber 
attacks, intellectual property is lost, identities are stolen, and 
America is made less safe.
  Every day, the United States is under attack--literally every minute 
of every day--by individuals wishing to steal sensitive information 
from our government, from our Department of Defense, and from corporate 
information systems as well as home networks of individual Internet 
users. The cyber threat has become almost conventional wisdom in some 
quarters because we know that our military and intelligence communities 
are certain that this threat must be met. In fact, the next Pearl 
Harbor will come not from the sky but from a computer network that 
links to essential sources of intellectual assets and information in 
this country and degrades or, in fact, destroys them.
  Senator Whitehouse and I, along with Senators Graham and Blunt, have 
introduced legislation that would institute new reporting requirements. 
These requirements apply to Federal agencies charged with reviewing and 
responding to cyber attacks. In effect, the Federal Government would 
lead by example. Leadership is important not

[[Page 19294]]

only for State and local governments but also for the private sector. 
The legislation would help us better protect our country from hackers 
wishing to do harm, and it is based on the simple premise that we need 
to know about the threats we face.
  The President has taken action--and I credit him--with the Executive 
order he has instituted, but that Executive order leaves great gaps. 
The legislation introduced by Senator Whitehouse and me--along with 
Senators Graham and Blunt--will institute new reporting requirements to 
us by our Federal agencies. This bill will require that information to 
be submitted from a variety of agencies, such as the Department of 
Homeland Security, the Justice Department, the FBI, and--in my view, 
most critically of all--the Securities and Exchange Commission.
  Most Americans have very little idea about what the Securities and 
Exchange Commission collects by way of information, but, in fact, it is 
a treasure trove, a panorama and window into the workings of corporate 
America. Very importantly in this area, they can tell us what 
corporations--big and small around the country--are doing to protect 
themselves. It can tell shareholders what they should know. The 
shareholders, after all, are the owners of these companies, and they 
will ultimately bear the financial burden of failures by corporate 
America if they fail in their duties to protect their critical 
infrastructure.
  Not only are shareholders affected but neighbors living near 
powerplants, as well as customers--banking customers, for example, 
whose critical financial information is entrusted to financial 
institutions. A vast variety of clients, customers, owners, and others 
affected by these corporations have a right to know from the Securities 
and Exchange Commission what is being done to protect against cyber 
attacks.
  Senator Whitehouse and Senator Blunt have described in very powerful 
terms the advantages of this legislation, but let me say that equally 
important is what it does not do. We need to be mindful that 90 percent 
of our Nation's critical infrastructure--that is right, 90 percent of 
it--is owned by private companies, and those private entities have a 
responsibility to our Nation to ensure that their security standards 
meet the task of fending off cyber attacks.
  This legislation should not be the only action Congress takes. In 
fact, Senator Rockefeller has championed legislation that is essential, 
and I am proud to be a supporter of it. I supported it in the Commerce 
Committee, and I am very grateful to him for allowing me to partner 
with him in helping to move it to the floor of the Senate.
  This legislation is a very strong complement and supplement to that 
measure. In fact, that measure would require industry-driven voluntary 
cybersecurity standards for critical infrastructure. It would 
strengthen cyber research and development. It would improve the cyber 
workforce through development and education. It would increase public 
awareness of cyber risks and cybersecurity. I think the measure 
approved by the Commerce Committee is vital, and this measure very 
appropriately complements it.
  America can't fully address a threat that it doesn't fully 
understand, and this legislation that Senator Whitehouse, Senator 
Blunt, Senator Graham, and I have introduced would increase public 
understanding of an issue critical not only to the Federal Government 
but to all the American people, and it would ensure that Americans know 
how they are safer or less safe as a result of the extraordinarily 
dangerous menace posed by a potential cyber attack.
  I will yield the floor with a question to Senator Whitehouse 
regarding the Executive order issued by the President and ask, in light 
of that Executive order, does Senator Whitehouse still feel this 
legislation will perform a service to protect our Nation?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank Senator Blumenthal for that question, and I 
thank him for his work in this area. For some time he, Senator Graham, 
Senator Blunt, and I were part of a group that tried to pull together a 
bipartisan compromise, a meaningful piece of cybersecurity legislation, 
which, unfortunately, failed at the last minute.
  As a result of that failure, the President began a process by 
Executive order for bringing together the various private sector 
industries in this country whose operations qualify as critical 
infrastructure, and that provide the basics for your lives--the basic 
heat, electricity, financial services, and communications on which 
modern, civilized life depends. From all the reports I have heard--and 
I have looked at it very closely--that process is actually going very 
smoothly. As a result, the administration is comfortable with deferring 
legislative activity in that area--in the area of trying to regulate 
and improve the cybersecurity of our critical infrastructure.
  We are holding off for the time being on that, but the area of public 
awareness is still wide open. Legislative authorities are required--not 
just Executive order authorities--in many of these areas, particularly 
for organizations, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, 
which is largely independent of direct Presidential control, because 
they are independent agencies under our constitutional system.
  This bill would not interfere with what is going on under the 
authority of the Executive order. It is something we can do in a 
bipartisan way in the meantime while the Executive order process goes 
forward.
  I believe it will be very productive because, as Senator Blumenthal 
and Senator Blunt have noted, we are a better country and more 
effective legislators in the Senate when the public knows what is going 
on and has had a chance to engage on an issue. For that to happen, the 
public needs the information, and for the public to get that 
information, they need to have it collected by these different agencies 
and presented to them. We can't expect an average American citizen to 
go out and try to do this research on their own if it has not been 
gathered anywhere.
  I appreciate the question. I think what we are doing will be both 
very productive and consistent with what the President has done under 
his Executive order. I applaud him for picking up the baton after we 
failed in Congress. Certainly, that failure had nothing to do with the 
energy and determination to get something done on this issue with 
Senator Graham, who has joined us on the floor.
  I will yield the floor so Senator Graham can offer his thoughts.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank my colleague very much.
  My first thought is that America is not nearly as aware as we should 
be about the threats of a cyber attack that could come from a terrorist 
organization, a nation state, or a criminal enterprise. We are a week 
before Christmas. We are going to be debating about how to deal with 
the NSA program and reforms that make it more acceptable to the 
American people.
  I wish to lend my voice to the three Senators who have already spoken 
and, quite frankly, are far more knowledgeable about the technological 
aspects of this.
  But when I look out over the next decade and I try to figure, Where 
are the threats against the American people coming from--well, first it 
is our debt problem, but we are not going to get into that today--when 
you look outside for foreign threats, obviously, radical Islam presents 
a threat to us all--just remember 9/11--but this emerging cyber threat 
really just scares the hell out of me. The FBI, the military, the CIA 
are telling us daily how the threat is growing.
  The Congress could not get there, so the President had to take over 
by executive order. We had a couple good bipartisan proposals, 
legislative changes. Senator Whitehouse's idea of incentivizing the 
private sector, creating a fort cyber where you will get rewarded, 
there will be no limited liability if you harden your infrastructure in 
the energy sector and other important financial sectors. Rewarding 
people for upgrading their systems to harden them against terrorist 
attack or criminal activity I think is a smart

[[Page 19295]]

way to go. It is a complicated area of the economy and a complicated 
potential enemy to deal with, but this legislation I think is a good 
starting point.
  I compliment Senator Whitehouse, who has been really helpful. Senator 
Blunt on the Republican side has been our leading voice, along with 
Senator Chambliss, to try to bring awareness to the body. Senator 
Blumenthal, as a former attorney general, understands very much the 
threats we face from a criminal enterprise, but he has also been very 
good on national security.
  So a week before Christmas in 2013 we are trying to raise awareness 
because I am afraid if we do not get our house in order against cyber 
attacks, sooner rather than later, we will all regret it.
  Thank you for allowing me to be part of this effort.
  I yield.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I want to conclude our comments--at least 
my comments here--by saying we all believe that greater awareness of 
the size of this problem and the effort that is being made every day to 
deal with it will create an important set of information as we move 
forward.
  This is a piece of legislation that is really focused on providing 
information, not in enough detail to weaken our efforts but enough 
information so people know this is not a casual conversation, that the 
cyber threat is real, that we are responding to it all the time, and, 
frankly, Members of Congress need to have even more information than we 
have on how much intensity, how much time, how much response is being 
made.
  I say to Senator Whitehouse, thanks for bringing us together.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, let me conclude for our side with the 
observation that in this season of peace and reconciliation, perhaps 
this is an issue where a little peace and reconciliation, a little zone 
of peace and reconciliation can emerge through all of our partisan 
rancor so we can go forward and do something that will indeed protect 
this country that we love.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I offer my own concluding remarks by 
saying that Senator Whitehouse earlier referred to our failure. He 
characterized it as a failure to accomplish legislation during the last 
session of Congress. Senators Blunt and Graham were very instrumental 
in that effort, and I was proud to work with them. But that failure had 
consequences in alerting the executive branch and galvanizing their 
will to act. So I would not say it was completely without consequence 
or benefit.
  I hope we will actually be successful during this session in passing 
legislation that is so important to moving the Federal Government even 
further in a direction where it should be going.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield for a 
question, I might inquire of him whether it is his view that if you 
actually take a look at what is being done by the administration under 
the executive order, it bears a considerable resemblance to the 
proposal we had worked on?
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I thank Senator Whitehouse for that question. I would 
observe, in fact, that the executive branch, very importantly, followed 
a number of the leading ideas Senator Whitehouse and our group 
fashioned. Of course, we take no pride of authorship or ownership in 
those ideas, and many of them came from some of the best minds in the 
administration, who are, in fact, thinking seriously about this 
problem.
  So I think it really has to be a partnership--not only a bipartisan 
partnership in the Senate and the Congress, but also a partnership 
between the executive and legislative branches.
  I conclude with this thought: In many of the briefings we had as 
Senators, off the record or classified, I was struck by how horrified 
and at least alarmed most Americans would be if they heard some of the 
stories of how close America has come to the next Pearl Harbor, how 
close we have come to cyber catastrophe, and how vulnerable the Nation 
still is, despite the growing awareness in both the corporate and 
military sectors of our country about this threat.
  So when we talk about creating awareness, we are talking literally 
about spreading information that is vital for Americans to know.
  I will close with the thought that I hope the leaders of this country 
who have control over classifying information would seek ways to inform 
the American public about the risks and the dangers posed from cyber 
attack.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask if the chairperson of the Budget 
Committee will engage in a brief dialogue, colloquy.
  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. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN. Madam President, I would ask my friend, the chairperson 
of the Budget Committee, who has done extremely hard work on the budget 
agreement, is the Senator aware that under the Simpson-Bowles plan--
which was embraced by many, many Members of this body, including on 
this side, including on the other side, including those who have now 
announced their opposition to the agreement, the Ryan-Murray budget--
that the Simpson-Bowles plan recommends scrapping COLAs, cost-of-living 
adjustments, entirely? It not just cuts them, but the Simpson-Bowles 
plan--I wonder if the chairperson knows--eliminates COLAs entirely for 
working age military retirees?
  The Simpson-Bowles plan, which was so embraced and everybody thought 
was the greatest thing since sliced bread, said:

       Defer Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for retirees in the 
     current system until age 62, including for civilian and 
     military retirees who retire well before a conventional 
     retirement age. In place of annual increases, provide a one-
     time catch-up adjustment at age 62 to increase the benefit to 
     the amount that would have been payable had full COLAS been 
     in effect.

  So basically what Simpson-Bowles recommended was scrapping the cost-
of-living adjustment for working age military retirees. Please correct 
me if I am wrong, but the provision in the Senator's bill is a 1-
percent reduction--far, far less than scrapping it entirely, as 
Simpson-Bowles recommended.
  I would ask again, where was the outrage, to quote my old friend Bob 
Dole, where was the outrage when this provision in Simpson-Bowles was 
included, which would have scrapped it completely? It was not through 
the Armed Services Committee. It was the Simpson-Bowles plan, which was 
a commission. I would ask the distinguished chairperson.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the Senator from Arizona is correct. 
The Simpson-Bowles Commission, in their report, asked for an 
elimination of the entire COLA, as the Senator outlined in his opening 
remarks today. The budget bill before us took a different approach, and 
I appreciate the Senator reminding all of us that is out there.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, could I ask the chairperson, is it not 
true that what you have proposed is 1-percentage point for military 
retirees--to reduce the annual cost-of-living adjustment by 1 
percentage point for military retirees--which means, according to House 
Budget Committee staff: A person who enlisted at age 18 and retired at 
38 as a sergeant first class in the Army would see approximately a 6-
percent overall reduction in lifetime pay because of the COLA 
reduction; that is, that person would receive about $1.626 million in 
lifetime retirement pay instead of $1.734 million.

[[Page 19296]]

  So that is as compared to what Simpson-Bowles envisioned: complete 
elimination, as opposed to this 1-percent reduction.
  I would also ask, again, to the chairperson of the Budget Committee, 
is it not true that this cost-of-living adjustment reduction, the 1 
percent, does not kick in until 2015, the end of 2015? And is it not 
true that Senator Levin, and I, and all others, have committed to 
reviewing this provision, with the outlook, at least in my view, to 
repealing it if necessary? But also there is a commission, supported by 
Members on both sides of the aisle, which looks at this entire issue of 
cost-of-living adjustments, of retirement, of TRICARE, of all of these 
issues because of the increasing costs of these benefits--in the words 
of Secretary Gates, former Secretary of Defense, who all of us admire 
so much--that are ``eating us alive.''
  So again, the Simpson-Bowles plan, which was embraced almost 
unanimously on both sides of the aisle, eliminates the cost-of-living 
adjustments for any retirees during their working age. This plan, which 
is met with such outrage, is only a 1-percent reduction--by the way, I 
want revised as well--that they would receive $1.626 million instead of 
$1.734 million.
  Finally, I would ask the distinguished chairperson, does she know of 
another plan, another idea, another legislative proposal that will 
prevent us from shutting down the government again--something I refuse 
to inflict on the citizens of my State? I refuse to disturb their 
lifestyles, to destroy their income, to shut down essential government 
services, the nightmare we just went through.
  So I guess my question to the chairperson is, does the Senator know 
of another avenue between now and I believe it is January 15 when the 
government would be shut down again that we could pursue that would 
prevent another government shutdown?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the Senator from Arizona is entirely 
correct. There is no other legislation that can be brought before us at 
this time to prevent a government shutdown. As we know, the House of 
Representatives has gone home for the year. We know without the 
bipartisan agreement before us, the impacts across the country would be 
untenable. We have kind of been there. On top of that, if we do not 
have this budget agreement, the military itself will take another $20 
billion hit, so those very military personnel whom all of us 
passionately care about would be facing layoffs, would be facing 
uncertainty, would be facing furloughs, would be facing tremendous 
hardship to themselves and to their families. So, yes, the Senator from 
Arizona is absolutely correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would further ask the chairperson if she has, as I 
have, heard from every single uniformed service leader of the four 
armed services, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
that further effects of sequestration will do unsustainable damage to 
our national security, that the pain inflicted because of the way that 
sequestration acts in 2014, the really significant effects, are that we 
will destroy or certainly dramatically impact our ability to defend 
this Nation? Is that not the unanimous opinion of our uniformed service 
commanders to whom we give the responsibility to defend this Nation? I 
would ask the chairperson if she has heard from our military leadership 
in uniform as well on this entire proposal, particularly its effect 
from sequestration?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the Senator from Arizona is correct. I 
have heard from every single branch of our military services that the 
impact in 2014, a few weeks from now, would be devastating if the 
current sequester continues to take place. I would add to the Senator 
from Arizona, coming from a State where we have a number of military 
bases, I have heard from the families of those soldiers and airmen and 
sailors that they are deeply worried about their loved ones and their 
lives if we do not replace the sequester.
  I want to personally thank the Senator for his hard work and his 
support behind the scenes to help us get to where we are today, because 
without the Senator's voice in this, it would have been extremely 
difficult. I carry his voice and many voices into that conference room 
to take some very tough choices forward so those families, all the way 
up to those top generals, do not have to enact the further cuts of 
sequestration.
  Mr. McCAIN. If I may ask the chairperson, in summary: One, there is 
no legislative proposal between now and January 15 that anyone sees 
that could pass both Houses of Congress and be signed by the President 
of the United States that would prevent another government shutdown on 
January 15. I would ask the chairman if that is true.
  Second, is it not true that if we go through the sequestration again, 
particularly because of the nature of the sequester legislation, that 
there is a sharp drop in 2014, and then a sort of a restoration in 
following years? In other words, the worst year of the entire 
sequestration process would be next year, unless we soften the blow. Is 
it not true that nobody cares more about those who serve in the 
military than their uniformed leaders, and unanimously those uniformed 
leaders have said they support this legislation?
  Is it not true that the chairman of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, and the Armed Services Committee, will have an entire year, 
because this legislation will not take effect--this cost-of-living 
adjustment will not take effect until January 15, 2015, so we have an 
entire year of authorization committee consideration of this particular 
provision?
  Is it also not true that it is recognized by all members of the Armed 
Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee and the chairman of 
the Budget Committee that we have continued increases in costs and 
benefits forever because of our inability to fund our national 
security? In other words, the dramatic increase in personnel and 
benefit costs are such that we are not going to have money left over 
for the mission, the equipment, and the capabilities?
  Is it also not true--I would ask again what the obvious is: The 
Simpson-Bowles plan, which was embraced wholeheartedly by many of us, 
including this Senator, by the way, said to defer cost-of-living 
adjustment for retirees in all--that is all cost-of-living adjustments 
for retirees in the current system until age 62.
  Is this far more draconian, what is envisioned in Simpson-Bowles, 
than what is before the body today? So is it hard to understand why 
someone would embrace Simpson-Bowles and yet find this provision as 
objectionable as it is? I find the provision objectionable, but I have 
confidence, and I hope the budget chairperson would agree, that it 
deserves the review and legislating, if it needs to be fixed, because 
the fact is that we have to look at the entire retirement and benefits 
that are now present in the military--for example, TRICARE, where there 
has not been an increase in premiums I believe since 1985, while the 
cost of health care has skyrocketed.
  So, again, I would ask the chairman of the Budget Committee if that 
is true. If it is true, then does it not deserve some consideration for 
those who care, as I do and I know the chairperson does, about the men 
and women who are serving in the military, and should we not listen to 
our military leadership who literally are saying they cannot defend 
this Nation if this sequester continues, particularly in the fashion, 
the meat ax fashion, with which sequestration is now impacting our 
Nation's defense?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I would agree with the Senator from 
Arizona. In fact, the often-touted and quoted Simpson-Bowles Commission 
report even in this debate over the last day is much more egregious in 
what they are seeking.
  Secondly, I agree with everything he said except for one thing. The 
Senator from Arizona mentioned that we have 1 year to look at the 
commission report. It is actually 2 years before this goes into effect. 
Congress will have time to act. The Senate Armed Services Committee 
will be looking at the commission report. We will have an opportunity 
to look at this in its entirety

[[Page 19297]]

before it is implemented. I truly want to thank the Senator for 
speaking up for our military, because I know more than any one of us on 
this floor that when the Senator speaks for the military, he 
understands the consequences of not enacting legislation today.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the chairperson for her hard work. I believe most 
Americans are a bit surprised that there is any agreement. I believe 
the chairperson would agree that this is a small step. But I think the 
chairperson should also deserve and be accorded great credit for tough 
negotiating, for a good agreement that I think will achieve many 
things, but, most of all, prevention of the shutdown of the government 
again which we should not and cannot inflict on the American people.
  I am sure the chairperson would have had different provisions in it 
if she had written it herself, just as Congressman Ryan would say the 
same thing. But this is the essence of what we are supposed to be 
doing. The option of shutting down the government is something I do not 
really understand, why anybody, after what we just went through, would 
want to have as a viable option of our failure to act.
  Again, I thank the chairperson.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I again want to thank the Senator from 
Arizona for his remarks. I appreciate his help and support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. JOHANNS. If there is not an objection, I ask unanimous consent to 
speak for 6 to 8 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  OSHA

  Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Arkansas and 
the chair of the Budget Committee. I am here on the floor today to 
voice strong objection to a Federal agency that is disregarding the 
clear language of the law in pursuit of what has appeared time and time 
again to be what I describe as an antiagriculture agenda with this 
administration.
  Let me explain. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 
which is known as OSHA, is now claiming jurisdiction, of all things, of 
family farms. But they are doing that in defiance of Congress. For the 
past 35 years, literally 35 years, Congress has included very specific 
language in appropriations bills. It prohibits OSHA from enforcement on 
small farms. Literally since 1976, the law has said very clearly: No 
funds appropriated for OSHA can be used for rules or regulations that 
apply to farming operations with 10 or fewer employees.
  Clearly what Congress is trying to do is provide protection for the 
family farms that exist in our States across this country. Yet, lo and 
behold, OSHA has decided it can label certain sections of the farm 
something else by fiat and send in their inspectors. Let me explain 
what has happened in Nebraska.
  OSHA targeted a family farm in rural Nebraska. They grow corn and 
soybeans and raise some cattle. This farm has one nonfamily employee on 
that farm. In other words, it is a very typical Nebraska farm, just the 
kind of farm Congress envisioned in creating the exemption dating back 
to 1976.
  OSHA ignored what Congress directed. They ignored the law exempting 
farms and slapped this family farm with fines totaling more than 
$130,000. OSHA accused the farmer of willful violations. Let me give 
you a couple of examples: Failure to conduct atmospheric tests in a 
grain bin; failure to wear OSHA-approved gear when entering the grain 
bin, to name a few.
  You cannot make this stuff up. I kid you not. The violations I listed 
were $28,000 each, with a long list of lesser violations piled on top. 
They threw the book at this farmer. Let me be clear that OSHA made no 
claim that anyone had been hurt. They claimed only that the farm failed 
to comply with the OSHA manual.
  I am sure the farmer was stunned to find OSHA inspectors on his farm 
out in the middle of Nebraska, and be told he suddenly must comply with 
OSHA regulations, knowing the law says his farm is exempt from OSHA 
regulations. I suspect he was rightly confused, angry, and frustrated.
  OSHA claimed it was not regulating the farming operation at all; 
rather, it was only regulating the nonfarming operations. Congress had 
not exempted the nonfarming parts of farms. Right? So what was this 
nonfarming activity that OSHA believes it can regulate? Grain storage. 
Grain storage.
  I grew up on a farm. Every farm has grain storage. It has hay 
storage. It has silage storage. Can they regulate the farming 
operations relative to those items? Yes. That is right. OSHA in their 
wisdom says storing grain after a harvest allows them to go in and 
regulate this farm. I am not sure how many OSHA employees have spent 
much time on a farm. I suspect not very many.
  But there are not too many grain farms that do not store some of 
their grain. An iconic part of the agricultural landscape is grain 
bins. They are fundamental to farming and have been since I grew up on 
a farm. If farmers had to sell everything at harvest, they would not 
make much money, because that is when prices are typically the lowest. 
So it is only responsible for a farmer in a part of the farming 
operation to have grain bins on the farm and it has been that way 
forever. OSHA's claim that the storage of grain is not part of farming 
is absolutely incredible and it is absurd.
  It is also a blatant overreach in violation of the law, the law we 
have been passing in Congress dating back to 1976.
  Whenever I meet the farmers and ranchers in Nebraska, they often 
raise concern about regulatory overreach. In fact, they feel as if they 
are targeted by this administration. OSHA's distorted definition of 
farming, in order to expand its jurisdiction, serves as evidence that 
farmers' concerns are legitimate concerns. OSHA should never be allowed 
to end-run the law in this manner.
  I am asking Labor Secretary Perez to rein in OSHA and send a clear 
signal to America's farmers that they don't have a target on their 
backs. OSHA must rescind its absurd guidance suggesting that grain 
bins, of all things, are not a part of the farming operation, and it 
must stop sending inspectors on to family farms in violation of the 
law.
  I have drafted, and I am sending a letter to Secretary Perez, a 
letter requesting that he make these changes in compliance with the 
law. I am inviting all of my colleagues to join me in signing that 
letter.
  Let me conclude by saying let's stand with our Nation's family 
farmers, which we have done since 1976. Let's rein in this regulatory 
overreach and send a message that Federal agencies must abide by the 
clear direction of Congress.
  I thank the Senators on the floor for the courtesy, and I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. I rise to discuss the pending budget agreement.
  First, I wish to praise Senator Murray and Congressman Ryan for their 
hard work. I think everyone around here and everyone around the Nation 
recognizes what they have done. Their efforts have allowed us to reach 
a bipartisan and bicameral agreement. They deserve our recognition, and 
we appreciate them for all their hard work. I am sure at times it 
seemed like endless hours of hard work, but it has definitely paid off 
with the big votes we have seen in the House and also in the Senate.
  As anyone in this Chamber could tell us, bipartisanship is all too 
rare in Congress these days. I can only speak for myself, but I am 
tired of the gridlock, and the American people--especially those whom I 
talk to from Arkansas--are tired of it as well. We must work together 
to get work done and to keep our economy growing.
  This agreement, in my view, is a positive step forward. It gives our 
business community and our economy the certainty it has been looking 
for. It also prevents the ``my way or the highway'' politics that have 
been so destructive and that have been practiced

[[Page 19298]]

by an irresponsible few that have seemed committed to hurt our economy. 
It restores resources to our national security interests, which I think 
is extremely important.
  I appreciate what Senator McCain of Arizona said a few moments ago on 
the floor. It does all this while reducing the deficit. That being 
said, this agreement is not perfect, especially when it comes to the 
harmful budget cuts made at the expense of our men and women in 
uniform. I will be the first to say we need to cut our spending, but we 
need to do it in a responsible way. We need to cut waste, fraud, and 
abuse. We need to eliminate items such as unnecessary government 
purchasing and maintenance of real estate and buildings. We can end 
out-of-date and ineffective government programs, but we cannot balance 
the budget on the backs of our hard-working military members and their 
families.
  As the Senator from Arizona said a few moments ago, he is hopeful--
and many of us believe and agree--that we will have a chance to fix 
this someday soon. That is why I am here, to encourage my colleagues 
from both sides of the aisle to support commonsense solutions, 
commonsense provisions that will restore full retirement pay for our 
future military retirees and repeal section 403 of this agreement.
  Our brave men and women in uniform have made many sacrifices for this 
country. When I think about their heroism and the what they have done, 
I think of a passage in the Book of Isaiah, when Isaiah is preparing to 
leave everything behind, go out, and preach the word of the Lord to the 
people who need to hear it.
  Isaiah 6:8 states:

       And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ``Whom shall I 
     send, and who will go for us?'' Then I said, ``Here I am! 
     Send me.''

  Here I am. Send me. That is exactly what our men and women in uniform 
say. They leave their families behind. They leave behind their homes, 
their jobs, and in many cases a wonderful life to go out and protect 
the freedoms we all enjoy. So singling them out is not only unfair, it 
is also wrong. These heroes laid their lives on the line for us, and 
they deserve for us to work to fix this provision so they can receive 
the full benefits they have earned.
  The good news is, as we have heard the Senator from Arizona and the 
Senator from Washington say a few moments ago, we can fix this and we 
can move forward. That is the good news today. We have this bipartisan, 
bicameral budget agreement, and it does move us forward. If we can get 
the votes necessary today to pass it, then we can swiftly move with 
another bill at some point in the near future to protect and fix what I 
am so concerned about.
  Back to the bipartisan agreement, the bicameral agreement that the 
chairwoman of the Senate Budget Committee reached with the chairman of 
the House Budget Committee, this is a job well done. This is an effort. 
None of this is easy. There are always going to be decisions that are 
hard and difficult.
  That is why balancing the budget is so hard, because there are 
popular provisions. We have to make tough choices, but these are tough 
times and we need to make these tough choices.
  I join my colleagues in the hope we get a large bipartisan vote for 
the legislation and for the agreement Senator Murray and Congressman 
Ryan reached. I also hope we very quickly will act to fix the one 
provision that is causing so much heartburn.
  With that, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy with the Senators from Georgia, who join me on the floor 
today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I come today to address an unintended 
inclusion in the compromise deal that was worked out by the bipartisan 
budget conference and that was overwhelmingly passed in the House of 
Representatives earlier last week.
  As a long-time champion myself of our Nation's veterans and military 
families, I want to make absolutely sure today that they know a 
provision included in this deal which mistakenly included disabled 
retirees and survivors for changes in pension growth will be addressed 
in short order following passage of this bill. In fact, I am going to 
be joining with the Senators from Georgia and others after passage of 
this bill to make that technical correction in a stand-alone bill.
  I think all of us know our disabled veterans have made tremendous 
sacrifices for our Nation and deserve the peace of mind that their 
benefits will not be adjusted under this compromise legislation. They 
deserve to know also that government shutdowns and the constant crises 
that have unfortunately impacted wait times for our veterans' benefits, 
further growth in the disability backlog, and even jeopardizing their 
monthly checks should be a thing of the past. That is what is at the 
heart of this bill.
  We are working to ensure the uncertainty and fear these veterans and 
military families faced last October is taken off the table for at 
least 2 years. We are working to ensure the government they fought for 
functions in a way that delivers on the promise we owe all of them.
  In furtherance of that effort, this technical error certainly can, 
should, and will be addressed, and I join with the Senators from 
Georgia in ensuring our disabled veterans that it absolutely will be.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. I wish to thank the Senator from Washington for all of 
her hard work as chairman of the Budget Committee and on this 
bipartisan compromise on the Budget Act. I want to thank my colleague, 
Senator Chambliss of Georgia, for joining me to support the chairman in 
this effort.
  I support the bipartisan Budget Act because, while I believe the 
reforms included in the agreement are modest, they will move America in 
the right direction. One of the most essential components of the deal 
between Senators Murray and Ryan is the avoidance of another 
devastating round of sequestration aimed squarely at the national 
defense capabilities of our country. This agreement will help us avoid 
cuts that would have caused long-lasting damage to the readiness of our 
military and will help us provide the best support and tools possible 
for our men and women in uniform.
  While avoiding defense sequestration was key to gaining my support 
for this deal, I was concerned to learn that at the last minute 
disabled retirees and survivors were mistakenly included in the 
provision slowing the growth rate in terms of COLAs in the coming 
years. I believe this mistake must be corrected, and my continued 
support for the budget agreement is predicated on the Chairman's 
commitment to correcting this mistake. I publicly thank the chairman 
this morning for making that commitment in this colloquy.
  I know from my travels through the many military installations in 
Georgia with Senator Chambliss, and through my work on the Senate 
Veterans' Affairs Committee with Senator Murray, that both Senators 
share my concern, and I look forward to working with the two of them to 
address this most important issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I am pleased to join Chairman Murray 
and Senator Isakson regarding our concern about the military retirement 
pay provisions in this budget proposal. As I mentioned yesterday on 
this floor, any pursuit of debt reduction should not come at the 
expense of our service men, women, and veterans.
  As we have discovered, these cuts will not only apply to working 
military men and women but also to military widows and soldiers who 
have been medically retired from wounds received in the line of duty.
  I recognize that in order to truly tackle our debt and deficit it 
will take

[[Page 19299]]

all Americans making sacrifices, including our military. What we cannot 
do is ask those who have been injured defending our Nation to bear a 
disproportionate burden.
  I thank Chairman Murray again for the leadership she has shown, along 
with Chairman Ryan, on these complex and divisive budget issues, and I 
stand with Senator Isakson and Chairman Murray in making the necessary 
changes to this legislation to ensure our disabled retirees and 
survivors are taken care of.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, 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. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Senators Chambliss and Isakson pertaining to the 
submission of S. Res. 323 are located in today's Record under 
``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')
  Mr. ISAKSON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Barrasso pertaining to the introduction of S. 
1849 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BARRASSO. I yield the floor.
  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. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I want to spend a few minutes talking 
about the bill we are going to vote on this afternoon. I am starting my 
10th year in the Senate. During that period of time, my No. 1 goal in 
coming to the Senate was to try to right our financial ship and almost 
everything I have done in the Senate has been related to the fiscal 
consequences of our dereliction of duty as Members of Congress--of both 
parties. There is nothing partisan about that statement. We have seen 
different Presidents and different parties control both bodies, always 
to the same result.
  We have before us a bill today that is a purported compromise. I want 
to describe who it is a compromise for. It is a compromise for the 
politicians. It is not a compromise for the American people because 
what it does is increase spending and increase taxes. The net effect, 
even if you take all the budget gimmicks that are in this bill that are 
not actual savings, and even if you believe people 10 and 11 years from 
now will actually hold true to what this bill pretends to have us do, 
which is what we are not doing--something we did 2 years ago through 
this bill, we are still going to spend more money than we would have 
and we are going to charge people revenues, some $24 billion--$28 
billion, pardon me--increased revenues which we are not calling tax 
increases but Americans are going to pay that so it is money that is 
going to come out of their pocket.
  What we have before us is a bill that is a political compromise for 
the parties in Washington to keep us from doing what we really need to 
do--the hard things. I am going to go through some criticisms of this 
bill. It is not meant to reflect on any one individual. It will apply 
just as much to the Republicans as it does to the Democrats. But we 
have a bill that supposedly fixes things until past the next election 
so we do not have to face these gigantic problems of ``deadlock.''
  The other thing I would note as I go through this is it is my 
contention we do not have a problem getting along. It is my contention 
we get along way too well. We get along way too well; otherwise, we 
would not have a $17.7 trillion debt. We would not have $124 trillion 
in unfunded liabilities. And we would not have debt per American in 
this country which is now $57,000 per person and unfunded liabilities 
that are over $1 million per household, not including that debt 
repayment.
  How did we do that? We had to agree to do that. Both parties had to 
agree to do that. The President had to sign it. My contention is we get 
along way too well, when it comes to ruining the financial future of 
our country. My main criticism--I do not criticize compromise, I 
criticize compromise that ignores the facts of our financial situation.
  I want to make a point. I put a book out yesterday. It is called the 
``Yearly Wastebook.'' I do it every year. I do it somewhat in jest but 
to make a very real point. I outlined over $31 billion, what I think 
and I think most Democrats would agree and that the American public, 95 
percent of them, would agree with this--that when running a $700 
billion deficit, maybe we should not be spending these moneys on these 
things which go far further in actually solving our problems for 
compromise in terms of creating a solution to the long-term problems 
and giving the American people what they want.
  We really do have a 6-percent approval rating, right? That is true. I 
think we have earned it. This bill, I believe, proves it because we did 
exactly the opposite of what the American people would like to see us 
do. We solved our problem as politicians but we made their problem 
worse. We did not fix the things that are obvious to fix.
  I was on the Simpson-Bowles Commission, I was a member of the Gang of 
6, I have worked in a bipartisan fashion with anybody who will work 
with me to try to solve the big problems in front of our country, 
except we as a body, and the House, really don't want to solve them 
because the thing put at risk when you really solve them is political 
careers, and as a group of politicians, the people in Washington care 
much more about their careers--by their actions it is proven--than they 
do about the long-term fiscal health of this country. That applies to 
both parties.
  So when we have a deal brought before us that will avoid 
confrontation come January 15 and we have all sorts of budget gimmicks 
in it that are not truthful, they are not real, in the hopes that 
somebody will grow a backbone 9 and 10 years from now and actually keep 
their word to the American public--and we are demonstrating right now 
we can't even keep our word from 2 years ago--why would we be proud to 
vote for that? Does it solve a real problem? No. It puts a real problem 
off and actually makes the problem worse to the tune of $68 billion. 
Through this bill we will borrow an additional $68 billion, $50 billion 
of it, close to, in the next year and $20 billion some after that, and 
in the year after, and then hope and pray that Congresses that follow 
us will do what we suggested.
  Everyone in this body knows that is not going to happen. So when you 
vote on this bill you are voting for your political career, you are 
voting for the Washington establishment, but you are not voting for the 
person out there who now has a $57,000 debt they are servicing, and 
their family, $1 million per household in this country in unfunded 
liabilities.
  It will pass. I have no doubt it will pass. I feel like John the 
Baptist in the wilderness. But mark my words. If we continue to do what 
we are doing today, we will be remembered as the people who could have 
fixed the problem and didn't; who could have made the courageous 
decisions and chose not to; who could have stiffened their spines and 
said we don't care what Republican extremists or liberal extremists 
say, the future of our country is more important than any political 
career in this town. And what we have before us is just the opposite.

[[Page 19300]]


  Why wasn't in part of this agreement some of the $250 billion that 
GAO has identified as waste, fraud, duplication, and mismanagement? 
There is not one thing in this bill that addresses one thing that GAO 
has recommended to Congress over the last 3 years--not one. So we have 
the ``Wastebook''--$31 billion of what I would consider--and it is not 
partisan. There could be a difference in terms of agreement about what 
is important and what is not. But, again, I would say in terms of the 
``Wastebook,'' it is: Should we be spending money now when we are 
borrowing money, in light of the fiscal situation that we have, on some 
of the things that we outlined? It is a listing of 100. It has $31 
billion worth of savings. I will outline a few of them for you.
  We are going to be taking up NDAA next. None of the amendments that I 
offered are in the NDAA. Every one of them was structural to the 
Pentagon to make it more responsible and accountable to its 
constitutional duty, which it has not performed, of giving account to 
Congress on how it spent its money. For example, the Army commissioned 
a contract to have a warfare overseeing blimp. They spent $297 million 
on that blimp. It flew for a short period of time in this country. We 
sold it back to the contractor for $300,000.
  I have two questions: No. 1. Whoever signed that contract and made 
that decision, did they get fired from the Federal Government? Did they 
get demoted in rank? And, No. 2, was the contract actually executed to 
the requirements that the military set out for it?
  It is called accountability. The answer to both of those is no. There 
is no accountability. So we are going to have an NDAA bill come through 
that requires them to meet an audit. They have been required since 1992 
to meet an audit. They did not do it in 2014 and they will not do it in 
2017 and they won't do it in 2018, because there is no hammer on the 
Pentagon to make them do it. That is because all hammers have been 
taken out because we don't want to force them to meet their 
constitutional responsibility. It is too hard.
  We never told them it was too hard to go to Iraq or Afghanistan. But 
it is too hard for them to follow their constitutional duty to report 
on how they spend their money. What I would put before us is, if you 
cannot measure what you are doing, you cannot manage what you are 
doing. What is obvious from the waste, fraud, and abuse, contract 
failures within the Pentagon, is they have no clue on what they are 
doing. All you have to do is take the Dwight D. Eisenhower carrier, the 
littoral combat ships, the F-35--all of those major defense programs 
are at risk, over budget, behind schedule. I am not talking a little 
bit over budget. We did not do the oversight; we have not forced that. 
You will never get control of those programs until you make them be 
able to account for what they are doing.
  My first training, my first degree, is in accounting. I understand 
the reason accounting is important is because it tells you where to go 
to manage your problems. The Pentagon cannot do that. The Pentagon 
ordered--at the insistence of us, by the way--some airplanes for 
Afghanistan. Guess what we have done. We have taken delivery here and 
we have sent them straight to the Arizona desert, just $422 million 
worth of them. By the way, the ones that did go to Afghanistan, we are 
going to cut up, destroy. We are not going to send them to Africa for 
relief missions. We are not going to send them somewhere else. We are 
going to cut them into pieces, another $200 million worth of airplanes. 
And by the way, since the Afghan Air Force wants the same thing America 
has, we have already given them two C130-Hs, and we are going to give 
them two more. That is another $400 million. So what we have done 
through poor management is waste over $700 million on one item.
  There is nothing in this bill that corrects that. Yet this bill is 
going to come to the floor--the NDAA--and not one of us who actually 
knows what really needs to be done in terms of changing the financial 
picture in the Pentagon is going to have an opportunity to influence 
that bill--not one of us. It doesn't have to be that way. That bill 
came out of committee in May of last year, but we have chosen to 
operate that way.
  Camp Leatherneck, which is in Afghanistan, is a $34 million new camp 
for troops, and it sits abandoned today. It has never been occupied. 
Who was the general or colonel who authorized that in anticipation of 
our drawdown? Who executed the order to build it and then ordered that 
we abandon it? Is there any accountability in the Pentagon or in any 
other agency? Are we doing our job of holding them accountable?
  The ``Wastebook'' is not all about the Defense Department, but I 
brought a couple of those up just so we could see what is going on. The 
``Wastebook'' is about poor judgment across all the agencies. You may 
disagree with me about some of what is in the ``Wastebook,'' but the 
question you have to ask yourself is: At a time when we have done what 
we have done to the American people in terms of unfunded liabilities, 
in terms of individual debt--the average family now has over $220,000 
worth of debt that they have to pay back which we borrowed--should we 
spend money the way we spend it?
  We spent $978,000 to study romance novels. Certainly that is a 
priority right now in our government. Everybody would agree with that; 
right? Sure they would. They would agree with it. Yet we put that 
contract out last year and spent money to study the background of 
romance novels, both on the Web and off, and why people write them. We 
didn't just study about them here, we studied about them everywhere.
  How about $400,000 to Yale University, by the National Science 
Foundation, to actually study whether people who align with the tea 
party have the cognitive capability in terms of science? Guess what. We 
spent that money and the professor got the biggest surprise of his 
life. Here is what the study said: People who are aligned with the tea 
party have far exceptional cognitive abilities when it comes to 
science, math, and financial aptitude. It totally surprised the 
professor because the whole purpose was supposed to undermine people 
who are constitutional conservatives. Yet we spent $400,000 on that 
study.
  Those are just a few of the small examples of the silliness which 
goes on. People say: Well, $400,000 isn't much; $900,000 isn't much. 
The State Department spent $500 million during the last week of the 
fiscal year. What did they spend it on? Does anybody know? To buy 
brand-new crystal stemware for all the embassies throughout the world. 
We didn't need new stemware, but we had to spend the money, so we spent 
it.
  Just think about that. We are responsible for that. We allowed that 
to happen. There is no oversight here. There is no aggressiveness in 
terms of controlling costs, and our default position is our agreement 
on this budget which doesn't address any of those problems.
  The American people are going to be asking questions about why we get 
along so well. The political story is not that Washington spends out of 
conflict and partisan bickering because the facts don't lie. We get 
along way too well. We are going to get along so well that we are going 
to pass another bill that solves the problem for us, as politicians, 
but, in fact, actually hurts the American people.
  I am not going to be a part of that, and I am going to keep yelling 
from the canyons and from the mountain tops until we start doing what 
we are supposed to do because this is not going to change.
  It is my hope that some of us will wake up and start looking at some 
of the real facts. So $30 billion can make a big difference. If we just 
eliminate the items in this ``Wastebook'' for next year, we would be 
able to take care of one-third of the sequester. There are just 100 
items here. I can give you 300 items.
  I can give you $150 billion worth of stupidity every year, but we 
choose not to do anything about it. We choose not to do anything about 
it because you have to be a committee chairman in order to have an 
oversight committee dig into this stuff. You actually have

