mothers with little kids. the house bill meant that mothers with young children still in diapers could be cut off from food stamps, from the snap program even if they don't have affordable child care. imagine that, forcing a mother to choose between employment and safe child care for her child. harsh. harshness, harshness. and again, as i said, this isn't even realistic. there are always three job seekers for every job. 48 states have a waiting list for our largest job training program, the work force investment act. 48 states waiting list. so you're going to tell this young mother with a child, you can't get adequate childcare, but you have got to be in a job training program. well, the lists are so long, you

can't get in. or you have got to be working. three job seekers for every job. what is she going to do? so never mind reality. somehow, republicans seem to think that denying food assistance will magically make people find jobs, despite the fact that jobs don't exist. getting people into the work force will require a stronger growing economy with real jobs, with strong job training programs that really will help people get ahead, but promoting draconian cuts to snap benefits under this sort of benign-sounding work label does not make the effect any less harsh. what we have seen in recent years with respect to the snap program are not concerted and sincere efforts to help people leave the snap program because they have gained employment or

because our economy is getting stronger. quite the contrary. many republicans just want to eliminate food assistance for families without regard to the true nature of the economy or the effect on those families. in addition, to acknowledging the fundamental economic truth that our job market has not adequately recovered and that for many americans programs like unemployment insurance and food stamps are essential to basic survival, we also have an obligation to face another perhaps even more alarming economic reality. for those at the bottom who are working and who are playing by the rules, it's just not enough. hardworking people working full time. sometimes multiple jobs aren't getting paid enough to make ends

meet. full-time workers living in poverty, families living in poverty, they go to work every day. this is a fundamental feeling of our economy and something i believe we have a moral obligation to do by fixing and raising the minimum wage in america. i've introduced a proposal that i work on -- worked on for a long time with congressman george miller in the house, the fair minimum wage act which would gradually raise the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour where it is now to $10.10 an hour. then it would link the minimum wage to cost of living in the future. it would be indexed. and we would provide a raise in the minimum wage for tip workers which hasn't been done in more than 20 years. so let's look at what's happened to the minimum wage. since 1968, which by all means was a pretty good economic year, if we had kept the minimum wage

at basically the same level and inflation adjusted since 1968, the minimum wage would be $10.75 an hour. it's now $7.25 an hour. you wonder why there are more people on food stamps. look at what's happened. and these are people working, by the way, people you meet every day. you meet them every day. when you go in to get that coffee, when you go into that lunch counter, that department store. you see minimum wage workers every day. probably if you have got daycare for your kids, you probably see them, too. well, again, if we had kept it at this level, that family making the minimum wage would have an additional $7,000 every

year to spend on necessities. it's no wonder that working people turn to the safety net. in fact, a recent study found that taxpayers have to pick up the tab for millions of working families getting the minimum wage. we have to pick up the tab to the tune of about $243 billion a year. why? well, that's what we pay for food stamps, medicaid and the children's health insurance program, earned income tax credit program and temporary assistance to needy families. $240 billion a year. so taxpayers are picking up the tab. so if you want to say who benefits from an increase in the minimum wage, not only do the people making the minimum wage, taxpayers, too. a lot of this -- not all of it,

a lot of it will fall by the wayside because people won't qualify any longer for the safety net programs. businesses will benefit, too. the biggest problem with businesses, especially small businesses have right now is lack of consumer demand. if you put money back in the pocket of low-income workers, that will be a boon to small businesses, and it will be a boon to your businesses on main street because that's where they will tend to shop. many of these low-income workers don't drive out to the suburbs. a lot of them don't go online and buy at amazon.com, but they will go to their neighborhood stores, and that's where they spend their money. in a poll earlier this year, two-thirds of small business owners said they support raising the minimum wage because they know it will help increase consumption and reduce pressure on taxpayer-funded public

benefit programs. now we always hear the claim that if you raise the minimum wage, it will cost jobs. that's just not true. the most sophisticateed empirical economic research conducted over the last two decades has shown repeatedly that minimum wage increases do not cause job loss. not generally, not among teenagers and not among restaurant workers. in short, history shows us time and again that despite all the cries of doom and gloom among richly paid lobbyists, well-funded trade associations, there are simply no real negative economic consequences from an increase in the minimum wage. to the contrary, the benefits are enormous. the economic policy institute

estimates that our bill would pump an additional $22 billion into the gross domestic product, supporting 85,000 new jobs, giving workers an additional $35 billion to spend over the three years of the implementation and of course more beyond that. 14 million children in america will have a parent who gets a raise just because of increasing the minimum wage. and again, this makes a real difference in people's lives. as i said, they're not -- they're not going to the rivera, they are not going to vacations on the beach. 15 million women get a raise, 13 million men, four million african-american workers, seven million hispanic workers, seven million parents. and it's going to make a real difference in their lives. we have figured it up.

