[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3448-3450]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ACT OF 2014--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 309, the 
Child Care and Development Block Grant Act.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 309, S. 1086, a bill to 
     reauthorize and improve the Child Care and Development Block 
     Grant Act of 1990, and for other purposes.


                                Schedule

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the 
Republican leader, the Senate will be in a period of morning business 
for one hour. The majority will control the first half and the 
Republicans the final half.
  Following morning business the Senate will resume consideration of S. 
1982, the veterans benefits bill.
  I filed cloture on the substitute amendment and the underlying bill. 
As a result the filing deadline for first-degree amendments is 10:30 
this morning and for second-degree amendments it is 1:30 p.m.
  At 2 p.m. there will be a series of votes in relation to the veterans 
bill. We also expect to consider the nomination of Michael Connor to be 
Deputy Secretary of the Interior today.


                          Protecting Veterans

  Mr. President, there are lots of issues on which Democrats and 
Republicans will always disagree. That is OK. But, historically, 
Democrats and Republicans have been able to agree on one issue: 
Congress should do everything in its power to protect those who risk 
their lives to protect our country.
  I had hoped this work period would be more bipartisan; that the 
Senate could tackle issues and would be able to stop the political 
games we have seen so often from the minority.
  That is why I scheduled floor time for a bill to expand health care 
and job training for veterans of the Armed Forces--a very, very 
comprehensive bill, worked on by the Veterans Affairs' Committee, led 
by Senator Sanders. The bill is loaded, as Senator Sanders and I 
discussed yesterday in detail, with Republican provisions that he put 
in the bill.
  Democrats and Republicans alike should be able to support this bill, 
which is sponsored, as I have indicated, by Senator Sanders from 
Vermont.
  Democrats were even willing to work with our Republican colleagues to 
consider relevant amendments to this legislation. So it was 
disappointing--but, sadly, not surprising--when Republicans almost 
immediately injected base partisan politics into a debate over a bill 
that should--should--be bipartisan, insisting on an unrelated amendment 
on Iran that they knew would kill the bill.
  I do not know what they say to the 26 veterans groups. Millions of 
veterans really supported this bill and did everything they could to 
help the chairman of the committee, the junior Senator from Vermont, to 
move this bill forward. But they did it on an unrelated amendment on 
Iran that they knew would kill the bill. I do not know all the reasons, 
but we had a number of speeches, especially one from Dr. Coburn, the 
junior Senator from Oklahoma, who came to the floor and had questions 
about the bill.
  I did not agree with all of his assertions, but he has a right to 
dispute what is in the bill, and he wanted to offer amendments to the 
bill. We agreed he should be able to offer amendments to the bill, but 
the Republicans, I guess, are in turmoil internally and did not want 
him to be able to offer any amendments that they may have to vote for 
or vote against, so they figured the way to do it is to just kill the 
bill.
  I hope all the veterans groups have witnessed this contortion the 
Republicans have done to defeat this bill--because it will be defeated. 
That was their aim from the very beginning.
  Like our support for veterans, the Senate's Iran sanctions policy has 
historically been solidly bipartisan. The idea of Iran obtaining a 
nuclear weapon is unthinkable. Democrats and Republicans always worked 
together on this policy. Iran should not have nuclear capability. We 
all agree on that--I hope so at least. I know on this side of the aisle 
we do. But it seems Republicans are trying to erase that history and 
politicize an issue that has historically been above partisanship.
  They are trying now--the Republicans--to mislead the American public 
by saying that a bipartisan majority supports moving forward with new 
sanctions right now. Of course, it is wrong. Absolutely, of course, it 
is wrong.
  In fact, many Senators, including some who have cosponsored the new 
sanctions bill, believe we should not move forward with the bill at 
this time or on this important bill for veterans. It should not be used 
as an effort to kill this veterans bill.
  But in addition to that, 10 committee chairs wrote a letter to me 
saying: Do not do anything now. They are some of the biggest supporters 
of Israel there are. But we also have Israel's strongest supporter, 
AIPAC, also agreeing it is not the time now to bring a sanctions 
package to the floor. AIPAC was unequivocal in its request for a delay 
on additional sanctions. In fact, this is