[[Page 19301]]

to do the hard work to find out where the administration is spending 
the money.
  President Obama doesn't want money to be wasted this way. He needs 
our help. Yet we will not help him. We will not help the American 
people. Consequently, the future of our country is at risk when it 
should be gloriously great. It is at risk not because of the American 
people; it is at risk because of us. We ought to change that.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 7 minutes as 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Mayorkas Nomination

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I appreciate the courtesies of the Senator from 
Washington, who is on the floor managing the bill. I thank her for 
allowing me to make these brief remarks regarding one of the nominees 
of President Obama--someone we will be confirming, hopefully, in the 
next short period of time.
  I come to the floor to give my strong and unequivocal support to 
Alejandro Mayorkas as the Deputy Secretary of the Department of 
Homeland Security. Before I speak about his many extraordinary 
qualifications for this job, let me say that it has been very 
disappointing and very concerning to me that so many high-level 
leadership positions in this particular Department have gone unfilled 
for so long.
  It has been 6 months since Secretary Janet Napolitano stepped down, 
having given notice of her departure after serving with such 
distinction and contributing so much to the strengthening of that 
agency. All agencies of the Federal Government are important and there 
are advocacy groups who argue for them, but I think everyone 
understands the real significance of the Department of Homeland 
Security. It is a relatively new agency. The Department is only 10 
years old, but it plays a key role in the security of our homeland. 
Because it is new, it is still struggling with how to coordinate and 
unite all of the internal parts and coordinate effectively with the 
Department of Defense.
  It has new and emerging technological challenges that are extremely 
demanding. The cyber attack which is happening daily and which is a 
growing threat to us is a very important part of their mission.
  May I remind Senators that immigration, border control, and border 
security are right in the middle of the mission of this Department. So 
if we want to have strong immigration policies and smart immigration 
policies and secure our borders with smart fences, we better get 
somebody who is experienced and smart to run the operation.
  That is why I am here to support Alejandro Mayorkas, who has been the 
Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for the last 
several years. He has received many compliments from both Republicans 
and Democrats in his role as our chief immigration officer. He has 
worked to secure the border and has made tremendous improvements with 
the resources, which have been quite significant, that we have provided 
to strengthen the border. He brings tremendous experience as having run 
one of the most significant agencies within the Department.
  Today we have a chance to start filling the leadership vacuum at the 
Department of Homeland Security not only with visionary leaders such as 
Alejandro Mayorkas but with leaders who have practical hands-on 
experience running the important parts of this Department.
  As I mentioned, the nominee is the current Director of U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is really how I got to meet 
him and to know him and to work with him in such a close fashion.
  Many of my colleagues know that I have the responsibility and 
privilege of informally heading up our Senate adoption caucus, and I do 
some international travel, helping to strengthen child welfare work 
around the world as well as, of course, in Louisiana and here 
domestically in the United States. We ran into a significant problem 
several years ago, which we are still trying to unwind, when Guatemala 
closed adoptions and our own State Department was a partner in that 
closure. There might have been--might have been--some good reasons for 
closure. The problem was that in the middle of that, there were 900 
American families from every State in the Union who were caught. They 
were not placed on any transition list nor were they given any 
support--virtually no support from either our State Department or from 
the country of Guatemala. So some of us stepped in with partners at the 
State Department and others to see what we could do to help.
  It has been a long, hard road for many of these parents and children 
who have now been stuck in orphanages, in group homes. They are no 
longer infants. Some of them are 8 years old and have waited 6 years 
for their adoption to be finalized. Some of them are 15.
  Amidst all of the work the nominee had to do on immigration and so 
many conflicting pressures, Alejandro Mayorkas took the time to give 
leadership and voice and help to the powerless. That speaks a lot to 
me, and it should to the members of our coalition, which is very broad 
and completely nonpartisan, when a very important person with a lot of 
power steps out of that comfort zone and helps people who have no 
lobbyists, no power. Without his help, we would not be making the 
progress we are making. That is one example that proves to me he is the 
kind of leader we need more of, not less of, here in Washington.
  I have full confidence that--based on my knowledge of his experience 
of running immigration and my personal knowledge of his character and 
his integrity and his tremendous ability in terms of diplomacy and 
negotiating, which I witnessed firsthand, working with many high-level 
government officials from outside of our own government--he has the 
skills to negotiate within this agency to bring everyone to a common 
cause, a common vision, and a common plan to move this very important 
Department forward.
  Prior to his directorship as immigration director for the United 
States, he served for a good bit of time as a U.S. attorney prosecuting 
criminal and white-collar crime and gang violence in California. He is 
known very well to the two Senators from California. I think it was 
Senator Feinstein who recommended him to that position. She has 
testified on his behalf and has submitted statements for the Record. 
Both Senators from California can also vouch for his almost flawless 
record of service.
  He has already been confirmed twice by the Senate. Yet, 
unfortunately, there were some political concerns that are not valid 
that held him up. So we have moved him forward. He got a strong vote 
from the members of our committee who know him well and understand his 
high level of integrity and his proven record of service to the people 
of the United States.
  Again, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a 
strong look at this nominee, understanding that he has been confirmed 
twice before. He is an outstanding, unblemished prosecutor of crime. He 
would be a perfect person, with his background and experience, to serve 
as a Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. I, 
frankly, think he is one of the most qualified people whom I have seen 
nominated.
  Today, we have a chance to start filling the leadership vacuum at the 
Department of Homeland Security with visonary leaders. Ali Mayorkas--
the current director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services--
is exactly the type of leader we need in the deputy secretary position.
  Since his confirmation as head of USCIS by voice vote by the Senate 
in 2009, Director Mayorkas has led the effort to turn around an agency 
that was

[[Page 19302]]

widely considered to be foundering and helped build a professional and 
competent workforce.
  Director Mayorkas brings all the right qualities for this critical 
position; these qualities include a pushing for collaboration and 
efficiency within the workplace. As a prosecutor and a former U.S. 
attorney for California, Mr. Mayorkas demonstrated his commitment to 
enforcing the law to protect U.S. citizens.
  As Congress and our Nation move closer to comprehensive immigration 
reform, we must have the proper leadership in place in the Department 
of Homeland Security to ensure that the laws we pass are enacted with 
the same transparency and accountability that he brings to his current 
post. I can think of no better leader to guide DHS in this pursuit, as 
he will do so in a way that balances the needs of our business 
communities and families while keeping our border safe and secure.
  Mr. Mayorkas' previous experience provides a solid foundation for his 
future work and an extensive knowledge of our immigration system and 
the overall mission of the Department of Homeland Security. As the 
chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, I am 
keenly aware how important it is to have strong management at the head 
of this Department and believe him to be uniquely qualified for the 
job.
  I have every confidence in his devotion to safeguarding our Nation 
and his ability to effectively perform his duties in this new role. I 
will be proudly casting my vote in support of his nomination as Deputy 
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
  I yield the floor. I don't see any other Senator wishing to speak at 
this moment, so 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1797

  Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 259, S. 1797, a 
bill to extend unemployment insurance benefits for 1 year; that the 
bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Republican whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Reserving the right to object, Madam President, it is 
unfortunate that the Senate's schedule is completely full with pending 
cloture motions on controversial or completely nonurgent nominations. I 
ask if the Senator would consider amending his request to withdraw all 
of the pending cloture motions on executive nominations and that the 
Senate would proceed immediately to consideration of S. 1797, the 
unemployment insurance extension, and that the majority leader and the 
minority leader would be recognized to offer amendments in an 
alternating fashion so that these important issues can be considered 
this week. I ask the Senator to consider amending his request and 
reserve my right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so amend his request?
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I will not amend the request. I respect 
the Senator's point, but I will not amend the request. I am here simply 
to ask for the unanimous consent as I presented it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. CORNYN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I appreciate the Senator from Texas coming 
here, engaging, and I appreciate the fact that he is making a point. 
But I am trying to make a point which I think is very compelling. 
Within a few days--December 28--1.3 million Americans will lose their 
extended Federal unemployment insurance benefits. It will be a 
tremendous trauma to those families, and it will be a huge impact for 
our economy going forward.
  I have renewed my request for a full 1-year extension, and it has 
been objected to. I recognize that. But, I believe it is urgent we 
extend unemployment insurance benefits.
  I also have been working closely with my Republican colleague, 
Senator Heller, on a bipartisan basis to introduce a bill to extend 
these benefits for 3 months, giving us the opportunity to go and take a 
more deliberate and careful review of the program and also to provide 
for a mechanism to extend the benefits for a full year.
  I am very pleased we are beginning to build bipartisan support for 
this initiative for at least 3 months. It does reflect the fact that my 
colleagues from all across the country are recognizing the huge impact 
of this loss of benefits. This is not a problem that is restricted to a 
particular area of the country. Nevada has the highest rate in terms of 
unemployment numbers. Rhode Island trails behind, but not by much. We 
are at over 9 percent. But you have States with high unemployment 
throughout the country: Michigan at 9 percent, Illinois at 8.9 percent, 
Kentucky at 8.4 percent, Georgia at 8.1 percent, Arizona at 8.2 
percent. These are States that have significant issues with respect to 
unemployment and need the continuation of this program to protect their 
families and also to provide stimulus for their local economies.
  We have at this point in many of these places two unemployed workers 
for every available job. So this is not just a question of: ``The jobs 
are there. Just go get it.'' The job is not there. Also, we recognize--
I think we all recognize--the skill sets that are increasingly in 
demand are some of the skill sets that mature workers--people who have 
been working for 20 years, who have been every day of their lives going 
to the office or going to the mill or going to the plant are now 
competing with 20-year-olds who have sophisticated information 
technology skills and other skills in a climate where manufacturing is 
becoming sophisticated. Every sort of enterprise seems to be much more 
sophisticated and demanding a higher level of skills than years ago. So 
this is a very difficult time for workers out of a job, and I believe 
in this difficult period of time we need to extend these benefits.
  There is extensive research on unemployment insurance and the labor 
markets that also supports the point that people who are on 
unemployment insurance want to go back to work. This is a very sort of 
pragmatic insight. In Rhode Island, for example, the average benefit is 
$354 a week. For most workers, that is a fraction of what they were 
gaining in their job. They would love to be called back to work. They 
would love to find a job that fits their skills that is close to the 
pay they had or maybe less. But no one is getting this help and socking 
away a lot of money on their UI benefits.
  Indeed, a recent report by the White House Council of Economic 
Advisers looks at the economic tradeoffs that are being faced. In their 
words:

       In choosing the optimal unemployment insurance policy, 
     policymakers must weigh competing costs and benefits. On the 
     one hand, some argue that extending benefits may dull the 
     incentives for unemployed workers to exert effort to search 
     for another job, leading to increased unemployment--the so-
     called ``moral hazard'' effect. But on the other hand, 
     providing benefits gives families income that can in the 
     limit keep them from poverty but more generally can help them 
     to finance a longer job search that might ultimately result 
     in a job better matched with their talents, resulting in 
     higher overall labor market productivity. . . .

  These are important aspects that have to be considered. I think the 
consensus of many in Congress is that this program is not only 
necessary and essential, but it also does not significantly inhibit the 
willingness, the ability, the desire of people to get back to work.
  Raj Chetty is a noted economist who studies these issues. He 
concludes:

       Nearly a dozen economic studies have analyzed this question 
     by comparing unemployment rates in states that have extended 
     unemployment benefits with those in states

[[Page 19303]]

     that do not . . . . These studies have uniformly found that a 
     10-week extension in unemployment benefits raises the average 
     amount of time people spend out of work by at most one week. 
     This simple, unassailable finding implies that policy makers 
     can extend unemployment benefits to provide assistance to 
     those out of work without substantially increasing 
     unemployment rates.

  That is the conclusion of a very well respected economist who has 
been looking at that issue for several years.
  Once again, from the Council of Economic Advisers' report:

       Finally, while economists have found only small 
     disincentive effects of UI extensions, recent research shows 
     that the effect of UI on job search behavior is even smaller 
     in recessions as the moral hazard effect shrinks when jobs 
     are scarce.

  Let's get back to common sense. There are roughly two workers for 
every job. The benefits UI beneficiaries receive are a fraction of what 
they would get in the workplace. They want to get back into the 
workplace. The jobs are just not there. Frankly, we have not done 
enough, I would suggest, to put those jobs in place. We have to do 
more. But in the interim, we have to make sure these families have some 
benefits and some protection.
  I am quite willing to work with my colleagues if there are changes 
that should be made, could be made. But we are facing this deadline. 
Unless we move--and I am disappointed we have not moved today--1.3 
million people on December 28 lose their benefits. The checks will 
cease going out the following week, and our economy will take a hit 
next year of 200,000 jobs, about a 0.2-percent growth shrinkage in GDP. 
We can avoid that by moving today or moving tomorrow, certainly moving 
as soon as we get back, to make sure these benefits are in place.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  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. Madam 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. Madam President, yesterday I came to the Senate floor to 
discuss two amendments I had filed to the budget agreement that would 
have addressed an egregious part of this agreement, which is the cuts 
to military retiree benefits. In particular, I think the most egregious 
part of it is to those who have been disabled. We have all been to 
Walter Reed and seen and met our brave heroes, some who have lost 
limbs, serving our country in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet in this 
agreement we are cutting their cost-of-living increases for the 
retirement they earned on behalf of our country.
  So yesterday I came to the floor to talk about what I think is an 
appalling part of this budget agreement, but also to say, Why can't we 
amend the budget agreement and fix this now?
  I offered two possibilities of how we could do that with two 
amendments I filed on this budget agreement. I am sure others could 
find in the trillions of dollars CBO has said we are going to spend 
over the next 10 years--$47 trillion--we can find $6 billion rather 
than taking it from our military retirees.
  What happened yesterday on the floor was there was a motion to take 
down the tree so we could actually amend this budget agreement and fix 
provisions such as that, and it was voted down. So now we have no 
ability to amend this budget agreement, so I cannot bring the 
amendments I talked about yesterday to help our military retirees and 
ensure they do not get singled out in this agreement, which I think is 
appalling and wrong.
  But I also cannot bring an amendment that I also filed that addresses 
an issue that is very important to the State of New Hampshire. That 
deals with an objection I have to a particular provision in the budget 
agreement that would make it easier for the Senate to pass legislation 
requiring online retailers to become the tax collectors for the States 
and the rest of the Nation--this so-called Marketplace Fairness Act 
that the Senate passed earlier this year.
  Within this budget agreement there is what is called a reserve fund 
that allows the chairman of the Budget Committee to bypass certain 
procedural limitations that are normally allowed and procedural 
objections you have and all Members have to these types of 
legislation--budgetary objections--and these procedural objections are 
waived when these types of reserve funds are passed.
  This provision, which I fought on the Senate floor on the Senate's 
budget--it did eventually get passed--is included in this agreement, 
even though since this body passed the Marketplace Fairness Act, the 
House has refused to take it up. The House has wisely found that there 
are major objections to this piece of legislation, which would require 
businesses--many of these businesses around the country that we see 
thriving on the Internet--to become the tax collectors for the rest of 
the Nation.
  In fact, my State of New Hampshire does not have a sales tax. What it 
would require is that businesses in New Hampshire--online businesses 
that have written to me--it would place tremendous burdens on them. 
They would have to become the tax collectors for nearly 10,000 tax 
jurisdictions in this country, trampling on New Hampshire's choice not 
to have a sales tax, and also putting a tremendous burden on businesses 
to do the jobs of the States in becoming tax collectors for the rest of 
the Nation.
  This legislation is bad for the economy, and I think it is bad for 
businesses, and particularly businesses in my home State of New 
Hampshire. So I object to the provision, the reserve fund, that is in 
this budget. I have filed an amendment that would strike that 
provision. But, again, no amendments are going to be heard on this 
budget agreement because the majority leader has filled the tree and 
said there will be no amendments heard, no matter the merits of the 
amendment, no matter how important the amendments are, including 
amendments I talked about that impact and help address the real 
egregious provision that impacts our military retirees.
  This is just another example of an issue that is very important to 
the State of New Hampshire. Were I allowed to bring my amendment 
forward, I would have again expressed my opposition to this reserve 
fund that is within this budget, that is objectionable, that makes it 
easier to pass future legislation, a future version of the Marketplace 
Fairness Act, that will put a tremendous burden on businesses in New 
Hampshire. It is wrong to have online businesses become the tax 
collectors for the Nation.
  I believe we should be allowed to amend this budget agreement, to 
vote on these amendments, and particularly on issues that are important 
to our men and women in uniform, as I have described. But not only 
that, this issue on the remote collection of sales taxes by online 
businesses throughout the country is a very important issue to the 
State of New Hampshire--which does not have a sales tax--but not just 
to the State of New Hampshire, to online businesses across the country 
that do not and should not have to be the tax collectors for States 
throughout the Nation.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  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. BLUNT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Health Care

  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I wanted to talk about some solutions to 
our health care problems that have been out there for a while. Every 
time I hear someone say: There were no alternatives to the Affordable 
Care Act, there were no alternatives to what the President wanted to 
do--in fact, I heard the President say that multiple times last week, 
though it might have been multiple reportings of him saying it the same 
time. But there is no question he said it, that there were no ideas out 
there except his ideas.
  That is just not accurate. We had and still have the best health care 
system in the world. But it was not perfect. It

[[Page 19304]]

does not mean it could not have been improved. It does not mean there 
were not ways to create greater access. For those of us who have held 
concerns from the very first about the proposals we are now seeing play 
out in front of American families and before the American people, 
before individuals who thought they could get insurance but did not, 
before individuals who had insurance that worked who are beginning to 
lose it--when we see that play out and hear: Well, this was the only 
idea out there--not the only idea at all.
  At the time I was in the House of Representatives and proposed these 
to the House. They were not just bills we filed and did not talk about. 
In fact, a lot of this was covered very widely, even on occasion we had 
to have Republican-only hearings because the other side did not want to 
talk about these issues. They just wanted to talk about one way to 
solve these problems that I think is more and more clear may not be 
solving the problems nearly as well as they would have hoped for.
  There are a number of proposals that could have created more access 
to the good health care system we had, solved problems that individuals 
had. Bills that I introduced, that I was either the principal sponsor 
or the cosponsor of, one of those would have been to allow small 
businesses to band together in either what you want to call small 
business health plans or association health plans where people who had 
a common purpose could come together and figure out--actually in our 
State we allowed people to do it, the State of Missouri, to have those 
associated health plans, so your small group of 5 or 10 or 15 people 
did not become the universe of the group you were trying to insure, but 
you would have true access to small business health plans.
  I will be truthful. The insurance companies, for whatever reason, 
never liked that idea very well. But association health plans or small 
business health plans were one of the things--in fact, I cosponsored 
that bill with Congressman Sam Johnson, H. Res. 2607, if anybody wants 
to look back and see just how much we talked about this issue and how 
we dealt with it.
  Another issue every time the President's health care plan comes up: 
What about coverage for young adults? I was the only person in the 
House, as I recall--and I have said this a number of times and have 
never been challenged--who actually filed a bill that said: Let's let 
people stay on their family insurance policies longer.
  There are those out there since who have said: That expanded that too 
much. It was a slacker provision. It was not anything like that. It was 
an effort to take the most uninsured group in America--young, healthy 
people--and let them stay on their parents' health care.
  It was an effort to get--I think the number we talked about was 
around 3 million--people access to policies they did not have access to 
at some level. In virtually every State, you could stay on your family 
policy until you were 21. In Missouri, I think the number was 23. The 
proposal I made was let's add 2 years to that and do it for the whole 
country. Let's say 25.
  The President said in the Affordable Care Act, 26. I do not think I 
would have had a big fight about whether my bill that said let's let 
people be insured on their family policy until they are 25--if it was 
expanded to 26, I do not think that makes that uniquely the President's 
idea. That was a bill I sponsored. It would have helped young workers, 
college students. These are young healthy people, generally.
  It would not have added much. I think it is not adding much to 
insurance costs for families or those who are otherwise insured. The 
idea that somehow we could not do that--every time this topic comes up, 
there is somebody who will jump up and say: Do you mean you want to 
take people who are now on their family policy and who are under 26 and 
take them off the family policy?
  All we had to do to prevent that is pass one piece of legislation 
that may have been 40 words long--may have been 40 words long, may have 
been a couple of pages long. I know of all the ideas I introduced, the 
biggest one was 75 pages long. It was not a 2,700-page health care 
bill. The biggest of all the bills I introduced was 75 pages long. We 
could have done one or we could have done all of them. They would have 
worked. Some of these are on this chart right here: encourage wellness 
programs, reform coverage for preexisting conditions. We had high-risk 
pools that were working. There was a way to expand those high-risk 
pools so they would work better. We proposed that in legislation.
  I was on the floor the other day and talked about a young man in 
Missouri who is 20 now who has had an illness since he was 18 months 
old. He gets fluid on his brain. He had his first surgery at 18 months. 
He went from his family policy to the high-risk pool, which worked 
pretty well for him for a number of years and is working right now. But 
on December 31 the high-risk pool goes away. He cannot get access to 
the doctors he has used his entire life on any policy available to him. 
So we have eliminated the policy he had that was serving him well and 
the physicians group he had his entire life. We have eliminated that by 
eliminating the high-risk pool.
  Is that an improvement? Absolutely not. Could the high-risk pools 
have been expanded? Were there ways to do that? There absolutely were. 
Those were proposed.
  Medical liability reform was one of the things we could have done and 
proposed. In fact, even in the last Congress, I introduced in the 
Senate the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare Act, 
S. 1099. But that is very much like legislation that was available and 
could have become part of health care reform in 2009.
  The safety net to be sure that emergency room physicians have 
particular protections on liability because they do not have any choice 
but to treat people, that is another bill I introduced this year that 
was very much in line with what we were talking about just a few years 
ago.
  Insurance flexibility. In the 111th Congress I cosponsored H.R. 3824, 
the Expanded Health Insurance Options Act, which allowed people to buy 
across State lines through regional compacts, allowed States, if they 
wanted, to form compacts they could be part of that again would have 
been part of this solution.
  Reform coverage for preexisting conditions. Encourage wellness 
programs. This is something that could make a big difference and is 
something we could have thought of ways and did think of ways to 
encourage. H. Res. 4038, the Common Sense Health Care Reform and 
Affordability Act that Representative Camp and I introduced would have 
achieved this goal of looking for new and better ways to encourage 
wellness programs.
  I am not done yet. But I will say, every time the President or 
anybody else steps up and says there were no other ideas, that is not 
true. There were other ideas that I believed then and believe now would 
work better. Every day, as the Affordable Care Act becomes more and 
more available to us, I am more and more convinced there were better 
solutions. I am absolutely offended by this constant discussion that 
there were no other ideas.
  Prevent rescissions. We talked about legislation at the time that 
would have prevented canceling policies or prevented setting caps after 
somebody got sick. It does not take an entire government overwhelming 
the insurance marketplace to say here are two things you cannot do.
  The Common Sense Health Care Reform and Accountability Act would have 
helped achieve that goal--prevent limits on coverage, encourage health 
savings accounts, encourage people to have a little of their money that 
is available to them to use for health care expenses. I tell you what I 
am seeing happen now. So many people are now looking at policies that 
have these huge deductibles. For most families, it is like not having a 
policy at all.
  If someone has a policy similar to the one I was talking about on the 
floor the other day, reporting about a Missouri family where they were 
paying $1,100 a month for insurance and they had a $12,000 deductible, 
is that truly insurance? For most families is that truly insurance, 
$24,000 out of their