a boost to $10.10 would mean an extra $6,000 a year. think of what that means for someone who right now is maybe making -- the minimum wage is around $14,000 to $15,000 a year. now you're going to get -- after three years of implementation, you're going to get $6,000 a year more. seven months of groceries. six months of rent. one semester at a public four-year university. $1,600 of gas. that's a real difference. that's a real difference. now, some -- i've heard some say that they think the earned income tax credit should be the answer to the problem of low wages. but what this overlooks is that the earned income tax credit only helps families with children. childless adults who work full time at the minimum wage actually earn too much to qualify for the earned income tax credit, but the minimum wage

is not even enough for a single person to survive on. moreover, just relying on the earned income tax credit would simply shift more costs to the taxpayers rather than requiring employees to pay a fair wage, and it would actually incentivize employers to pay even less in wages. mr. president, the minimum wage raise we're proposing is particularly important for tip workers, millions who will receive a raise for the first time in 22 years. workers who receive tips will get a raise in their base wage. these include not only restaurant servers but also nail salon workers, pizza delivery drivers, coat checkers, parking attendants, many, many more. right now under current federal law, employers are required to pay -- get this -- only $2.13 an

hour to tip workers. so rather than supplementing wages, tips have been actually over the last 20 years replaced wages, but this is insecure for workers. it often leaves them in poverty. there is no predictability to tips. often workers go home with only tips because tax deductions canceled out their cash wages. this right here, this is an actual copy of a real check made out to a restaurant worker in the district of columbia, in the dk. a paycheck. check date 8/5/2013. zero dollars and zero cents. this is a real person. she got -- i took the name off, but she got a check, a paycheck for zero dollars and zero cents.

why? well, when they took out withholding and her fica taxes, she didn't make enough to even get paid. some people say well, she got tips. well, maybe. but anyone who gets tips can tell you one day they're up, the next day they're down. sometimes they're good, sometimes they're not. how do you budget on that? that's like saying earned income tax credit. i've already pointed out the fallacy of that, but that only comes a year later. i'm talking about how do you live from paycheck to paycheck when your paycheck is zero? you can't plan on your budget. you can't raise a family on it. no one who works for a living should come home with a paycheck that says zero dollars and zero cents when they've worked over 40 hours a week. so this bill, my bill, would

establish a fair balance between wages and tips by slowly over six years lifting the base wage for tip workers from $2.13 an hour to 70% of the minimum wage. that's more in line with how tip minimum wage worked in the decades past. now the national restaurant association claims it can't afford to raise these wages, but it says that every time we propose raising the minimum wage. the national restaurant association opposes any minimum wage increase at any time. they can afford it. in fact, the last minimum wage increase from 2007-2009 which meant raises for workers like buskers, kitchen staff and others who don't regularly receive tips didn't hurt the industry, but they said so at the time. here's what they said.

in 2007 when we were here debating an increase in the minimum wage, here's what they said -- "a minimum wage increase will cost our industry jobs." 2007. flash forward. 2012, here's what the restaurant industry said -- quote -- "the restaurant industry not only provided much-needed job growth during the sluggish last decade, it also is poised to post steady growth well into the future." they can't have it both ways. this is the truth. they provided job growth. more power to them. but don't come here and tell us that an increase in the minimum wage and an increase in the minimum wage for tip workers is going to cost them jobs. that just doesn't hold. mr. president, i'll close with

one more statement from a real worker whose life will be improved if we step up and support people who work in our country. she has a lesson for us. jackie perkins works at a restaurant in denver, colorado, and she says -- quote -- "you're talking about real people. you sit in your ivory tower in the legislature and talk about economics and numbers and jobs, but what you don't understand is there are real jobs and real workers who have families that they need to support and raising the minimum wage helps me support myself and my family and to advance and to achieve the american dream." end quote. so mr. president i believe in jackie's dreams and those of hardworking americans, as i said earlier, who make the country work, who make it operate. as we look ahead to the christmas season and new year,

i hope all my colleagues will take time over the holidays to think about all the blessings they have been given and all that we should be thankful for. i hope we put ourselves in the shoes of these working people who just want to build a better life for themselves and their children. think about the minimum wage retail worker that you see when you go into that store to shop for that christmas present, works hard running that cash register, standing on her feet all day, which she can't even afford to shop in her own store. think of the unemployed worker who must go to the local food bank because he can't find a job. food stamps have run out. and they can't afford that nice big turkey and all the dressing and everything else for christmas dinner. i guess i'll close where i started.

we've just got to stop being so harsh and having these harsh attitudes towards people at the lower economic end of our spectrum. they have value, too. their lives have value. their work has tremendous value. the country couldn't exist, couldn't operate without people like that. so let's find our public policies to be a little bit more considerate, a little bit more compassionate, a little more understanding of the real tough lives some people have in our society. let's have a compassion that's born of an understanding that we are so privileged to live in the richest country in the world and we can afford -- we can

afford -- to make sure people have enough food to eat. we can afford to make sure that people who are unemployed get unemployment insurance benefits next year. we can afford that. we can afford to increase the minimum wage. we can afford these things. and we'll be a better country, socially and economically, if we do so. we have a duty, i believe to sort of put ourselves in their shoes. we have a duty to make sure that people who do the work like that in our country get a fair chance to aspire to the american dream. so i hope we all have a good holiday season, christmas, new year, with our families and our friends. i hope we take time to pause and reflect also as i said, on our blessings and on our obligations