[[Page 3449]]

what they said: ``Stopping the Iranian nuclear program should rest on 
bipartisan support and . . . there should not be a vote at this time on 
the measure.''
  Many veterans groups have also come out against including the Iran 
amendment on this bill, including virtually every veterans organization 
but especially the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, 
consisting of millions and millions of veterans. We also have the Iraq 
and Afghanistan Veterans of America saying: Do not do it at this time. 
We need help. We, the veterans, need help. This legislation would give 
us that help. Here is specifically what the American Legion said:

       Sanctions against Iran have no place in a U.S. Senate 
     debate over legislation that aims to expand health care, 
     education opportunities, employment and other benefits for 
     veterans.

  But Iran should make no mistake. We know that. If they fail to comply 
with the current interim agreement or fail to make progress toward a 
comprehensive agreement eliminating their nuclear weapons development 
efforts, Congress will act without hesitation to pass additional 
sanctions. We have said that time and time again.
  That decision will be made in the interest of our national security, 
not on a partisan ploy. There is too much at stake to play politics 
with our Nation's Iran policy. Likewise, Republicans should stop 
putting American veterans at risk and help Democrats pass this crucial 
legislation.
  Shame on the Republicans for bringing base politics into a bill to 
help the veterans. I have learned that the Republicans here in the 
Senate have many different ways of saying no, but, as always, it is 
just plain obstruction, I am sorry to say, again, on a bill to help 
millions of veterans.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.


                                The IRS

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today is an important day. It is the 
last day of the so-called comment period when Americans can officially 
register their opinions on the IRS's latest effort to suppress free 
speech. So far, nearly 100,000 comments have come through--100,000. 
Nearly every one I have seen is opposed.
  Just to put things in perspective, that is basically the largest 
number of comments ever--ever--for a rule like this. Even the head of 
the IRS said he saw more comments on this proposal than ever before 
``on any regulation,'' and that was 70,000 comments ago; 70,000 
comments ago the Commissioner of the IRS said this was the most 
comments he had seen on any regulation.
  So people are certainly making their voices heard--and loudly--and 
the message they are broadcasting is pretty clear: Leave the First 
Amendment alone. Leave it alone. Get out of the censorship and 
harassment business. Stick to the job you are actually supposed to be 
doing.
  Let's be clear. The folks who are logging opinions like these run 
straight across the political spectrum.
  Labor unions are upset. Business organizations are upset. Civil 
liberties activists are upset. Taxpayer groups are upset. Grassroots 
groups right across the political map are upset at what they view as an 
assault on their First Amendment rights. All you have to do is read 
their own words.
  One group of primarily left-leaning First Amendment advocates said 
the new regulation would ``impose serious burdens on free speech and 
hinder the democratic processes it serves.''
  An official with the ACLU described the IRS's proposed regulation as 
creating ``the worst of all worlds.'' The proposal, he wrote, could 
``seriously chill legitimate issue advocacy from nonprofits on [both] 
the right and left,'' and would ``disproportionately affect small, poor 
nonprofits that cannot afford the legal counsel to guarantee 
compliance. . . .''
  Here is what one labor union had to say:

       Given the history of misuse and abuse of the IRS' immense 
     powers in the not-so-distant past, it is disappointing and 
     disturbing that this fundamental principle has been forgotten 
     and that this . . . [regulation] is the IRS' proposed 
     response to its recent missteps.