[[Page 19305]]

pocket before their insurance paid anything?
  But it meets all of the better coverage supposedly that the President 
says we now have. It met all of those standards. It could be made 
available. But it had deductibility--as many of these policies do. We 
are going to find all of this out quickly.
  The only thing worse than the Web site not working may be the Web 
site working. Because when the Web site begins to work, people are 
going to have the facts. There is no reason to argue about the facts. 
The President continues to say people are going to have better coverage 
for less money. We are going to know in the next 90 days or so how true 
that is.
  I am sure some people are going to find better coverage for less 
money. I am equally sure most people are not going to find that.
  So health savings accounts; increased transparency--this is an idea 
which is actually in the bill, but they haven't pursued it, where you 
tell health care providers they have to give more information about 
what they charge and what their results are. This act passed 3\1/2\ 
years ago, almost 4 years ago, and it says in the law that they can 
require providers to do that, but nobody has passed that rule or 
regulation yet. This is something that would have helped.
  Most of the time, you go to the hospital, particularly if it is 
something you have scheduled, you are in the car on the way to the 
hospital, and knowing who gets the better results--or who gets the same 
results for the lower price would be very helpful information for most 
Americans and most American families to have.
  Reform tax treatment. This was another idea we talked about widely. 
If you buy your insurance on your own or you get your insurance at 
work, there needs to be equity in that tax treatment; whether you cap 
what you can get at work and allow that same tax credit if you buy it 
as an individual--there are lots of ways to do this.
  The point is that there were lots of ideas out there. I am persuaded 
that these ideas right here, which would have cost taxpayers virtually 
nothing, would have had minimal impact on the cost of insurance but 
would have had a lot of impact on a bigger marketplace, more choices, 
not fewer choices, and would have been a better way to go.
  There were ideas. At some point we may very well need to return to 
these ideas because at some point we may decide the course we are on is 
unworkable.
  Americans shouldn't look at that and think we have to go back to the 
old system unimproved. There are plenty of ways to improve access to 
the best health care in the world. Diminishing that health care system 
is not one of those ways.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I congratulate the Senator from Missouri for his comments. Sometimes 
I think Republican Senators especially should begin and end every 
speech with an answer to the question, What would the Senator do if he 
were in charge? And the Senator from Missouri has said that very 
eloquently. It is not the first time what Republicans would do has been 
said on this floor. He mentioned that the law was passed 3\1/2\ years 
ago. We counted it one time. We mentioned 173 times on this floor the 
Republican step-by-step proposal for a different approach to health 
care in this country.
  We said: Don't expect Senator McConnell or any other Republican to 
come in with a 3,000-page Republican bill in a wheelbarrow. We don't 
believe in that. We believe in a different direction, a different 
approach. We don't believe we are wise enough in Washington to write 
3,000 pages of rules to govern every aspect of our health care system 
in America that takes 18 or 19 percent of the economy.
  We live in the iPhone age, where we want to increase the personal 
freedom of Americans to live longer, better, safer, and healthier. We 
want people to be able to do these things for themselves. We want to 
increase choice, competition, and in that way lower costs. If we lower 
costs, then more people will be able to afford to buy health insurance. 
That is the real way to expand health insurance in America--make it 
more affordable; make it so people can afford it.
  So I am beginning these short remarks with a salute to the Senator 
from Missouri for talking about what we would do if we were in charge, 
and I am going to end in that way as well.
  For the last couple of months, we have heard countless stories from 
constituents who are losing the health plans they purchased on the 
individual market.
  According to America's Health Insurance Plans, there are 19 million 
Americans in the individual market. The Obama administration knew in 
2010 that the rules it wrote for health plans would mean that 47 to 60 
percent of those policies could not be legally offered under ObamaCare 
by 2014. Nevertheless, the President still said, ``If you like your 
health insurance, you can keep it.''
  Now we all know that wasn't true. According to news reports collected 
by my staff, at least 5 million Americans, including 82,000 
Tennesseans, will lose their individual plans starting January 1. That 
is an unwelcome Christmas present for those 82,000 Tennesseans. 16,000 
Tennesseans are losing their Cover Tennessee plans; these are people 
who especially need help. There are also 66,000 Tennesseans who will 
lose their Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee coverage.
  I heard from a woman named Emilie, who is from Middle Tennessee. She 
is 39 years of age and has lupus.
  She wrote:

       I cannot keep my current plan because it doesn't meet the 
     standards of coverage. This alone is a travesty. CoverTN has 
     been a lifeline. . . . With the discontinuation of CoverTN, I 
     am being forced to purchase a plan through the Exchange. . . 
     . My insurance premiums alone will increase a staggering 410 
     percent. My out-of-pocket expense will increase by more than 
     $6,000 a year--that includes subsidies. Please help me 
     understand how this is ``affordable.''

  Unfortunately, Emilie is not the only one experiencing rate shock. 
Millions of Americans are losing their insurance plans. They are being 
forced to buy new plans, many of them with higher premiums, 
deductibles, and coinsurance.
  According to data from the Department of Health and Human Services, 
Tennesseans can expect to pay up to three times more on the exchanges 
being set up under ObamaCare for the health insurance they now have.
  In 2013, a 27-year-old man in Memphis can buy a private insurance 
plan for as low as $41 a month. On the exchange, the lowest State 
average is $119 a month--a 190-percent increase.
  Today, a 27-year-old woman in Nashville can buy a plan for as low as 
$58 a month. On the exchange, the lowest priced plan in Nashville is 
$114 a month--a 97-percent increase. Even with a tax subsidy, if she 
made $25,000 a year, the plan would be $104 a month--almost twice what 
she could pay today if the $58 plan was all she felt she needed.
  Today, women in Nashville can choose from 30 insurance plans that 
cost less than the administration says insurance plans on the exchange 
will cost, even with the new tax subsidy.
  In Nashville, 105 insurance plans offered today will not be available 
in the exchange.
  According to HealthPocket Inc., a consumer-oriented health research 
firm, the average individual deductible for a bronze plan on the 
federally run exchange is $5,081 a year. That is 42 percent more than 
the average deductible of $3,500 for an individually purchased plan in 
2013. According to Deloitte, that is 348 percent more than the $1,135 
average deductible for an employer health plan in 2013.
  These are a lot of numbers, but Americans--millions of them--are 
getting familiar with these numbers because this has gone from being 
political to very personal.
  According to Avalere Health, 90 percent of bronze plans require 
patients to pay 40 percent of the cost of their tier 3 and 4 drugs out 
of their own pockets, compared with 29 percent of employer-

[[Page 19306]]

sponsored plans that most Americans currently use. Most silver plans 
also require patients to pay 40 percent. For cancer patients and those 
with chronic illnesses, this kind of cost sharing could mean they will 
pay thousands of dollars out-of-pocket or go without the drugs they 
need to stay healthy.
  Americans had to wait until the exchanges opened on October 1 to find 
out just how much they were going to have to pay for insurance in 2014. 
With such dramatic hikes in premiums and out-of-pocket expenses, it is 
no wonder that Americans are outraged.
  Then, just before Thanksgiving, we learned that the Obama 
administration is delaying open enrollment for 2015 until after the 
midterm elections in November. The only American consumers this change 
will help are Democratic politicians who voted for ObamaCare because it 
would delay disclosure of some of the law's most insidious effects 
until after the election.
  Senators Barrasso, Enzi, and I introduced today the Premium 
Disclosure Act. We want to change the open enrollment date back to 
October and provide Americans notice of their premiums and cost-sharing 
requirements 30 days in advance so that they can plan for the future 
knowing their health care costs for the next year. This is a 
commonsense proposal that I hope my colleagues will support.
  As my colleague Senator Barrasso likes to say, what we know now about 
ObamaCare is just the tip of the iceberg. Much of the media attention 
has focused on the disastrous rollout of the Web site and the 19 
million Americans in the individual market. But just below the tip of 
the iceberg are 160 million Americans--nearly 10 times more than have 
individual policies--who the Congressional Budget Office says get their 
insurance through the job, employer insurance.
  Think about issues such as restrictive grandfathered plan rules, 
limits on the number of hours employees can work and be considered part 
time, the mandate that employers provide government-approved insurance 
or pay a fine, and the millions of dollars in new taxes on health 
plans. All of these issues will have an impact on employer-sponsored 
health insurance in both the public and private sector. We are already 
seeing that. Employers such as Sea World, Trader Joe's, The Home Depot, 
and other companies have publicly said they are reducing worker hours 
or dropping part-time employee health benefits. The chief executive 
officer of Ruby Tuesday, a restaurant company, told me that the cost to 
implement ObamaCare would be equal to the profit his company earned all 
of last year.
  In case you think these are isolated examples, the National 
Association of Manufacturers says that more than three-fourths of 
manufacturers cited rising health care and insurance costs as the most 
important business challenge. The U.S. Chamber also has a membership 
survey saying that 74 percent of businesses are reporting that the 
health care law makes it harder for their firms to hire new workers. 
This is at a time when jobs are supposed to be the principal concern in 
our country.
  Many of these businesses self-insure, meaning they design and pay 
directly for the health plans they offer their employees. According to 
the Kaiser Family Foundation, more than 100 million Americans currently 
have employer-sponsored health plans that are self-insured.
  Self-insurance is a method of providing health insurance that has 
worked well since its inception in 1974. It needs to be preserved. Last 
month Senators Rubio, Risch, McConnell, and I introduced a bill to make 
sure the Obama administration doesn't change that, doesn't change the 
rule that allows the companies to insure themselves against a medical 
claim that could bankrupt them. Any effort by the Obama administration 
to change the rule on companies that self-insure will break the 
President's promise to millions of Americans. It won't matter if they 
like their employers' health plans; they won't be able to keep them.
  It is not only the private sector facing fiscal challenges because of 
ObamaCare. Our Nation's schools, colleges, and universities are also 
being hit hard. There is no shortage of examples in my State of 
Tennessee of local leaders dealing with the burdens of ObamaCare.
  The Franklin Special School District has begun limiting substitute 
teachers to working 4 days a week in order to avoid paying between $1 
million and $4.5 million more per year in health care costs.
  Maury County Schools, south of Nashville, is also limiting its 
substitute teachers to no more than 28 hours a week for the same 
reason. One school board member told the local news:

       Students struggle enough having one substitute teacher, but 
     then now we're going to have to possibly split the substitute 
     time between two substitute teachers. It just makes it hard 
     on the students to learn.

  Wilson County Board of Education wrote to tell me that ObamaCare's 
reinsurance fee will cost the district an additional $165,000 in 2014 
alone.
  At least eight other Tennessee school districts are reportedly 
limiting employee work hours or entire jobs, including Clarksville, 
Rutherford County, Johnson City, Carter County, Washington County, 
Oneida Special School District, Scott County, and Stewart County.
  Cumberland University in Lebanon has adopted a new policy to limit 
adjunct faculty to no more than three courses each term, meaning they 
won't be able to offer a course even if they are the most qualified 
instructor available.
  The impact of ObamaCare on education is by no means limited to 
Tennessee. Investor's Business Daily has identified well over 100 
school districts and institutions of higher education nationwide that 
have made cuts or limited employee work hours because of ObamaCare. 
That number is climbing daily, again suggesting this is only the tip of 
the iceberg.
  Remember, what we are hearing about today are individual policies. 
What we are going to hear about next year are employer policies being 
cancelled, new costs, and there are 10 times as many Americans with 
employer policies as individual policies. Who pays the price for this? 
Our children. Cash-strapped schools simply don't have the money to 
absorb these costs, so they are forced to make difficult choices.
  For these reasons--broken promises, higher costs, fewer choices--
ObamaCare was an historic mistake. It expanded a health care delivery 
system that already costs too much and left Americans with fewer 
choices.
  I said at the beginning of my remarks that I would like to end in the 
same way, and I will do that with an answer to this question: What 
would we do if we were in charge? What if we elected a Republican 
Senate and even a Republican President in 2016? We would replace 
ObamaCare, not by moving backward, but by moving in a different 
direction.
  Remember, ObamaCare's real problem was it expanded a delivery system 
that already costs too much. What we would do instead is go step by 
step to introduce new ways to increase choices, to have more 
competition and to lower costs. We would make Medicare solvent, so 
seniors can depend on it. We would give Governors more flexibility with 
Medicaid so they can create programs with lower costs. We would repeal 
the ObamaCare wellness regulation--the Senator from Missouri talked 
about that--and replace it with one that makes it easier, not harder, 
for employers to give employees lower health insurance costs if they 
live a healthy lifestyle. We would let small businesses pool their 
resources and offer low-cost insurance plans for their employees. The 
Congressional Budget Office says that Senator Enzi's bill would allow 
coverage for 750,000 more Americans at a lower cost if we did that. We 
would allow families to purchase insurance across State lines. If there 
is a policy regulated by Kentucky that fits my needs, and I want to buy 
it, why shouldn't I be able to do it if I can afford it? We will expand 
health savings accounts. We would incentivize the growth of private 
health insurance exchanges. That is beginning to develop all across our 
country, giving

[[Page 19307]]

more choices to employees. We would make it easier for patients to 
compare prices and quality of doctors and medical services. We would 
incentivize States to reform junk lawsuits. Those are the steps in the 
right direction where we would like to go.
  When Irving Kristol died not long ago, James Q. Wilson wrote a 
tribute in The Wall Street Journal which struck me. He said when they 
began their association as neoconservatives--they were mostly 
Democrats--he said we were policy skeptics. He said that was mainly 
what our common view was. By that, I think he must have meant they did 
not believe Washington could, through a comprehensive piece of 
legislation, fix our whole health care system; that what Washington 
should do, particularly in this iPhone age, is to go step by step in a 
direction that gives more personal freedom to consumers, to Americans, 
so they can live longer, live healthier, live safer, and be happier.
  That is what we would like to do. That is how we would like to change 
ObamaCare, and we would like to have that opportunity.
  So unfortunately, an unwelcome Christmas present this year for 82,000 
Tennesseans is that they are losing their individual policies. Even 
more unfortunately, an unhappy New Year is coming, in which hundreds of 
thousands of Tennesseans will lose their employer policies--the 
policies they get through their employers--because of ObamaCare. We are 
ready to go in a different direction and create a way for Americans to 
have more choices, more competition, and insurance they can purchase at 
a lower cost.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first of all I want to commend my friend, 
the Senator from Tennessee. There is no one in this body who is more 
thoughtful, works harder on issues, and has shown more willingness to 
find common ground on a host of issues.
  I also want to compliment the earlier speaker, the Senator from 
Missouri, who laid out a series of items that should be components of 
any kind of health care reform.
  As somebody who is a former Governor, as is the Senator from 
Tennessee, I have managed a Medicaid program. As somebody who has been 
a private sector employer and managed private health insurance plans, I 
know this is a conundrum that has to be solved.
  What I don't hear sometimes is folks recognizing the status quo was 
leading this country down a path that was unsustainable, and I look 
forward to working with the Senator from Tennessee, the Senator from 
Missouri and others to see how we can go about fixing the challenges in 
ObamaCare. I remember when I voted for what I called a very imperfect 
piece of legislation, but recognized the status quo was not a place 
that could be maintained.
  There are a couple of points I want to make, although I am here to 
talk about the budget. When we talk about the very attractive 
components of not discriminating against folks with preexisting 
conditions--and I say that as somebody who has a daughter with a major 
preexisting condition--and when we talk about preventive care and other 
items that are the ``nice to have'' or ``we like'' components, those of 
us who have wrestled with health care--and I started the Virginia 
Health Care Foundation 20 years ago--realize that when you push on one 
end of health care it pops out someplace else. It would be great to be 
able to do this in segmented parts, but I believe to get the kind of 
reform that was necessary you have to make a more extensive program.
  As someone who stands here speaking from an IT standpoint, let us 
acknowledge the unprecedented disaster of the rollout of the Web site. 
But what I don't hear from my colleagues is that beneath all these 
challenges there are positive points. Look at the rise of health care 
costs on a macro basis, back 3 years past, when Simpson-Bowles and 
those of us involved in the budget--which is what I am here to talk 
about--were engaged in this issue. You look at the decrease in the 
amount of health care cost increase. If you look at the slope's 
decline, it is hundreds of billions of dollars of savings in the 
projected CBO cost of Medicare and Medicaid.
  Look at one of the areas that was of enormous concern, one of the 
broken parts of our health care system--hospital readmission rates. 
Those rates have dropped dramatically.
  I hear the stories of folks who are upset with the implementation of 
ObamaCare, but I also hear the stories of folks who have never had 
health care and who are finding it now at rates that are more 
affordable than in the past or in the past they didn't even have an 
option of getting health care. This is going to require fixes.
  Let me comment on one of the areas most talked about--this notion of 
the President saying if you want to keep your health care policy, you 
can keep it. What this Senator has tried to do, as we move past the 
rhetoric into how we actually try to fix this, I have worked with our 
State insurance commissioner to take advantage of the opportunity for 
plans within the Commonwealth of Virginia to extend their coverage for 
at least 1 additional year, and we are starting to see some progress--
not as much as I would like but some progress.
  Today, with a group of my colleagues, we have written the 
administration to suggest that so there is not a gap in coverage, 
particularly for those folks above the age of 30, because of the 
transition, who may find themselves faced with higher costs, let's 
present at least a catastrophic plan under the hardship exemption and 
view that in a broad way. Again, this is so that folks can find, during 
this transition period, health care that is affordable.
  As someone who believes we need to ensure the commitment of the 
President and others--I have stated it as well--that you can keep your 
health care plan, I have joined with Senator Landrieu for a legislative 
fix, if these other items don't go far enough.
  As other Senators have said, there will be other issues coming up. 
When you are going through the reform of 17 to 18 percent of our whole 
economy that is connected to health care, it is going to take the 
willingness and good faith of people on both sides of the aisle to 
actually not simply relitigate the direction but to recognize how we 
move on from here, and I would welcome any colleagues who are willing 
to engage in that kind of productive dialogue, discussion, and laying 
out of ideas.
  But this afternoon, we actually are going to be doing something that, 
in an otherwise fairly bleak year of accomplishments and in a Congress 
that may set record lows in terms of legislation passed and approval 
ratings, will actually end the year with something we should at least 
recognize as a step forward.
  I remind my colleagues it was just 2 months ago we were in the midst 
of an unprecedented government shutdown, where millions of Americans 
were furloughed; where America had furloughed three Nobel prize-winning 
physicists who work at NASA and who were somehow deemed nonessential; 
where private sector folks in the tourism industry--whether in New 
Mexico or Virginia--were seeing a dramatic fall-off in tourism because 
of national parks being closed; where we were inflicting upon this 
economy somewhere in the neighborhood of $30 billion to $40 billion of 
unpredicted economic loss simply because we couldn't get a budget. But 
this afternoon it is my hope we will at last close that chapter. My 
hope is this afternoon we will vote on a budget agreement for 2 years. 
While it is not as grand or as comprehensive as I would have liked, it 
will perhaps demonstrate to the American people that although we have 
had to crawl before we could walk, walk before we could run, we have 
put forward a bipartisan compromise.
  A great deal of the credit goes to Chairman Murray and Chairman Ryan. 
This agreement says for at least the balance of this fiscal year and 
for the next, we will take off the table the threat of another 
shutdown, of unprecedented furloughs. It says we will not

[[Page 19308]]

relax our focus on deficit reduction, and we will not add to the debt, 
but we will actually do a little more--about $20 billion more in 
deficit reduction--and we will demonstrate this institution can 
actually put the country ahead of partisan interests.
  In this compromise not everyone got what they wanted. I would have 
argued strongly that the big enchilada remains. How do we really take 
on, in a major way, that $17 trillion debt that clicks up about $4 
billion a night? That would mean both political parties have to give on 
their sacred cows. It means we have to generate additional revenues 
through meaningful reform of a completely disastrous Tax Code, and yes, 
it means for folks on my side, we have to make sure the promise of 
Medicare and Social Security and other entitlement programs are here 
not just for this generation but for 20 and 30 years from now.
  Some of those challenges will have to be put off for another day, and 
there are many in this body on both sides of the aisle who may have a 
chance to surprise some folks next year in laying out some specific 
ideas on how we can move to that bigger bargain. But we should not 
underestimate what we do today.
  I have spent a longer time in business than I have in elective 
office, and what this country is yearning for, what consumers are 
yearning for, what business leaders are yearning for is just a little 
bit of predictability. We have seen growth rates go up higher than 
estimated. We have seen job growth coming quicker--as monthly revisions 
are made--and going up even higher than we thought. The single best 
thing we can do is to make sure we remove the cloud of further 
disruption caused by Washington. So what we do today with this small 
step--but a step we shouldn't underestimate--is to get rid of that 
threat for the next 2 years.
  So I look forward to supporting this bipartisan agreement. As I 
mentioned, it rolls back the most draconian parts of sequestration. 
Sequestration was set up to be the most stupid option so that no 
rational group of people would ever agree to it. I call it stupidity on 
steroids. So this budget agreement gets rid of the worst brunt of that 
sequestration and then gives this body and our colleagues in the House 
the ability to actually fashion a budget for 2 years that will also 
allow them to allocate within these still historically lower numbers.
  So I will vote for this compromise, but as with any compromise, there 
are particular provisions of this compromise I would not have agreed to 
and that I do not support. One of those provisions is a component that 
unfairly singles out our military families. Our military families over 
the last decades-plus have fought two wars. They have made 
unprecedented sacrifices. Often they have been the only Americans 
making sacrifices through many of the years in the last decades.
  Virginia is home to the Nation's largest concentration of Active-Duty 
and retired military personnel, and I consider it an honor to represent 
them here in Congress. The component of the budget compromise that 
singles out these military retirees for a decrease in their cost-of-
living increase was not an appropriate component. But rather than 
saying let's flush the whole deal down, I will vote for this deal, with 
the idea in mind--similar to my approach to the health care bill--that 
we will attack this problem and fix it, and I have a fix I will propose 
to replace this component going forward.
  I have been joined in this effort by my friend from Virginia, Senator 
Kaine, and former Governor Senator Shaheen, to introduce legislation 
which would eliminate this close to $6 billion hit on our military 
retirees. Our legislation doesn't add to the debt or deficit but would 
replace this unfair hit to our military retirees by closing certain 
corporate tax loopholes, which would generate sufficient revenue to 
make sure our military families would not be unfairly affected.
  I know in a grander bargain all things may be on the table, but in 
this smaller deal we should not be singling out our military families 
and those retirees for this undue burden.
  I believe and I hope other colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as 
we get this budget compromise passed, will join in this effort to 
substitute out this $6 billion provision for what I believe would be a 
much more readily acceptable $6 billion provision in terms of change in 
the corporate tax law. I know the chairman of the Budget Committee from 
our side of the aisle would welcome this kind of substitution. Her job 
was to get a deal and she did that job, she got a deal, and I look 
forward to supporting her.
  I will close with these comments. Virginians have served with honor 
in our military for generations. I assure our service men and women 
that because of this provision--which doesn't take effect until 2016--
we have ample time to make this substitution.
  We are being joined on the floor by Senator Shaheen, the original 
sponsor of this legislation, and I remain committed to working with 
Senator Shaheen, Senator McCain, and any Member of this body from 
either party, to work on this deficit reduction package, this 
substitution, which would relieve this burden.
  I hope later this afternoon we can build on the overwhelming support 
this compromise budget measure received in the House, and believe a 
strong bipartisan vote today--actually, yesterday, when we cleared 
cloture--is an indication it will hopefully get the same kind of vote 
today.
  Regardless, I believe we will pass this budget compromise and we will 
show this body can work, and American families can go into the holiday 
season without the potential threat of another government shutdown 
hitting them mid-January.
  I again thank the chairman of our Budget Committee for the enormous 
amount of time she put into this effort. She had lots of folks pushing 
and pulling her from every direction. As someone who still aspires to 
be part of a grander bargain and a bigger deal, our day will come 
again; but in the meantime, later this afternoon we will do the 
people's work and make sure we do our most essential requirement, which 
is to present a budget which is fiscally responsible, takes down our 
deficit, and allows our government to move forward and our economy to 
grow.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the bipartisan, 
bicameral budget agreement that is currently before the Senate.
  This budget agreement, while far from perfect, will help move our 
economy forward, create certainty that has been sorely lacking for far 
too long, and save some $23 billion over the next decade. It has been 4 
years since the House and Senate have reached an agreement on a budget 
that sets priorities for Federal spending and revenues. While the 2-
year budget agreement worked out between Senator Murray and Congressman 
Ryan is not what I would have written, it is a step in the right 
direction. It will prevent Congress from lurching from crisis to 
crisis, avoid most of the across-the-board, meat-ax cuts known as 
sequestration, and will allow the Appropriations Committee, of which I 
am a member, to do its job of developing bills to responsibly fund the 
government within agreed to limits.
  Over the last 9 months since sequestration went into effect, I have 
met with countless Mainers, including shipyard workers, medical 
researchers, educators, Border Patrol agents, small business owners 
affected by the delayed opening and shutdown of Acadia National Park, 
and nonprofit organizations providing services for the low-income and 
the elderly. All have shared stories of their personal experiences with 
how the indiscriminate cuts of sequestration have affected them, their 
families, and those whom they serve. The sequester has had a 
detrimental impact on Mainers and our country and is not the right 
approach to reducing our enormous debt. The $65 billion in 
sequestration relief provided by this agreement will help mitigate the 
effect on our economy moving forward and allow Congress to prioritize 
those programs that are most effective over those that are wasteful, 
duplicative, or simply no longer necessary.

[[Page 19309]]

  The agreement will spare the Department of Defense some of the 
devastating sequestration cuts that Pentagon officials testified could 
cripple military readiness, harm our national security, and affect 
thousands of defense-related jobs that are vital to our economy in 
Maine and in the United States. It also begins to address the harmful 
impact of indiscriminate cuts made to vital programs such as 
transportation, education, and biomedical research.
  It is critical that Congress continue to work to bring spending under 
control. Our national debt now stands at an almost incomprehensible 
$17.2 trillion. This sum, along with rising interest payments, is our 
legacy to future generations and simply must be responsibly addressed. 
This agreement will save $23 billion over the next 10 years and help 
prevent government shutdowns over the next 2 years.
  I am, however, deeply disappointed that this agreement includes a 
reduction in the annual cost of living increase for some current 
military retirees. We must honor the service and sacrifice of the brave 
men and women who served our country so that they can continue to have 
access to the benefits they worked so hard to earn and that were 
promised to them. The significant changes to military retirement 
included in this budget single out current retirees and change the 
rules for them, and that is not fair.
  In 2012, I was a member of the Armed Services Committee when we 
created the Military Retirement and Compensation Modernization 
Commission with the precise purpose of comprehensively examining this 
issue in a thorough way that protects current retirees and ensures that 
the military retirement system is offering the right incentives to 
recruit and retain the most qualified and experienced servicemembers at 
a time of budget constraints.
  I have raised my concerns with my colleagues about the military 
retirement provisions in this agreement and will work to ensure that 
this issue is addressed before it is set to take effect in January 
2016. The chairman of the Armed Services Committee has already 
committed to reviewing this change at the start of next year. I intend 
to do everything I can, in conjunction with the leadership of the Armed 
Services Committee, to identify a more reasonable approach to this 
problem that would provide the same level of savings while protecting 
current retirees.
  The American people are weary of watching a Congress that can't work. 
We saw the result of this dysfunction when the government shutdown in 
October. That is why I worked so hard to forge a compromise that helped 
get Congress functioning again. We simply must avoid another shutdown 
and put our Nation back on a sound financial footing. In my judgment, 
this agreement takes the first steps on a responsible path forward.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I would like to join several of my 
colleagues who have already spoken to clarify the intent of an 
important provision in the Bipartisan Budget Act that the Senate is 
currently considering.
  Section 203 of the legislation is intended to prevent criminals from 
using information in the Death Master File, DMF--a list of recently 
deceased individuals that includes personal information such as Social 
Security numbers--to steal their identities to commit fraud.
  At the same time, the provision is intended to allow those who must 
use the DMF for legitimate business or official purposes, such as 
paying life insurance proceeds, preventing fraud, and addressing 
unclaimed property, to continue to have access to the information they 
need.
  Under this provision, the Secretary of Commerce is required to 
establish a program that will restrict public access to an individual's 
personal information on the DMF for a 3-year period after his or her 
death. The Secretary will also determine individuals certified under 
the program who will maintain access to the Death Master File for 
legitimate business or fraud prevention interests. These include State 
authorities, life insurance companies, and other legitimate users.
  To strike this balance between stopping criminals and allowing 
legitimate users to perform their responsibilities, the provision 
intends for the Department of Commerce to follow rulemaking procedures 
allowing for sufficient notice and comment from the public and 
interested parties. The provision is also intended to allow legitimate 
current users of the Death Master File to continue accessing DMF 
information until the certification program is established.
  I understand that Senator Nelson, the original author of this 
provision, engaged in a colloquy with Chairman Murray and Senator 
Casey, clarifying its intent. I salute Senator Nelson for his 
leadership in crafting a strong and well-targeted response to the 
important issue of identity theft.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in comparison to recent battles this 
Congress has fought over the budget, the legislation we consider today 
represents progress. Instead of government by crisis and hostage-
taking, we have before us an agreement negotiated by the Senator 
Murray, a Democrat, and Congressman Ryan, a Republican, a negotiation 
in which neither side got all that it wanted, but both sides found 
acceptable middle ground. That is not a common event around here these 
days. Significantly, by reaching agreement, they have offered us a way 
to avoid a potential government shutdown in 2014. And they have 
provided a way to offer some relief from the damaging impact of 
sequestration.
  So I will support this agreement. But I will not do so without 
reservation. Despite what it offers, this budget agreement falls short 
of what I believe we need to accomplish in three significant ways.
  First, while the agreement provides some modest relief, it leaves 
more than half of the irrational meat-ax cuts of sequestration in place 
over 2 years. As a result, important programs to protect and promote 
national security, public safety, health, transportation, education, 
and the environment will remain under-funded. A balanced package that 
included measures I have recommended to close loopholes that allow 
profitable corporations to avoid taxes by sending their revenue and 
assets to offshore tax havens would, if passed, do far more to address 
these problems.
  Second, this agreement does not include an extension of emergency 
unemployment benefits for 1.3 million people. Those benefits end in 
less than 2 weeks. Failure to extend these benefits would mean more 
than 43,000 workers in my state of Michigan would lose unemployment 
benefits at year's end. In the first 6 months of 2014, more than 86,000 
additional Michigan workers would also lose benefits if we fail to act. 
This is both cruel and economically self-defeating. At a time when job 
creation remains slower than any of us want, and when nationwide there 
are roughly three job seekers for every available job opening, removing 
the safety net that keeps families from falling into despair is unjust. 
And the reduced economic activity that will result will cost thousands 
of jobs, making our economic recovery even slower. The Republican 
refusal to include extended unemployment benefits in this legislation 
is deeply disappointing. Majority Leader Reid has expressed 
determination to take up an unemployment benefit extension bill in 
January. It is essential that we do so.
  Third, the agreement includes a provision that would reduce cost-of-
living adjustments for working-age military retirees. This is a 
troubling provision because it singles out a group of veterans, and 
therefore I have decided the Senate Armed Services Committee will 
review the retirement benefit changes next year, before they take 
effect in 2015. This proposal is yet more evidence of the fact that the 
only fair solution to the sequestration problem is a balanced, 
comprehensive deficit-reduction agreement. The major impediment to such 
an agreement has been the inability of some in Congress to accept the 
necessity of real additional revenue, such as closing tax loopholes 
used by highly profitable corporations to avoid paying taxes by 
transferring assets and

[[Page 19310]]

revenue to subsidiaries in offshore tax havens.
  These shortcomings in the budget legislation before us are 
significant, but nonetheless this legislation does offer important 
benefits. The sequestration relief, though smaller than many of us 
would like, is significant. Over the course of the last year, the Armed 
Services Committee has repeatedly heard from our senior military and 
civilian defense leaders that the rigidity and extent of the 
sequestration puts the security of our Nation and the lives of our 
troops at risk. Sequestration has also shut Head Start classrooms, labs 
researching cures to life-threatening diseases, and clinics providing 
health care to the needy and elderly, among many unwise effects.
  Again, this legislation offers the only available way out of the 
cycle of crisis that brought us a damaging government shutdown in 
November. That shutdown was extraordinarily disturbing to every 
American who expects Government to operate without the constant threat 
of shutting down.
  So on balance I support this legislation because of the modest 
positive changes it makes from the status quo, and in the hope that 
this is the first step toward a more comprehensive and more balanced 
deficit-reduction agreement to replace the rest of sequestration. This 
agreement likely represents as much progress as we realistically can 
make in the absence of a balanced, comprehensive budget agreement. 
Again, the major stumbling block that prevents us from reaching such an 
agreement is the reluctance of so many Republicans to consider 
additional revenue, particularly the substantial revenue available to 
us through closing unjustified tax loopholes. It is essential that we 
spend the coming weeks and months working toward a better, more 
balanced, fairer, more comprehensive solution.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I support the Murray-Ryan budget 
agreement, even though I disagree with a number of provisions included 
in the bill, because it includes balanced savings to roll back 
sequestration for the next 2 years and help restore much needed 
certainty to government agencies and our economy.
  Sequestration is just a fancy word for cuts--mindless cuts. I 
strongly believe we must end the mindless, across the board cuts from 
sequestration which have significantly reduced funding for a number of 
Federal programs that are critical to Massachusetts families and 
businesses.
  Sequestration has also significantly cut Federal spending on the 
research which has been critical for the development of the 
Massachusetts economy and will damage our economy in the long-term.
  Under the Murray-Ryan agreement, sequestration under the Budget 
Control Act would continue. However, the size of sequestration will be 
rolled back and the Appropriations Committee will have the authority to 
make changes to existing spending rather than be required to impose an 
across the board cut. The agreement would set overall discretionary 
spending for this year at $1.012 trillion--which is about $46 billion 
less than the Senate budget level and $45 billion above the level set 
in the Budget Control Act. Spending would increase only slightly next 
year. Unfortunately, this legislation does not eliminate sequestration 
from future years, in fact the agreement extends sequestration for 2 
additional years (fiscal years 2022-2023).
  The agreement includes dozens of specific deficit-reduction 
provisions, with mandatory savings and non-tax revenue totaling 
approximately $85 billion. Those provisions include higher security 
fees for airline passengers, reduced contributions to Federal pensions, 
higher premiums for Federal insurance for private pensions, and savings 
from not completely refilling the strategic petroleum reserve.
  Finally, the agreement would reduce the deficit by between $20 and 
$23 billion. It also includes a 3 month extension of the Medicare 
Sustainable Growth Rate, SGR.
  It is unfortunate that this agreement fails to include a critical 
extension of unemployment insurance, which is a critical component of 
our ongoing recovery and a lifeline to millions of Americans seeking 
employment. As a result of objections raised by the minority in the 
Senate, unemployment insurance will terminate just a few days after the 
holiday season ends. This action will cut off support desperately 
needed by more than 1.3 million Americans including more than 30,000 in 
Massachusetts. The U.S. Department of Labor has found that for every $1 
of unemployment benefits spent, $2 of economic activity are generated. 
Extending unemployment benefits would increase our Gross National 
Product by 0.2 percent and create more than 200,000 jobs in 2014 alone. 
These Americans need our help and deserve our best efforts to resolve 
this issue before we adjourn for the year.
  Before the Senate adjourns for the year, I hope that the Senate can 
act on the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act which 
would reinstate and continue Federal support for unemployment insurance 
(UI), effective January 1, 2014, for an additional 3 months to 
temporarily prevent the expiration of benefits for 1.3 million 
Americans. I am a cosponsor of this legislation because it would allow 
all States to continue Federal unemployment insurance without a lapse 
from January 1, 2014. The bill would also allow any State whose 
agreement was previously terminated in 2013 to enter into a new 
agreement with the Department of Labor for emergency unemployment 
compensation.
  I have heard from a number of veterans from Massachusetts who have 
expressed their deep concerns about a provision in the budget agreement 
that would reduce the annual cost of living increase for military 
retirees under the age of 62. I am concerned that this provision could 
have a serious financial impact on these patriots and their families 
who fought to protect our freedom. The retirement compensation of 
servicemembers and Federal employees should never be reduced to lower 
our deficit especially while corporate tax loopholes and billions in 
subsidies for oil companies remain on the books.
  I am proud to cosponsor the Military Retirement Restoration Act. The 
bill would replace the cuts to military retiree benefits from the 
Murray-Ryan Budget Agreement by preventing companies from avoiding U.S. 
taxes by abusing tax havens. I am hopeful that the Senate will be able 
to consider this legislation early next year. I also strongly support 
the review of this provision by Senate Armed Services Committee 
Chairman Levin before it takes effect in December 2015. Finally, I 
await a comprehensive review of the military retirement and 
compensation systems being conducted by the Military Retirement and 
Compensation Modernization Commission established by Congress which can 
provide a better solution than the one included in the budget agreement 
for military retirees.
  I would also like to speak about another provision of the Bipartisan 
Budget Act: section 203, which limits access to the Social Security 
Administration's Death Master File, DMF. The DMF is a little-known but 
critically important piece of our Social Security system. It is the 
authoritative index of all deaths reported to the Social Security 
Administration from 1936 to the present, an index that contains over 85 
million records of death. The DMF is therefore the prime tool available 
to formally confirm the death of an American citizen, and a variety of 
enterprises, from life insurers to pension funds, rely on the DMF to 
administer benefits and premiums.
  Under section 203 of the Bipartisan Budget Act, access to the DMF 
will be greatly restricted. From now on, the Department of Commerce 
will not be allowed to disclose information in the DMF with respect to 
a newly deceased person for 3 years except to persons certified under a 
new program managed by the Commerce Department. Under this new program, 
which has yet to be established, certification will be given only to 
those persons who have either a legitimate business or fraud prevention 
interest and have processes in place to safeguard the information. The 
goal of section 203 is laudable--to prevent persons from using the DMF 
to engage in identity theft and fraud. Given the sensitive nature of 
this information, it is