  So left, right, center--folks understand what a threat this rule 
poses to the most cherished of civil liberties.
  They also realize that a group the administration favors today could 
easily become a group the IRS targets tomorrow. That is why this fight 
is so important, why it is so inappropriate to hand this kind of power 
to any administration. I do not care what party the President is in. 
That is why I, along with several of my colleagues, recently sent a 
letter to the new Commissioner of the IRS explaining in some detail why 
the agency's proposal was such a bad idea, a terrible idea.
  In that letter we also reminded the Commissioner of something else: 
The ball is in his court on this one. The ball is in his court. He 
could stop this rule tomorrow. And given the comments he made about 
restoring integrity to the IRS when the Senate voted to confirm him, 
that is exactly what we expect of him. In fact, that was essentially 
the mandate on which he was confirmed.
  So here is the choice before him. This is the choice the Commissioner 
of the IRS has. He can either fulfill that mandate to the American 
people by restoring integrity to an agency they no longer trust, he can 
be a hero and say no to those who are pressuring him to crack down on 
the First Amendment rights of ordinary citizens--that is what the IRS 
Commissioner told Richard Nixon. He said: I am not going to cooperate 
with your efforts to target your enemies--or he can serve political 
masters over in the White House, and he can implement regulations that 
would erode our most fundamental civil liberties, regulations that 
would almost certainly lead to the harassment of conservative groups 
today and, quite possibly, the harassment of left-leaning groups in the 
future. In fact, a recent letter Representative Camp received from the 
Treasury Department appears to suggest that unions in particular have a 
lot to fear from this proposal.
  So, look. Now is the time to act. America's free speech advocates are 
standing with one voice. Thousands upon thousands made their voices 
heard in the opinion process. I suspect millions more are right there 
with them in spirit. Some who oppose this rule picked the President in 
the last election. Some voted for his opponent. Some may have even cast 
a ballot for another person entirely. But what unites us is our love of 
the liberties that have allowed Americans to disagree civilly for 
centuries.
  Commissioner Koskinen, do the right thing. Stop this regulation.


                                  Iran

  Later today the Senate will vote on the motions related to S. 1982, a 
bill that was not considered in committee, that greatly expands 
spending without any realistic offset and would vastly overwhelm the 
Veterans' Administration health care system. It is shameful that Senate 
Democrats would seek to score political points by rushing to the floor 
a bill which the committee did not consider and which could otherwise 
have been handled in a bipartisan manner through the regular order.
  Unfortunately, it has become standard practice around here for the 
majority to pursue partisan legislation in a sort of ``take it or leave 
it'' manner, so it is unsurprising that nobody other than the majority 
leader and the committee chairman have been allowed the opportunity to 
amend the bill. Senators on both sides have been shut out of the 
legislative process. For example, we cannot even vote on the ranking 
member's veterans amendment--legislation I support--which will not add 
to the deficit. I am a cosponsor of this legislation, which provides 
full COLA restoration for servicemembers entering the military in 2014, 
provides advanced appropriations for VA mandatory accounts, improves 
services and benefits for victims of military sexual trauma, enhances 
benefits for survivors and dependents of disabled veterans, encourages 
the hiring of veterans, and, unlike the Sanders bill, is fully paid 
for.
  As for the Iran sanctions language in the Burr amendment, as I noted 
yesterday, there is significant disagreement between the President and 
many Members from both parties in both the

[[Page 3450]]

House and the Senate concerning the best way to prevent Iran from 
acquiring a nuclear weapon.
  The Iranian regime has carried out its best attempt at a charm 
offensive to forestall not only the implementation but the legislative 
consideration of even tougher sanctions should the regime fail to 
fulfill its commitments according to November's interim agreement.
  The interim agreement included a Joint Plan of Action, agreed to by 
Iran. According to that Joint Plan of Action, the U.S. administration, 
acting consistent with the respective roles of the President and the 
Congress, will refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions. The 
agreement is spelled out clearly to the Iranians: Acting consistent 
with our respective roles. The Iranians can read the plain language and 
understand that this Congress did not agree to renounce additional 
sanctions. We did not agree to do that. Yet the majority leader is 
determined not to allow a single vote on the Kirk-Menendez bill, which 
could be fully debated by this body prior to a vote. We will not have 
that debate, apparently, nor will we vote on any amendments related to 
the bill before us.
  I yield the floor.


                       Reservation of Leader Time

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
leadership time is reserved.

                          ____________________