[[Page 19311]]

good that steps are being taken to prevent the misuse of this data.
  Yet, while I support the goal of this section, I am concerned about 
how it will be implemented. Many insurance companies and pension 
administrators rely on the DMF to determine when benefits should be 
paid to their beneficiaries. In fact, nine States actually require that 
insurers access the DMF prior to the payment of benefits. These 
companies' access to the DMF is critical to their efforts to serve 
consumers, and their access cannot be interrupted while the Department 
of Commerce creates its new access certification program. Similarly, 
State Treasurers and Comptrollers, and their authorized personnel, also 
use the DMF for important purposes and need continued access while the 
regulations are being developed by the Secretary of Commerce.
  I therefore urge the Department of Commerce to take immediate 
regulatory action to ensure that insurance companies, pension plans, 
and State Treasurers and Comptrollers' access to the DMF is not 
inhibited during the initiation of the certification program and that 
all parties have an opportunity to obtain certification prior to losing 
access to the DMF. The Department of Commerce should also ensure that 
stakeholders, both in the industry and in the beneficiary communities, 
have an opportunity to provide input on any rulemakings regarding 
either the certification program or the access restrictions themselves.
  Earlier this year, I released a report that outlined the damage to 
our economy caused by sequestration and proposed an alternative plan 
that would produce the $1.2 trillion savings called for in the Budget 
Control Act without imposing the mindless, across-the-board 
sequestration cuts.
  I strongly believe we can work together on a bipartisan effort to 
replace these misguided cuts of sequestration with a balanced deficit 
reduction plan that includes a more progressive tax code, targeted cuts 
to defense spending and nuclear weapons, an end to unnecessary oil 
subsidies, and the expansion of innovative programs in Medicare that 
improve the quality of healthcare for beneficiaries.
  At the same time, we must make smart investments now that will create 
jobs and continue our country's economic recovery. We can no longer 
afford to make irresponsible across-the-board cuts that hurt middle 
class families and hurt our still-fragile economy.
  Our national strategy for job growth must continue to emphasize the 
areas in which Massachusetts excels: an emphasis on education; 
investment in our high-tech, medical, and clean energy industries; and 
strong support for the teachers, firefighters, and police that form the 
backbone of our communities. This approach has resulted in the Bay 
State consistently having an unemployment rate that is significantly 
lower than the rest of the Nation.
  I want to work in a bipartisan effort to fix our fiscal problems and 
I believe working together we can reach a bipartisan agreement to fix 
sequestration and maintain our fiscal discipline.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Connecticut 
to address a specific provision in the Bipartisan Budget Act. Overall, 
while this deal is flawed, we are heartened to see both sides coming 
together to put in place a workable fiscal foundation for the next 2 
years. But we want to make sure to clarify what we are intending to do 
with a particular provision in this bill. Specifically, section 203 of 
the act institutes new reforms to the Social Security Death Master 
File, which keeps an authoritative record of deaths in this country. 
These important reforms include a new certification process that will 
ensure only those properly authorized and able to maintain the 
information under significant safeguards can access the information on 
this master file on a current basis, helping prevent identity theft and 
other abuses. Release of the information to all others would be delayed 
by 3 years after an individual's death. We would like to emphasize, 
though, that this provision was not intended to interrupt in any way 
the legitimate use of the Death Master File in the interim. I will turn 
to my colleague to explain why we think this is so important and how we 
think we can avoid this situation.
  Mr. MURPHY. I thank my good friend, the senior Senator from 
Connecticut. Our understanding is that many States require insurers to 
check their policies against the master list on an ongoing basis in 
order to ensure they have accurate information about deceased 
individuals whom they insure. Furthermore, State treasurers, State 
comptrollers, and credit bureaus all use the Death Master File for 
important purposes and need continued access. We certainly do not want 
to halt these processes or stand in the way of compliance with State 
law. As such, I am pleased to join you in urging the Social Security 
Administration and the Commerce Department to both work closely with 
key stakeholders during the transition period and to use the 
flexibility we believe they already possess to ensure uninterrupted 
legitimate access to the Death Master File. State governments, too, 
should be flexible throughout this transition as insurers under their 
jurisdictions seek to comply with these new Federal provisions.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I echo my colleague's recommendations. Overall, so 
long as we manage the transition appropriately, my friend and fellow 
Senator from Connecticut and I believe the new system will save 
hundreds of millions of dollars and also protect the identities of 
millions of Americans.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I will vote in favor of the 
bipartisan budget compromise put forward by Senator Murray and 
Congressman Ryan.
  I understand some of my colleagues are not happy with this budget 
deal. If any of them had been able to show me a better alternative that 
had the votes to pass in both the House and the Senate and prevent a 
government shutdown next month, then I would vote no on the measure 
before the Senate. Unfortunately, we did not have a better plan.
  I share the concerns that many of my colleagues have with the 
provision that slows the growth of working-aged military retirees. This 
provision will not take effect until the end of 2015. I am confident 
that, before then, under the leadership of the chairman and ranking 
member of the Armed Services Committee, we will overturn this unfair 
provision.
  My support for this budget deal centers primarily on two very 
important facts. First, this agreement will prevent another government 
shutdown; we cannot put the American people and the people in my State 
of Arizona through another government shutdown. And, second, the budget 
deal will go a long way in alleviating the devastating impact of 
sequestration on our military.
  It is imperative that we do what is necessary to avoid sequestration 
if we are to expect our military to properly defend this Nation and 
provide for our national security. Defense Secretary Hagel has stated 
his support for this budget agreement, as have GEN Martin Dempsey, 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Christine Fox, Acting Deputy 
Secretary of Defense, GEN Ray Odierno, Chief of Staff of the Army, and 
GEN Mark Welsh, Chief of Staff of the Air Force.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in what I hope is a sign of things to come, 
today, I expect the Senate to pass the Bipartisan Budget Act. The 
result of the long-awaited budget conference--one that had long been 
requested by Chairwoman Murray but never agreed to by Senate 
Republicans--the agreement has found some common ground and reflects a 
shared commitment to work for the American people--something in short 
supply in Congress these days.
  The budget deal we are considering today is a true compromise. I 
believe it would be difficult to find any Member of Congress who fully 
embraces every aspect of this agreement. In spite of that, there is 
broad, bipartisan support for the bill, as evidenced by the 
overwhelming bipartisan vote in the House late last week and the 
bipartisan vote by which cloture was invoked here in the Senate. There 
is bipartisan support for the overall goal of ending this manufactured 
budget stalemate that we currently face.

[[Page 19312]]

  The Bipartisan Budget Act will provide us with the our top-line 
spending levels for the remainder of this fiscal year and next and, 
most importantly, will prevent the full force of a second round of 
sequestration's indiscriminate and devastating cuts. This is welcome 
news for nearly every American who has seen how devastating the 
sequester has been for their communities and for those who have 
anxiously awaited a second round of deeper, more painful cuts. With 
agencies facing budgets that just simply could not meet their basic 
obligations to the public and to the Nation's priorities and with their 
coffers to insulate programs and prevent furloughs and layoffs 
exhausted, allowing the sequester to lengthen and deepen truly would 
have been debilitating and would have stunted our ongoing economic 
recovery.
  While this is not the budget I would have written and while it is 
paid for in a number of ways with which I simply disagree, we are at a 
juncture at which we cannot allow the goal of perfection to bring on 
another body blow to the Nation and to our economy. One thing I have 
heard clearly from Vermonters is that we must replace the sequester. 
While not perfect, this deal will in fact save jobs, reduce unnecessary 
furloughs, and will not prioritize defense spending at the cost of our 
education and housing programs as so many other budget proposals have 
in the past.
  I was proud to support a Senate budget and Senate appropriations 
bills that would fully replace sequestration by closing corporate tax 
loopholes and making responsible cuts. I am disappointed that this deal 
does not more closely follow the framework or provide the funding 
levels supported earlier by the Senate. As a senior member of the 
Appropriations Committee, I welcome the fact that this deal will mean 
that we will be able to get back to the work of passing annual 
appropriations bills through regular order, ending the practice of 
putting these budget decisions on autopilot through continuing 
resolutions. The annual appropriations process provides us with the 
opportunity to make much needed adjustments to agency priorities and 
budgets. This budget also allows a return to regular order while 
keeping the promises we have made to seniors. It protects Social 
Security and Medicare benefits from the harmful cuts included in the 
earlier Ryan Budget.
  But there certainly are areas in which this deal is lacking. I had 
hoped any budget agreement we considered would include an extension of 
unemployment insurance that will end later this month for 1.3 million 
Americans. It is disappointing that it does not. Unemployment insurance 
is a vital component of our ongoing recovery and a lifeline to millions 
of Americans as they search for work in this challenging economy.
  I hope the bipartisan spirit that is the basis of this agreement can 
continue into the new year, and I hope that when the Senate, early in 
the new year, considers legislation to restore this lifeline of 
unemployment insurance, Senators and Representatives will support an 
extension.
  Unfortunately, my disappointment is not reserved only for what was 
not included in the deal but also for ways this budget pays to replace 
sequestration.
  A provision included in this agreement could negatively impact not-
for-profit student loan servicers around the country by removing $3.1 
billion in mandatory funding and the requirement that the Department of 
Education work with these organizations service direct Federal loans. 
The nonprofit Vermont Student Assistance Corporation, VSAC, has been 
servicing Federal loans and chalking up high borrower satisfaction rate 
while doing this work. I appreciate Chairwoman Murray's clarification 
that this provision is not aimed at ending existing contracts like 
VSAC's, but I am concerned that the funding used to service these loans 
will now need to be found elsewhere. Our discretionary budget is 
stretched thin as it is, and this provision will arrive on the doorstep 
of an already overburdened Education Department.
  Even though we have reduced the deficit by $2.4 trillion since the 
start of fiscal year 2011, with nearly three-quarters of that deficit 
reduction coming from $1.8 trillion in spending, there is ongoing 
pressure to find additional ways to put money toward deficit reduction. 
It concerns me that this budget proposal will devote $23 billion toward 
deficit reduction--barely a drop in the bucket of the larger picture--
by forcing those who have served in our military, future Federal 
employees, and airline passengers--but not the airlines--to pay for it.
  Under this proposal, many Active-Duty military retirees are targeted 
for Federal spending cuts by a reduction to their cost-of-living 
adjustment until they reach age 62. This is a bait-and-switch maneuver 
that will cost them thousands of dollars in compensation that they were 
promised and have earned--many of them while bravely serving in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. That just doesn't sit right with me. This provision, 
which saves only $6 billion, is set to be phased in over several years 
until full implementation in 2017. Unfortunately, these pension reforms 
will not be grandfathered in for military retirees, as will be done for 
Federal employees--the only positive component of the measure 
addressing Federal worker pensions in this legislation. It is my hope 
that the delay of its application will give Congress the time to 
responsibly replace the savings from these changes to military retiree 
compensation.
  I am disappointed that the only deal that could receive bipartisan 
support does not ask oil companies to sacrifice their tax breaks but 
instead asks for sacrifices from our mititary retirees and hard-working 
Federal workforce. And instead of closing tax loopholes benefiting 
private jet owners and companies hiding profits overseas, we are forced 
to find savings through cuts to our conservation programs.
  I have always believed that getting our fiscal house in order must go 
hand in hand with policies that promote economic growth, create jobs, 
and strengthen the middle class. Without this deal, sequestration would 
bring to a halt economic growth and threaten to undo the progress we 
have made. Further sequestration undoubtedly would increase furloughs 
and eliminate jobs. Sequestration would devastate housing programs 
keeping roofs over families this winter and gut programs supporting the 
education of our children, lifesaving technology for law enforcers, and 
services for crime victims. Sequestration is a blunt, harmful, and 
mindless instrument. The Bipartisan Budget Act, while not perfect, is 
the lifeline we need to prevent that bleak sequestration future from 
becoming a reality.
  It is time for us to move beyond these manufactured budget crises and 
focus on the many remaining challenges that matter most to the American 
people.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the final 20 
minutes before the cloture vote be equally divided, and that I control 
the final 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, this afternoon we will vote to pass a 
budget for the next 2 years. That sounds really good when we think 
about actually getting a budget for the next 2 years. I support this 
budget because I think it provides the certainty our businesses and our 
economy need and that our families need. It replaces some of the 
reckless across-the-board cuts known as sequestration, and ensures--
perhaps most importantly--that we won't have another government 
shutdown.
  The alternative--allowing this budget to fail and setting up another 
government shutdown--is simply unacceptable. We saw the impact the 
government shutdown had on our economy, on the people who depend on 
vital services, as well as on our national defense and our military 
readiness.
  So while this budget is not perfect--it is not something I would have 
written; I am sure it is not something Senator Murray would have 
written. But the budget deal struck by Senator Murray, the chairman of 
the Budget Committee in the Senate, and Congressman Paul Ryan, the 
chairman of

[[Page 19313]]

the Budget Committee in the House, is a product of bipartisan 
compromise--something we need a whole lot more of in Washington these 
days. It represents a small but important step forward for our 
government and for our economy.
  While the budget we are going to vote on today is not perfect, I do 
believe it is a step forward. It doesn't close a single corporate 
loophole. It doesn't extend unemployment insurance, which I would like 
to have seen for people who have lost their jobs through no fault of 
their own. That is probably going to cost our economy about 200,000 
jobs. And there are provisions included in the bill that I think are 
misguided and need to be fixed. But the fact is, this is a step forward 
also in addressing sequestration in a way I think is absolutely 
critical to anybody who does business with the Federal Government or 
with companies and families who are dependent on services and on 
contracts with the Federal Government.
  I was at BAE Systems in Nashua, NH, on Monday. I heard from the 
employees there through their leadership how important it was to have a 
budget for 2 years to provide some certainty for the company so that 
they knew what programs they were working on--they do defense 
contracting--and they could count on, that would provide certainty for 
them, which is very important. Because one of the comments we have 
heard on the defense side of the budget is that the cuts from 
sequestration were having a very detrimental impact on the readiness of 
our military, on our men and women who are serving, and on the men and 
women who work for the Department of Defense.
  We have seen it in New Hampshire at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard 
where we saw furloughs of people at the shipyard. We saw the impact the 
uncertainty as a result of sequestration was having and has been having 
on the ability to know what they are going to be working on, and to be 
assured the work will be there in the future. We have seen it with our 
National Guard in New Hampshire, where the training they need to have 
to keep people current is being affected, where people were furloughed 
as a result of those sequestration cuts. This is legislation which will 
address that in a way that is critical to our national security and 
critical to the men and women who serve in our military.
  There are provisions in the bill I think need to be fixed. I am very 
concerned, as so many other people in this body are, with the impact of 
the bill on military retirees. I am disappointed that Congressman Ryan 
was so committed to including this provision in the compromise bill. 
But one of the things I want to speak to this afternoon is an effort I 
am working on with a number of my colleagues here in the Senate to try 
and fix that provision--to try and address the negative impacts the 
bill might have on military retirees' benefits, because what the bill 
does is include an unnecessary reduction in benefits for military 
retirees under the age of 62. I think there are lots of other ways we 
can find budgetary savings rather than cutting those retirement 
benefits for the men and women who have served our Nation in uniform.
  The good news is that this provision does not go into effect for 
another 2 years, so we have time to fix this. We have already heard 
from the chairman of the Armed Services Committee that he is interested 
in trying to address this provision as we take up the Defense 
authorization bill in the coming year, but I am ready to get to work 
right now to address the provision.
  Yesterday I introduced legislation, the Military Retirement 
Restoration Act, with 15 of my colleagues which would replace the 
military retiree benefit cuts by closing a tax loophole some 
corporations are using to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. These 
corporations set up shell companies in tax havens to avoid being 
considered an American company even though they are controlled and 
operated on American soil. I think most Americans would agree this kind 
of tax avoidance is unfair and that we should close this tax loophole 
rather than reducing military retiree benefits. This is just one idea. 
I am certainly open to other solutions. I hope we can continue the 
bipartisan work that began with Senator Murray and Congressman Ryan and 
that we saw again in the vote to end the filibuster on this bill--that 
we can continue to work in a bipartisan way to replace the cuts for 
military retirees' benefits and we can do it in a way that is smart, 
but that we can move forward to end the uncertainty, to get a budget in 
place for 2 years, and to make sure we address the devastating 
sequestration impacts we have seen since March, the automatic cuts and 
the impact they are having on the domestic side of the budget and on 
the defense side.
  I see Senator McCain on the floor. I know earlier on the floor he 
talked about hearing from every single uniformed service leader of the 
four armed services, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, about 
the impact and further effects that sequestration would have on our 
national security. That is testimony itself of the need to move forward 
to get this budget deal done, and to come back and revisit the concerns 
we have about other provisions.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. McCAIN pertaining to the introduction of S. 1851 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise today and associate 
myself with the remarks of my colleague Senator Shaheen that she 
delivered earlier today. She is a fierce supporter of our men and women 
in uniform, both when they serve our Nation and when they retire or 
leave the military. I am an original cosponsor of her Military 
Retirement Restoration Act, and I am also supportive of passing a 
bipartisan budget deal that prevents our government from shutting down 
and prevents our defense budget from being slashed.
  The American people have made it crystal clear that they are tired of 
gridlock here in Washington, they are tired of partisan bickering, they 
are tired of the fact that it has led us to sequestration and the kind 
of crisis budgeting that has prevented us from getting our fiscal house 
in order.
  Like every one of us, I do not support every provision in the 
bipartisan budget agreement, but I want to give great credit to Senator 
Murray and Congressman Ryan for their willingness to sit down together 
and negotiate in good faith and come up with a deal that moves our 
country forward. Let me make it clear that the budget compromise is not 
perfect, but it is far better than the alternative. Let's be clear what 
the alternative is: A $20 billion sequester cut for the Department of 
Defense on January 15 and a much higher likelihood of a government 
shutdown. Our country simply cannot afford more ideological standoffs 
that lead nowhere. Our men and women in uniform and our national 
security cannot afford to see those catastrophic cuts.
  Like many of my colleagues, I believe we should find an alternative 
to the decreases in the cost-of-living adjustments for working age 
military retirees. That is why I am proud to cosponsor Senator 
Shaheen's legislation which would do just that. I am committed to work 
with Senator Levin and my other colleagues on the Armed Services 
Committee to continue to find additional ways to protect the retirement 
that our retirees and their families have earned. These proposed 
changes do not go into effect until 2015 and that gives us some room 
and some time to get together to work on addressing these areas where 
this bipartisan budget agreement falls short.
  This is an important agreement. It is important to the Defense 
Department and to other programs like Head Start and Meals On Wheels 
that affect Coloradans every day. It will mean more resources for 
housing and economic development programs, for roads, small

[[Page 19314]]

airports, and transit systems, for first responders and those who fight 
wildfires. The list goes on. This agreement provides predictability for 
the individuals and organizations, cities and businesses in Colorado 
that need to know what to expect from the Federal Government.
  It does all of this while providing for a net reduction in the 
deficit, something we all know must be achieved more often. For all 
those reasons I support the partisan budget package and urge my 
colleagues to join me and continue to find ways to keep faith with our 
military retirees and their families. If you think about what we are 
doing with the bipartisan budget agreement, we are creating more 
certainty for our economy.


                         Production Tax Credit

  Mr. President, I want to take a few additional minutes to talk about 
a driving force in our economy that is creating good-paying American 
jobs, and that is our manufacturing sector.
  The manufacturing sector right now supports about 17 million jobs in 
the United States. Those jobs are the backbone of a strong, thriving 
middle class, and they prove that it is still possible to make it in 
America. In Colorado, our manufacturers literally have the wind at 
their backs. I say that because our wind energy industry is not only a 
critical part of Colorado's manufacturing sector, but it is also an 
essential component of our made-in-America strategy for energy 
independence. That is why I am proud to have successfully fought to 
ensure that the manufacturers who power our wind energy industry have 
the policies they need to create jobs and thrive.
  These policies support American workers, and they ensure that we are 
giving a leg up to all sources of American-grown energy. I have been 
proud to lead these efforts here in the Congress, including when I 
delivered 27 speeches on the Senate floor last year that culminated in 
the extension of the Production Tax Credit for wind.
  Wind energy, which is enabled by the PTC, supports thousands of 
manufacturing jobs across this country, and that is because building a 
wind turbine takes a heck of a lot of work, involving everyone from 
steelworkers to electricians to computer engineers. These are good-
paying middle-class jobs that help grow our economy from the middle 
out. These are jobs that are not only not being offshored, they cannot 
be offshored. They are staying here, in Colorado and across our great 
Nation.
  To prove that point, just look at this map of wind manufacturing 
facilities across the United States. There are more than 550 
manufacturing facilities in every region of the country, spread across 
44 States involved in the wind industry.
  I am making sure the Presiding Officer's state is represented and I 
think it is--the great State of Delaware.
  Here are some of the concerns all across our country. We have ZF 
Wind, which is a gearbox manufacturing plant in Georgia. TPI Composites 
is a turbine plant in Rhode Island. We have the Molded Fiber Glass 
blade plant in Texas, and I have to return to Colorado, where we have 
Vestas in my home State. They have a tower facility, among others. This 
all adds up to a wind industry that supports thousands of good-paying 
American jobs.
  This job-creating industry is taking off, and it could not have come 
at a better time for our manufacturing base, which, after a lot of 
tough years in the wake of the recession, is ready for resurgence in a 
big way.
  A lot of other companies and sectors are outsourcing American jobs. 
While that has been happening, the wind industry is cutting against the 
grain and creating good-paying manufacturing jobs here in the United 
States. In fact, more than 50 new manufacturing facilities entered the 
wind energy market in the last 2 years alone. That is an impressive 
statistic. It is an accomplishment of which we should all be proud.
  The success of the wind industry is having positive ripple effects on 
other areas of American manufacturing, and that is because the industry 
is not only growing, it is doing so while also increasing its use of 
American-made components.
  This chart clearly makes my point. In 2007, 25 percent of all wind 
turbines included American-made parts. In 2012, as we can see, that 
number increased to more than 70 percent, and it is one of the main 
reasons for the dramatic increase of manufacturing facilities across 
our country that support this wind energy industry.
  This is not just about the manifestations of the wind energy world 
that we think about in blades and towers. It is about gears, nuts, 
bolts, and all the other made-in-America components that are now 
helping to power our renewable energy future.
  There are some worrying storm clouds on the horizon because despite 
all of this progress and despite all of the American jobs that are 
supported by this innovative industry, we are truly, again, at a 
crossroads for wind energy. The PTC, which I have championed, and 
others have joined me in this Chamber, has helped keep our American 
manufacturing sector strong, but once again it is going to expire in 20 
days. Previously, I joined many of my colleagues on both sides of 
aisle--including Senator Chuck Grassley, the father of the PTC--to 
extend this tax credit. Now, with the clock ticking, we need to step up 
and give this industry the long-term certainty it needs to keep 
creating jobs and working toward true energy independence.
  In our pursuit of a balanced approach to energy security, we have 
supported domestic energy production across the board.
  I see my good friend from Oklahoma Senator Coburn is here.
  We need an ``all of the above'' approach. If we let the wind PTC 
expire, we will put one of the cleanest sources of American-made energy 
at a competitive disadvantage relative to traditional energy sources, 
and that is because even if the production tax credit for wind expires, 
tax credits will continue for traditional sources of energy, such as 
oil and gas.
  We have a choice to make: Will we act to preserve American 
manufacturing jobs and support domestically produced clean energy or 
will we choose to do nothing and let other countries claim our 
manufacturing jobs and the leadership of the new energy economy?
  These are not trivial questions. Allowing the wind PTC to expire will 
cost thousands of American jobs and billions of dollars in investment. 
All we have to do is look at what happened to wind capacity 
installation over the past 15 years when the PTC has expired. Every 
time it expires or comes close to expiring, wind installation stalls 
and American jobs are lost. We see that pattern on this chart. In the 
year 2000 it opened, and in 2002, 2004, and now potentially again in 
2013 it will expire.
  In my home State, one cannot talk about manufacturing without talking 
about the wind industry. Wind manufacturing employs about 1,500 people 
in Colorado today and supports about 5,000 jobs statewide. As I alluded 
to earlier, we are home to several manufacturing jobs, including a 
tower facility, two blade plants, and a nacelle facility, which are all 
operated by the great Vestas company.
  Last year, due to the lack of certainty about the PTC, no new orders 
were placed for wind turbines, and Vestas was forced to let go over 600 
employees in Colorado alone. That hurt cities such as Pueblo and 
Brighton, whose local economies have significantly benefited from the 
manufacturing jobs the wind PTC supports.
  After my effort and the effort of others to extend the PTC last year, 
orders started to flow again and Vestas is again hiring workers to meet 
the market demand. That is good for Colorado. These are jobs with good 
benefits.
  What concerns me--and I know it concerns Vestas and other Colorado-
based companies--is that these jobs can vanish if we don't act. That is 
what this is all about. These jobs can vanish if we don't act. So I am 
back here and renewing my call from last year. We should act now to 
extend the wind production tax credit or we risk losing this industry 
and the manufacturing jobs it creates to our competitors. Where are 
those competitors? They are in China, Europe, and elsewhere all over 
the globe. That is the last thing our economy needs.

[[Page 19315]]

  The men and women employed in manufacturing facilities across the 
country are calling on us again in Congress to act. Let's heed their 
call. Let's act now. The PTC equals jobs. Let's pass it as soon as 
possible. Let's save these American jobs by extending the production 
tax credit.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 944

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, I rise today to urge Senate passage of S. 944, the Veterans 
Health and Benefits Improvement Act of 2013. This bipartisan 
legislation is the result of months of hard work by my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle. This legislation was passed out of committee 
by voice vote. There were no objections that took place on July 24, and 
this legislation is paid for.
  Furthermore, this legislation is supported by nearly every major 
veteran and military service organization in our country, including the 
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Military Officers 
Association of America, the American Legion, the Vietnam Veterans of 
America, the Association of the United States Navy, the Reserve 
Officers Association, the Jewish War Veterans, the Enlisted Association 
of the National Guard of the United States, the National Association 
for Uniformed Services, AMVETS, Gold Star Wives, and the National 
Congress of American Indians.
  In fact, I think it would be a very good statement about what we are 
trying do as a nation if the Senate could pass this comprehensive 
veterans bill before we adjourn so we can get about the business of 
working with our House colleagues to get important veterans legislation 
passed by both bodies signed into law.
  I will briefly highlight some of the key provisions of this very 
important piece of legislation.
  Again, this legislation is bipartisan; it came out of the committee 
unanimously; and it has the support of virtually every veterans 
organization.
  Ranking Member Burr and I have worked together on a provision that 
would help servicemembers transition back into civilian life by making 
recently separated veterans eligible for tuition at the instate rates. 
This has been a very contentious issue, but what we do is make recently 
separated veterans eligible for tuition at the instate rate, which is 
something many of the veterans organizations and people all over this 
country have wanted.
  Given the nature of our Armed Forces, servicemembers have little to 
say as to where they serve and where they reside during military 
service. This legislation would help our brave men and women who have 
sacrificed so much in the defense of our country transition by giving 
them a fair shot at attaining their educational goals without incurring 
an additional financial burden simply because they chose to serve their 
country.
  I know this issue was discussed a great deal in the House and it was 
discussed here a great deal, and we have reached resolution on this 
important issue.
  Further, while the Pentagon, Congress, and other stakeholders 
continue to work to end sexual assault within the ranks--this is an 
enormously important issue--I want to do everything within my power as 
chairman of the VA to ensure that the VA is a warm and welcoming place 
for those survivors of military assault. That is why this legislation 
contains important provisions that would improve the delivery of care 
and benefits to veterans who experience sexual trauma while serving in 
the military. This was inspired by Ruth Moore, who struggled for 23 
years to receive VA disability compensation.
  It would expand access to VA counseling and care to members of the 
Guard and Reserves who experience sexual assault during inactive-duty 
training. It also takes a number of steps to improve the adjudication 
of claims based on military sexual trauma.
  This legislation would give the VA additional tools to do all it can 
to provide victims of sexual trauma with the care and benefits they 
need to confront the emotional and physical consequences of these 
horrific acts. Maintaining the VA's world-class health care system 
remains a priority for this committee, and this legislation does just 
that.
  I am pleased we were able to respond to calls from veterans to 
increase access to complementary and alternative medicine for the 
treatment of chronic pain, mental health conditions, and chronic 
disease. By expanding the availability of these treatment options, we 
can enhance the likelihood that veterans get the treatment they need in 
ways that work for them.
  Additionally, this legislation calls for the VA to promote healthy 
weight in veterans by increasing their access to fitness facilities. A 
healthy weight is critical to combating multiple chronic diseases, 
including diabetes and heart disease. By managing veterans' obesity, we 
can both improve their overall health and reduce the costs to the 
health care system.
  Every Member of this body knows all too well the challenges of the 
claims backlog. I am pleased to see that the VA is making progress on 
this complex issue, but much more remains to be done. This legislation 
supports VA's ongoing efforts and would make needed improvements to the 
claims system. Among a number of claims-related provisions, this bill, 
for the first time, would require the Department of Veterans Affairs to 
publicly report on both claims processing goals and actual production. 
This would allow Congress and the public to closely track and measure 
VA's progress on this difficult issue.
  This bill also addresses a number of concerns presented to the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee by the Gold Star Wives earlier this year by 
improving the benefits and services provided to surviving spouses.
  The Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act would provide 
additional dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving spouses 
with children in order to provide financial support during the 
difficult period following the loss of a loved one.
  This bill also expands the Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry 
Scholarship to include surviving spouses of members of the Armed Forces 
who died in the line of duty.
  The Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act contains provisions 
that will improve the lives of our Nation's servicemembers, veterans, 
and their survivors. I am proud of the bipartisan manner in which the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee has conducted its business to produce this 
important legislation. Our veterans deserve far more help from the 
Congress than they have received.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of Calendar No. 258, S. 944; that the committee-reported 
substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a 
third time and passed; that the committee-reported title amendment be 
agreed to; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COBURN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SANDERS. Well, I am disappointed that there is objection to a 
bill that came out of committee without objection, that was done in a 
bipartisan manner, that is paid for, and that has the support of 
virtually every veterans organization.
  I hope that even though there is an objection to the unanimous 
consent, there would not be an objection to a rollcall vote on this 
bill.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, there will be an objection to a rollcall 
vote because the opportunity to amend this bill has not been made 
available to Members of the Senate. I have two specific concerns with 
the bill--I am writing my whole letter right now on this bill--and 
until they are addressed, I am going to hold this bill until I have an 
opportunity to make them known.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SANDERS. I understand the Senator's objection. I am disappointed. 
It

[[Page 19316]]

takes forever to get anything done in this body, and we have a 
situation now where we have seen a process develop in the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs by which there has been bipartisan support. It is 
kind of the way things are supposed to be done. Yet because of the 
objection, we are going to be unable to move forward in the way I think 
most of the Members want.
  Thank you very much. I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM. 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. GRAHAM. Mr. President, what I am trying to do is this: We were 
told to come down here at 4 o'clock. I was glad to be able to discuss 
things earlier. So what I would like to talk about, with the Chair's 
permission, is the military retiree provision.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair.
  No. 1, I wish to say to our budget chairman we had a very good 
discussion with Senators Chambliss and Isakson about trying to figure 
out a way to fix this provision in the budget deal. I am very 
disappointed we can't have an amendment to fix it or amendments to do 
other things, but we are where we are.
  So the bottom line is this has been a healthy exercise because all of 
us are now looking at the provision. This is a bipartisan product, so 
it is not about blaming Democrats or Republicans. It is a good 
exercise. How could a bill--this bill, as we all know, doesn't fund the 
government. If we pass the budget--and I am sure it will pass here 
eventually--it doesn't keep the government open; it sets limits on 
spending where we are increasing the amount we can spend on defense and 
nondefense, setting sequestration aside. That is a great thing. I think 
that is going to be good. How we pay for it is the problem.
  The question is, How did this happen? The chairman of the Senate 
Budget Committee and the chairman in the House are great folks. The 
military retiree provision is a pay-for that has everybody wondering a 
bit and, upon a second evaluation, is probably certainly not the right 
thing to do.
  In May of 2014, there will be a commission that was set up by the 
Congress to tell us how best to reform military pay and benefits, 
because they are unsustainable, quite frankly, in the future. But we 
put in that Commission report a requirement that any reform could not 
affect those who are in the service now; they are grandfathered. I 
think the reason the Congress did that is we don't want to break faith 
with those who signed up for deal A. They are doing their part of the 
deal. They are serving. The Congress is looking for a way to make these 
programs more sustainable by applying it in the future, which I think 
we should do. About the civilian employee contribution to their 
retirement program, that is prospective. The one thing I was 
disappointed about is the money doesn't go into the retirement plan to 
pay for the deal.
  I wish to acknowledge what Senator Warren has been doing with every 
Gang of 6, 12, 8, 10, 14--just different numbers--trying to find a way. 
I know entitlement programs are the source of the problem for the 
Nation over the long term, and military retirement programs such as 
TRICARE we have to look at as a retirement system. That is not a 
problem. But we are in a hurry to basically pass a budget that 
generally I support. It gets us out of the situation of sequestration.
  But how did this happen? How could we have picked a pay-for such as 
this which is, to me, unacceptable. The military retirement community, 
up to the age of 62, will have their COLA reduced by 1 percent. That 
doesn't sound like a lot, but the compounding of that goes like this: 
If a person is a master sergeant who retires after 20 years of service 
in 2015 at, say, 42, by the time that person gets to 62, the effect of 
this bill will cost him or her $71,000. That is the compounding effect 
of money. No one has ever suggested it should be applied to people who 
are almost at retirement or in retirement when it comes to how we 
reform benefits.
  My good friend Senator McCain, who has earned every penny he has ever 
gotten in retirement and then some, mentioned the Bowles-Simpson 
Commission. I am a general fan of Bowles-Simpson: reform entitlements 
and flatten out the Tax Code and, yes, pay down some debt. I am a 
Republican. It would eliminate the deduction in the Tax Code and apply 
some of the money to the debt, not put it all in tax cuts, because when 
we are $17 trillion in debt, we have to do things we would otherwise 
not like. I am willing to do that. But Bowles-Simpson did not, as my 
friend Senator McCain suggests, adopt eliminating COLAs before 62 as 
part of their solution. They wanted to find $70 billion over 10 years 
for Federal workforce entitlement reform. They created a commission, 
the Federal Workforce Entitlement Task Force Commission, to reevaluate 
civil service, military health and retirement programs. They did not 
say we are going to eliminate COLAs entirely for the military and 
civilian workers; they said, we need a commission to look are to how to 
find $70 billion over the next 10 years. The examples they gave of what 
we might look at is use the highest 5 years of earnings to calculate 
the civil service pension benefits for new retirees, defer cost-of-
living adjustment is the second one, adjust the ratio of employer-
employee contributions to Federal employee pension plans to equalize 
contributions, which saves $4 billion. These were examples.
  They wanted a commission. Guess what. So did the Congress. In 2013--
this came out in 2010--the Congress said let's form a commission to 
look at this. The problem is the Commission hasn't reported back to us. 
They are not due to do so until May 2014. We did put a prohibition on 
the Commission's work product: You have to grandfather existing 
servicemembers. You can't retroactively apply any of your reforms.
  So Bowles-Simpson did not say we are going to eliminate all COLAs; 
they said, form a commission, and that was one example of what to look 
at. The Congress did form a commission. The commission is not back yet. 
But the Congress told the Commission to grandfather people who are in 
the current system, but we forgot to tell ourselves that because this 
pay-for is retroactive in nature and applies to all retirees, past, 
present, and future.
  The disability component, the people who drafted this assumed 
disability retirees would not be included. They are. The $600 million, 
CBO says, of the $6.3 billion that this provision generates in revenue 
to help pay for the deal--$600 million comes from the disability 
retired community, and I think we all understand that is not the right 
thing to do. Someone who has lost a limb in Afghanistan or Iraq who is 
disabled, can't work, they get benefits outside of disability 
retirement, and they have earned those benefits. But reducing their 
COLAs would add thousands of dollars, tens of thousands of dollars in 
lost benefits. Nobody wants to do that. They thought they weren't 
included. They are.
  Let me just say as someone who has been around the military--I am a 
military lawyer, so I am not a frontline military person by any means. 
I have tried to be the best military lawyer I can be. I have been in 
the military for 30 years. I love the culture, love the environment, 
and I try to be part of the team. The military lawyer is part of the 
team. The pilots who go fly and face danger, they are the heroes. The 
maintenance guys and the guys on the frontlines in the Army, to them 
goes the glory.
  The bottom line is I don't think it is fair for us to consider. If 
you are in the MRAP that didn't get hit by the IED and you made it 
through your tour, you have earned your retirement just as much as 
anybody else, and that disabled retiree needs the money more than 
anybody. They get things the average military retiree doesn't because 
their needs are greater.
  All I am doing is begging the body: Let's not pass a budget deal with 
a pay-for that violates our own Commission requirements, that in 
hindsight is

[[Page 19317]]

not the message we want to send to those who serve now. It is not a 
good way to recruit.
  Let's see if we can fix this. Let's see if we can fix it before it 
gets into law, because once we get something into law, we all know how 
hard it is to take it out.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, would the Senator from South Carolina 
yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I do. Before I do, I wish to say that the Senator from 
Mississippi asked a question in our conference: Tell me what this costs 
our retirees. All of us on the Republican side looked at him, me 
included--me included--I didn't have a clue how to answer that, and 
when I found out it was $71,000, almost $72,000 for E-7, from 42 to 62, 
I about fell out of my chair. Now I know how you generate $6 billion.
  As to the Senator from New Hampshire, she was the first one to take 
this torch up and run with it, and I have been trying to help where I 
can. But I will yield for a question.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina 
for his leadership on this important issue. What I want to ask the 
Senator is this. Some have come to this floor and said: Pass this 
budget agreement, and we will fix this later. Does the Senator think 
that is a good way to solve this problem?
  Mr. GRAHAM. That is a good question. The best way is to fix it before 
it passes, and we have until January 15. Nobody wants to shut the 
government down. Again, the budget deal is just about numbers. We have 
to actually appropriate. But I think we could. There are so many 
different ways. I have thrown out the idea of eliminating subsidies for 
people who make over $250,000 for their Part D premiums. It is $54 
billion over 10 years. I am not asking my Democratic colleagues to go 
to food stamps and safety nets. I am not asking them to do that, and I 
am surely not going to ask the Republicans to raise taxes. There are 
better ways to do it.
  So I could not agree more with the Senator from New Hampshire. With a 
little bit of effort here in the next few hours or days, we could fix 
this in total.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Of all the people who deserve our effort, doesn't the 
Senator think we could stay here as long as we need to before the 
holidays--a little bit of inconvenience for us--to fix this? Because 
one thing I see from this is we are saying to our military retirees: Do 
not worry. Trust the politicians in Washington to fix something they 
voted for.
  Here we are. We know the problem is here now. People yet have not had 
a final vote on this budget agreement. Yet they are still saying: Oh, 
we know the problem is there, but we are going to vote for it anyway. I 
do not understand this.
  If you are someone who is serving our country, what kind of message 
does that send?
  Mr. GRAHAM. In all honesty, the provision does not take effect for a 
year or two. But I think what the Senator is saying is so important. 
Why leave any doubt in people's mind? They have enough to worry about 
already. Life is hard for all of us. For some people life is just 
incredibly hard. I have lived a fortunate life. But for a military 
retiree who is not disabled, it matters to them.
  So we should not create stress where none is needed. They have been 
stressed out enough. The last 10 years have been hard as hell for 
them--multiple deployments. Senator Warner and all of us would go 
overseas. You would see the same people. I would do small Reserve tours 
just for a few days in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am seeing the same 
people in Afghanistan who I saw in Iraq in my career field of being a 
JAG working on detention matters. I do not think the average American--
they appreciate but I do not think they really understand how hard this 
has been on 1 percent of the American people.
  So wouldn't it be nice if they did not have to worry and we could get 
this issue behind us? Because here is the truth of the matter: It may 
come as a shock to the body, but we are not in very good standing right 
now. That is a bipartisan problem. Here is the concern. The main things 
that have been fixed that are wrong? Not a whole lot. It is hard to fix 
things.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Right.
  Mr. GRAHAM. The unraveling effect is what people worry about. If you 
fix it for the military retirees, what about the civilians? I am 
willing to look at that. But the bottom line is they fought hard. They 
fought long. They have earned what they got. We should not 
retroactively diminish their retirement. They have worried enough. 
Let's do not give them anything to worry about for the holidays. Let's 
take this one off the table.
  Ms. AYOTTE. I could not agree with the Senator from South Carolina 
more. I heard the chairman of the Budget Committee say the fact that 
disabled veterans are included in this, those who have had a medical 
retirement--we have talked about them; we have been to Walter Reed; we 
have seen those who have sacrificed so much for our country and are 
getting a cut to their cost-of-living increase in their retirement 
under this agreement--that this was somehow a ``technical glitch'' or 
something.
  If it is a technical glitch that we know is there, why are we going 
home before it is fixed? I do not understand it and even putting one 
shred of doubt in their minds that we stand with them, and that we know 
this problem exists in this bill, and that it can be fixed.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Just to respond, I think this is what happens when you 
are trying to get something done late in the year. We are all adults. 
We have had months to deal with these issues. I sort of hate the fact 
that you are dealing with important things like the Defense 
authorization bill a day or 2 before everybody wants to go home for 
Christmas. Eventually, that leads to $17 trillion in debt.
  How do you get to $17 trillion in debt? It takes bipartisanship.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Right.
  Mr. GRAHAM. No one party can get you there. This is the way you have 
run the place. What happens when you fill up the tree? You cannot fix 
things. Here is what is wrong with that. You cannot fix the things that 
politically are bad for you and expect the rest of us to go away 
quietly because we have something we want to do. So this filling of the 
tree process is not good for something this big, and I hope people 
would be responsible with their amendments.
  But, again, it goes back to how did this happen? I do not believe for 
a moment that Patty Murray or Paul Ryan meant to hurt disabled 
veterans. I do not believe that. I think the whole issue was not looked 
at. These things are put together very quickly. I am on the Budget 
Committee. The Senator from New Hampshire is on the Budget Committee. 
The Senator from Alabama is on the Budget Committee. I had no idea. 
Nobody asked me if this was a good idea. I did not even get to look at 
it. I got to read about it in the paper.
  That is what happens when you put the deals together with just a 
handful of people. You make mistakes, because the more eyes the better. 
You find yourself here talking about something, quite frankly, that we 
all know is wrong.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Right.
  Mr. GRAHAM. We need to fix it. We are creating a lot of anxiety for 
people who are going through enough anxiety. I hope we can rise to the 
occasion here at the end.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Carolina 
yield?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Absolutely.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I say to Senator Graham, he has served in the House. I 
know the powers that be would just like to see this bill rubber 
stamped, passed, done with, rah, rah, rah. But if this legislation were 
to be amended, and this problem were fixed, doesn't the Senator think 
the House would have ample time to pass it before the January 15 date 
for the CR, or, really, they could, as we have done many times, extend 
the CR a week or so, if needed? But I do not really think it would be 
needed. I think they would pass it promptly.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I think the Senator is absolutely right. We have a 
legislative process that could rise to the occasion

[[Page 19318]]

if we would use it. For 200 years we have been doing business a certain 
way, and the Senate is changing, all for the worse. Like I say, this is 
a bipartisan problem. I am not blaming Patty Murray, the Democratic 
chairman. This got into a bill that was bipartisan. It got 330 votes, 
70 percent of the Republican Conference. We all make mistakes. But how 
did it get there? Nobody will tell me who put this in there because 
they do not know.
  So the Senator is right. I think our House colleagues would find the 
equities of the matter easy to resolve. They would come back and fix it 
in just no time. I think we could fix it. The offsets might be hard to 
find in terms of our ideological differences, but I think we could find 
some offsets to fix this pretty quickly. Yes, I say to Senator 
Sessions, the House would be able to do it too.
  One final plea. I would hope that as we go into the holiday season 
the acrimony that has been created in this body about different aspects 
of the way we run the place--that we do not miss a chance to do the 
right thing. They come on a lot here. It is not like we do not get a 
chance to do the right thing as Republicans and Democrats. We just both 
do not rise to the occasion enough.
  But here is a chance to do the right thing and a very necessary 
thing. Maybe if we rose to the occasion here, it might lead to doing 
more right things. I will leave here as an optimist and hope and pray 
we do the right thing while we still can.
  I yield.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Let me just say, we can do the right thing. We do not 
have to set our expectations so low that we cannot come together and 
find a pay-for that is acceptable to both sides of the aisle that says 
what we should say to our men and women in uniform; and that is: Thank 
you. Thank you. God bless you. The first responsibility of our Nation 
is to defend our Nation and to keep it safe. Of all the things that 
would keep us here--would keep us here till Christmas--I think this is 
one of the most important things we could do for the people who go in 
there first for us and ensure that we have the privilege of being on 
this floor, have the privilege of going home and spending the holidays 
with our families.
  So of all the things, to say that this is not possible, I think it is 
very possible, and we should have the will to do it for our men and 
women in uniform. We should have the will to do it for those who have 
been disabled because of their brave service in the line of duty for 
this country. I would hope we would rise to the very best of this body 
and fix this and not go home for the holidays with any uncertainty for 
our military retirees or our men and women in uniform of where we 
stand, and we stand with them.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, when I first came to Washington, 
considering running for the Senate, I went to a Republican luncheon, 
and they asked me to say just a thing or two, not that long, and I 
said: I could think of no greater honor than to represent the people of 
Alabama in the greatest deliberative body in the history of the world. 
This is a great deliberative body. That is our heritage, and it is 
being eroded. It is not disputable that it is being eroded. It is being 
eroded in a way that is faster and more significant than any of us seem 
to understand. Like the frog in the warming water, we do not realize we 
are being cooked and that the freedoms of Americans are being cooked.
  This bill contains another provision that constricts the ability of a 
minority in the Senate--it could be Democrats or Republicans or just a 
bipartisan group who do not represent a majority but have a concern--to 
have those concerns heard and dealt with, and it is very significant. I 
wish it were not so.
  I was shocked it was in the bill. I had no idea it would be in the 
bill. As Senator Graham just indicated, this started out as a 
bipartisan, bicameral conference, and Senator Ayotte and Senator Graham 
and Senator Wicker and I were members of the conference. We met and had 
a couple of public meetings where everybody talked, but no legislation, 
no language was laid out. The next thing we heard: The conference 
leaders are drafting a bill--I would say affectionately, a gang of two 
this time.
  So this is the bill that was their product. I know they were trying 
to work out an important solution to America's financial problems. I 
know the differences between the parties are so great that it is 
difficult to bridge those disagreements, and we were not expecting a 
great solution to the long-term financial state of America--that needs 
to be dealt with, must be dealt with, and every year we wait makes it 
harder to fix that challenge we face.
  But I did not expect some of the damage we have seen in the 
legislation. I have to talk about a certain point because it changed 
the rules of the Senate. I am not sure the House Members understood how 
significant it was. But three times I have made objections to budget 
violations--three times--and we contended that the bill before the 
Senate was spending and would spend more money than the Budget Control 
Act allowed to be spent. If that is so--the Budget Control Act being in 
law, having certain limits on spending--then the Senate would have to 
recognize we were busting the budget and we would have to have 60 
votes, a super majority, to approve busting the budget, a pretty good 
matter. It does not make any difference if there are taxes and fees 
used to pay for that. It still spends more than the amount of money we 
agreed to spend. It allowed us to contain spending.
  There were three different votes in the last year or so in which the 
Senate was stopped from spending more than the Budget Control Act limit 
required because 60 Senators would not vote for it. There were not 60 
who would support waiving the budget, breaking the budget, spending 
above the budget.
  So that is the issue at stake. I am sure the spenders were deeply 
disappointed. They got over 50. Under this bill now, it only takes 50. 
They got over 50, but they did not get 60, so they were not able to 
continue that spending.
  This agreement, this bill that is before us today, would 
significantly weaken the ability of Senators in this body to enforce 
the spending and revenue limits under our budget resolution and in 
future budgets.
  The Ryan-Murray agreement that is before us today includes an 
egregious number of deficit-neutral reserve funds--57, to be exact. 
Operationally a reserve fund allows the chairman of the Senate Budget 
Committee to adjust the spending limits in a budget resolution prior to 
Senate consideration of a bill that busts the budget. This allows the 
proposed legislation to avoid most spending points of order.
  A reserve fund can be a useful tool when used in the context of a 
true budget resolution, one that is properly negotiated in public by a 
conference committee rather than a backroom deal. Reserve funds can 
shepherd legislation with common policy goals through the House and 
Senate by accommodating minor differences between the budget plan and 
the final legislation. So that makes sense. Reserve funds are not a 
total fraud. Congress does not want legislation they agreed to in 
concept to get tripped by scoring differences. That is why reserve 
funds were originally created. But there is virtually nothing 
policywise in common between the House and Senate budget resolution 
that we are seeing today. They are quite different.
  The House Ryan budget is a historic budget that alters the debt 
course of America and puts us on a sound path. The Senate budget that 
cleared this body, over my objection, would raise taxes $1 trillion, 
but instead of using those takes revenues to pay down the debt, it 
would have funded $1 trillion in more spending above the Budget Control 
Act limit we agreed to in August of 2011. So that is the situation. 
These are different budgets.
  With 57 different reserve funds, the Murray-Ryan spending bill that 
is before us now will allow Senator Reid and Chairman Murray to bring 
to the floor a practically unlimited number of

[[Page 19319]]

big tax-and-spend bills. It will not be subject to the 60-vote limit. 
Normally the minority party would be able to raise a point of order 
under section 302(f) of the Budget Act. The 302(f) is known as the tax-
and-spend point of order, because it is the one we deploy when Congress 
tries to spend more money than it promised to spend, and offsets that 
new spending with some fee or tax increase. It is the point of order we 
deploy when Democrats, on these occasions I have mentioned, with some 
Republicans supporting it, want to grow the size of government. It 
takes 60 votes to get around a 302(f) point of order and it forces 
colleagues to go on record and say: Yes, I know my legislation will 
bust the budget, but we ask that we do it anyway.
  What I found as we have looked at it, when you shine light on these 
votes, and votes on the floor of the Senate, and ask: Senator, do you 
really want to spend more than we agreed to spend? You just agreed in 
August of 2011 to the Budget Control Act. It said, we are not going to 
spend over this level. A bill hits the floor that spends over that 
level. They say: Do not worry about it, it is paid for by taxes. Do you 
really want to do that when it is raised as a budget point of order? 
Well, Senators kind of get shy and many of them back off what they 
might otherwise have agreed to if that issue were not raised.
  As I said, there were three successive votes in which this Congress 
refused to bust the budget and spend more than was agreed to. It 
rankled some of our Members who like to spend. They did not like that. 
But the sheer number of reserve funds in the legislation before us, 57, 
would essentially take that point of order away. There are so many 
reserve funds in this bill that Senator Reid and Chairman Murray can 
bring an endless number of tax-and-spend bills to the floor, and my 
colleagues and I would be unable to shine light on that and be able to 
have a clean vote on one question--not whether we favored the idea they 
want to spend money on. That was not the question. The question, when 
you raise a budget point of order, is: Do you believe we should break 
the spending limits that we agreed to? If you can fund your bill and 
your cause that you believe in by finding savings elsewhere in the 
budget, then we might support that. But we are not going to support 
spending more than we agreed to. That is what this budget point of 
order has allowed us to do on a series of occasions.
  I believe it is causing a lot of people to come to me and Chairman 
Murray when they offer legislation to make sure they are within the 
budget. They go back and try to draft it in a way that does not violate 
the budget. But eliminating this budget point of order will reduce the 
number of people who are concerned about that. We will see less 
discipline, in my opinion.
  In summary, the reserve fund would allow the Senate majority or a 
number of Senators who have got legislation on the floor to avoid this 
tough vote in the light of day so people can see what has occurred. 
Moreover, there is a little-understood danger in this legislation that 
goes beyond spending. It really does. This bill can allow legislation 
that would carry measures that are disproportionately policy heavy with 
very little budgetary effect. We believe, as we have analyzed the bill, 
that it could allow reserve funds to be used to increase the minimum 
wage, to change voter registration laws, to extend unemployment 
insurance and offset it with some tax increase somewhere, regulate 
greenhouse gas emissions, and more.
  There is little that can be done in the Congress to stop that which 
could have been done previously. This will allow this to go forward in 
a way heretofore not done. So I urge my colleagues not to sit idly by 
and watch the rights of the Senate get pounded into the dirt. It is 
better to have their individual authorities from whatever State and 
whatever party they come from to be able to highlight these problems. 
So I will ask unanimous consent today to offer an amendment that would 
strike the reserve funds from this legislation that is before us.
  I encourage my colleagues to support that effort. If you care about 
this Senate as an institution, if you care about the right of free 
debate and the ability to actually amend legislation, if you care about 
the heritage of the Senate and the importance of constraining spending, 
then I would urge support of my unanimous consent request.
  Mr. President, I would formally ask unanimous consent to set aside 
the pending motion so that I may offer a motion to concur with the 
amendment numbered 2573 which is filed at the desk which would 
accomplish what I have described.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Is there objection?
  The senior Senator from Washington State is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to 
first note that every one of the reserve funds included in this 
bipartisan bill was also included and voted on as part of the Senate-
passed 2014 budget resolution. None of this material is new. My 
colleagues have seen and voted on every one of those reserve funds.
  In the 9 months since the Senate passed the budget, I cannot recall, 
frankly, a single time that a Member came up to me and raised an issue 
regarding one of those reserve funds.
  I similarly would like to point out that reserve funds are not new. 
The Senate has actually relied on reserve funds to help it carry out 
its priorities under the annual budget process for nearly 30 years. The 
authority to include them is specifically authorized in law by section 
301(b)(7) of the Congressional Budget Act.
  In fact, reserve funds are so common and accepted by Republicans and 
Democrats alike that Senators actually filed more than 300 of them 
during the debate on the 2014 budget resolution.
  Let me repeat that for everyone. Senators filed more than 300 reserve 
funds this year, including, by the way, a few from my friend, the 
Senator from Alabama.
  So if there is anything that should be noncontroversial, it should be 
including some of these reserve funds that were debated and agreed to 
last spring.
  More fundamentally, the bipartisan agreement now before the Senate 
will ensure that the Senate once again has a budget. That is a good 
thing. Having a budget and the discipline of enforceable spending 
levels will strengthen enforcement, not weaken it. If you do not have a 
budget, you do not have a spending level you can enforce, you lose 
discipline and the ability to raise certain points of order. We fix 
that actually in this agreement.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, these provisions that allow the 
objections to the abuse of reserve funds have been in law since 1985, 
30 years almost. This has been the law that we have. I raised 
objections to the tax-and-spend point of order and it has been 
sustained on the floor of the Senate. The Senate budget resolution that 
Senator Murray referred to is the one that would increase spending $1 
trillion over what was agreed to in 2011, August of 2011, and would add 
$1 trillion in taxes.
  Then they changed this rule. This legislation alters that from the 
past. The budget resolution she referred to did pass the Senate with 
Democratic votes only. It was a simple majority. But this is 
legislation that changes the Budget Act. I feel strongly we have to 
absolutely understand what has happened here. The rule has been 
changed. Power that Senators had to block tax-and-spend legislation 
that breaks spending limits has been eroded significantly. It should 
not have been a part of any legislation that purports to be legislation 
that puts this Nation on a financial path of soundness. In fact, it 
does the opposite. It weakens the ability of Senators who want to hold 
this Congress to its own spending limits agreed to in law. It weakens 
their ability to stop breaking those spending limits. There is no doubt 
about that. I am really upset about it. I think it is historic.
  I understand that the House maybe did not fully understand what was 
meant here. Maybe we can somehow revive this. But in truth we should do 
it

[[Page 19320]]

now. We should not pass this bill that contains this legislation. Had 
we had a normal conference committee--and I had been a member of it and 
other Senators had been a member of that conference committee and had a 
chance to talk about it, it would not have been in there. Maybe that is 
why they chose not to have a public, open discussion of it, because 
they wanted to slip this through in the dead of night, up next to 
Christmas. Oh, you have got to pass this bill just as it is. There can 
be no amendments. The government will shut down. We will all have to 
stay here until Christmas Eve, as we had to, to try to stop ObamaCare 
that they passed on Christmas Eve. So this is the kind of thing that is 
not healthy for America. It is not healthy for the Senate.
  Reserve funds are a function of policy. There is no common policy 
between the House and the Senate on budget resolutions. Budget 
resolutions are passed by each House, but we do not have common 
policies there about how it is processed. Never have we adopted the 
volume of reserve funds that will hereafter be longstanding parts of 
our law.
  I believe we have a time to begin our wrapup now. Let me say Senator 
Murray is a good, strong advocate. She is effective in her leadership 
role. I respect her and enjoy working with her. We sometimes disagree.
  I wish to say, as we move to conclude this legislation, that I 
respect the Senator, and we move forward.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Does the Senator need additional time?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. How much additional time?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Ten minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. It is gone.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would ask that the unanimous consent be equally 
divided.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe the unanimous consent that was 
previously entered allowed me the last 10 minutes, and the Senator from 
Alabama the prior 10 minutes, so most of that time has been used.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama has about 2 minutes 
remaining and the Senator from Washington State has 10 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. What time is the vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time expires at 4:27 p.m.
  Mr. SESSIONS. How did it get to be at 4:27 p.m. instead of 4:30?
  I ask unanimous consent the vote be held at 4:30, and I will wrap up 
in the time remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, I will not object if I 
could have 1 minute now on a matter of some importance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I am not sure--I do not object to the President pro 
tempore's request for 1 minute.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would object if it is counted against my time.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Maybe I can help us all out here. The Senator from 
Alabama has been speaking for about 25 minutes. I am pleased to give 
the Senator from Alabama 4 minutes, the President pro tempore 1 minute, 
and I will take the final minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thought we were voting at 4:30 and 
there would be 5 minutes left for me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Postcloture time expires at 4:27.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will accept the kind and generous offer of the 
Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I was concerned about Senator Leahy. If I would have 4 
minutes, I would consent to the Senator----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized for 4 
minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. If I would have 4 minutes--I would ask unanimous 
consent that the vote be delayed until I have 4 minutes and Senator 
Leahy has 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. The bill before us today is a perfect example of why it 
is dangerous to produce a deal in secret and rush it through on the 
floor of Congress in a panic, as we have done time and time again. This 
bill is a perfect example of why we need regular order, why the Senate 
is supposed to be a deliberative body that debates and amends 
legislation--there is no amendment being allowed to this legislation--
and why each Senator is supposed to have a chance to have their say and 
offer amendments to the bill. Each Senator in this Chamber, Republican 
and Democrat, is being diminished if they are not allowed to have an 
amendment on an important piece of legislation such as this.
  I was astonished to hear earlier that we have no choice but to pass 
this bill exactly as it is, that there is no other alternative. What 
about letting the Senate work its will, I suggest. Could we not find 51 
Senators who could have agreed on a better way to save money than to 
cut retired military personnel, a cut that was used to increase 
spending in other areas, some of which is clearly not more significant 
than the cuts falling on military retired personnel?
  We learn after the House has passed the bill, that also includes a 
cut to the pensions of wounded warriors and--I suspect most House 
Members didn't realize that, as my friend from Mississippi has pointed 
out.
  We were blocked yesterday from having a vote, and it looks as if we 
will continue to be blocked. We will move to final passage, and there 
will be no opportunity to amend this bill and the big $500 billion 
Defense authorization bill that will be on the floor next immediately. 
Thereafter, it will be voted on tomorrow, and there will be no 
amendments to it.
  This is unprecedented to have the Defense bill on the floor when we 
often have 30 or more amendments. Zero. We don't have time, we have 
wasted our time on all kinds of things. We had a whole week in which 
there were two measly votes conducted when 30 or more could have been 
conducted easily that week, and there wouldn't have been that many 
votes on the Senate bill.
  I would say that I do not believe this legislation is sound 
legislation. I believe it does damage to the ability of this Senate to 
protect the Treasury of the United States of America. I think it takes 
us down the road to eroding the power of individual Senators to 
constrain spending and stay within the limits we agreed to, that we put 
in law. I am not happy about it. I wish I had more time to talk about 
it. I don't.
  I appreciate the opportunity to work with Senator Murray. I greatly 
respect Congressman Ryan. But there are some problems with this 
legislation. We should not pass it, and there is plenty of time for the 
House of Representatives to respond to any changes we were to make.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator pro tempore is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. The White House has released a report that was prepared by 
the President's Review Group on Intelligence and Communications 
Technologies. The message is very clear. The message to the NSA is now 
coming from every branch of government, from every corner of our 
Nation: NSA, you have gone too far. The bulk collection of Americans' 
data by the U.S. Government has to end.
  The review group came to the same conclusion that I have about the 
utility of the section 215 phone records program, the same conclusion 
that Judge Leon found just the other day, calling it unconstitutional. 
They said the section 215 program was ``not essential to preventing 
attacks and could readily have been obtained in a timely manner using 
conventional section 215 orders.''
  They say what many of us have been saying, that just because we can 
collect massive amounts of data doesn't mean we should do so.
  The report states:

       Although we might be safer if the government had ready 
     access to a massive storehouse of information about every 
     detail of

[[Page 19321]]

     our lives, the impact of such a program on the quality of 
     life and on individual freedom would simply be too great.

  Senator Lee, I, and others have legislation to curtail this. I think 
for the sake of our Nation and the sake of our Constitution we should.
  In October, I introduced with Senator Lee the USA FREEDOM Act--a 
bipartisan and bicameral bill that ends the dragnet collection of 
Americans' phone records and recalibrates the government's surveillance 
authorities. This is commonsense legislation that has broad support 
from legislators across the political spectrum, civil liberties groups, 
and technology companies such as Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Yahoo.
  I welcome the report and call on the President to immediately 
consider implementing the recommendations that can be achieved without 
legislation. I have invited the members of the President's Review Group 
to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee next month, and look 
forward to discussing their important recommendations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from the State of 
Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The American people are sick and tired of the constant 
crises that we have seen in Washington, DC, over the past few years. 
They want us to work together, they want us to solve problems, and they 
want us to focus on jobs, families, and broad-based economic growth. 
That is why I am so pleased we are now headed to a final vote on the 
budget agreement that Chairman Ryan and I reached that breaks through 
this partisanship and gridlock and shows that Congress can function 
when Democrats and Republicans work together to make some compromises 
for the good of the country.
  The Bipartisan Budget Act puts jobs and economic growth first by 
rolling back those automatic and harmful cuts to education, medical 
research, infrastructure investments, and defense jobs for the next 2 
years. If we didn't get a deal, we would have faced another continuing 
resolution that would have locked in those damaging automatic cuts or, 
worse, a potential government shutdown in only a few short weeks.
  This bill we are about to vote on replaces almost two-thirds of the 
cuts for this year to the domestic discretionary investments and, 
importantly, it prevents the next round of defense cuts that is 
scheduled to hit in January.
  It is not going to solve every problem the automatic cuts have 
caused, but it is a step in the right direction and a dramatic 
improvement over the status quo.
  This bill builds on the $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction we have 
done since 2011 with an additional $23 billion in responsible savings 
across the Federal budget.
  Crucially, we protected the fragile economic recovery by spreading 
the savings out responsibly over the next 10 years and maintained the 
key precedent that sequestration cannot be replaced with spending cuts 
alone.
  This bill isn't exactly what I would have written on my own--and I am 
pretty sure it is not what Chairman Ryan would have written on his 
own--but it is what the American people have called for, a compromise. 
That means neither side got everything they wanted and both sides had 
to give a bit.
  I am hopeful this deal can be a foundation for continued bipartisan 
work, because we do have a lot of big challenges ahead of us for our 
families and communities that we all represent.
  As we wind this down and go to a vote in a minute, I especially wish 
to thank my colleague across the aisle, Chairman Ryan, for his work 
with me over the past 2 months. He stood with courage, an honest 
broker, and a tough negotiator, but in the end we were able to come to 
an agreement and I wish to commend him for that.
  I thank ranking member Chris Van Hollen, who worked steadfastly with 
us.
  I thank Leader Reid and all of our leadership for their support 
throughout this budget process as we worked to negotiate this deal and 
move it through the Senate.
  I also particularly thank the members of the Senate Budget Committee 
who worked so hard to pass a budget, start a conference, and reach this 
bipartisan deal--Senators Ron Wyden, Bill Nelson, Debbie Stabenow, 
Bernie Sanders, Sheldon Whitehouse, Mark Warner, Jeff Merkley, Chris 
Coons, Tammy Baldwin, Tim Kaine, and Angus King. They were great 
members of our Budget Committee, and I thank them for their diligent 
work this year, as well as all of the Republicans on our committee who 
worked so hard with us.
  Finally, I thank all of our staffs who have spent so many hours on 
putting this together.
  From my office, Budget Committee staff director Evan Schatz; our 
deputy staff director John Righter; Budget Committee communications 
director Eli Zupnick; my chief of staff Mike Spahn; and all of our 
staff members, too numerous to mention right now, but I want each and 
every one of them to know how much I appreciate the intense work they 
put into all of this. I will insert all of their names in the Record.
  I also thank Chairman Ryan's office: Budget Committee staff director 
Austin Smythe; policy director Jonathan Burks; and many more who helped 
us be successful.
  I also thank David Krone from Leader Reid's office and Kris Sarri 
from the Office of Management and Budget.
  I thank Director Doug Elmendorf, Bob Sunshine, Pete Fontaine, and all 
of the staff at the Congressional Budget Office for their innumerable 
hard work and support.
  We are at the end of the time. I urge all of our colleagues now to 
support this Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. We are about to put jobs 
and economic growth first and, most importantly, we are going to give 
the American people back some certainty that they do deserve.
  Has all postcloture time expired in the motion to concur with respect 
to H.J. Res. 59?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the motion to concur with 
an amendment be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Reserving the right to object, I would note this is the 
way the process--the train that runs through this body and denies 
amendments to be allowed--occurs. At this point, there will be a move, 
in effect, to clear the tree so this can be passed. It is an unhealthy 
tree we are in, and I am disappointed that we are heading in this 
direction, but it points out the actual legislative steps that are 
required to get to final passage after the leader has filled the tree.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to concur with amendment No. 2457 
is withdrawn.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to concur.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 281 Leg.]

                                YEAS--64

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

[[Page 19322]]



                                NAYS--36

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Heller
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Kirk
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal).
  The motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment 
to H.J. Res. 59 is agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________