, our obligations towards people who just may not be as fortunate as we are. so i hope that when we come back that we will support a strong food assistance program, a deserved and long overdue increase in the minimum wage, and an extension of federal unemployment insurance. and let's have a new year that's filled with less harshness and a little bit more compassion and understanding for our fellow americans. mr. president, with that i yield the floor. before i yield the floor i ask unanimous consent trenton white of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's proceedings. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: i see the distinguished senator from washington on the floor who i suppose would like to speak. could i be recognized for five

minutes and yield to the distinguished senator from washington. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: last friday i left this chamber with a folder containing most of the information from the ryan-murray comprehensive agreement on our budget. i left with the ringing suggestions if my ear from colleagues on the floor that it wasn't enough, it didn't do enough and that we didn't need to pass it. but inside me i had that little voice all of us get from time to time with a conscience that the time was right to do what was right. so on the airplane back to atlanta i read the entire agreement and then when i spent the weekend at home doing christmas shopping, going out with grandchildren, talking to my wife i listened to the people of georgia and listened to what they had said and some remarkable things happened this weekend. in church on sunday following a cantata and usually i'm accosted at church with suggestions about what i should or should not be gog but i was surprised how many

people said thank goodness you have found an agreement for predictability on the spending of the pallone in our federal budget. not one negative comment. i left church, went to lunch and went shopping at the mall. where i was stopped three or four times by people, some democrats, some republicans, some i knew, some i did not. again the same comment, finally you guys have gotten your act together and gotten a bipartisan agreement. went to a dinner party with activists that night. althere was some grumbling that we didn't get that there was relief we wouldn't go through what we went through on october 1 and the threats over government shutdowns and the failure of government to function. then i got on the plane to fly back to washington yesterday morning and once again members of the military, people i did not know, people i did know, some of the bureaucracy, all stopped and generally said the same thing, finally, it's about time. so when i voted earlier today to shut off the debate or end the

debate and bring to a final vote the bipartisan budget agreement i voted in favor of it because it's the right thing to do at the right time and when the final vote comes in the next 30 hours i'll vote for it again and i want to give you three previce owns -- precise reasons why. number one, i've been the voice of a biennial budget in this schaimb for the last nine years. i've talked about how we need more predictability to the budget process and how we can't continue to pass c.r. after c.r. after c.r. which is an admission we cannot do our job. jeanne shsheen -- jeanne shaheen from offered the biennial boj proposal -- budget proposal. this is something we need to build on in the future as we bring continuity to the budget process. number two, yes i know there are a couple of pension tweaks, yes, there are some savings in a couple of pension tweaks but

we'll have to do a lot of tweaking in terms of long-term entitlements over the next few years if we're ever going to rein in the spending. our biggest problem is not as much what we spend in veng screpg in one we're -- discretionary spending in one year as the obligation in the mortgage we're accumulating over decades. this proposal will save $22.6 billion over the next decade but $100 billion over the decade to follow. because it accumulates and compounds and those savings on entitlement programs can make a tremendous difference. third and most importantly, we sunshineled and fell last october when we decided to shut down the government rather than do our job. i want to commend senator murray and paul ryan and refer to a conversation paul ryan and i had on saturday. i was at mount bethel methodist church watching my grandfather play basketball. he was in wisconsin watching his daughter play basketball as well. we talked about 15 minutes not as much about the budget proposal as about our

granddaughter and our daughter. recognizing if we fulfill our responsibility as representatives of the american people in this congress this year, if we begin the process of predictability in appropriations and budgeting, and if we begin the process of recognizing our entitlements are running away from us, our debt and deficit will kill us, maybe instead of being the first generation of american positions to -- politicians to leave our grandchildren worse off wheel return to fiscal soundness, biennial accountability. i'm going to vote for the ryan-murray budget when it comes to the floor of the senate and i yield back my time and defer to the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president, i ask consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: mr. president, i am here to speak on the budget, but until our other colleague from pennsylvania gets here, i

would like to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: mr. president, over the course of friday and through the weekend has been the publication first by associated press of a missing american, a missing floridian, bob levenson, a retired f.b.i. agent. and that publication has spurred other entities, primarily "the new york times" that had been holding the story for a number of years, well above associated press ever got the story.

to then print an additional story of additional information about the disappearance seven years ago of bob levenson on kisch island, a resort island in the persian gulf right off of the coast of mainland iran. and of course we have been searching for any shred of evidence about bob. he has here in the u.s., in florida a wife and seven children, and the length of time of which he has been missing, unfortunately, seems to have met or exceeded the amount of time for almost any american. and the family, of course,

desperately tries to seek any shred of evidence. now they are heartened three years ago that christine levenson, his wife, received a secretive e-mail with a video that showed that bob was alive. and in it, he made statements about he had served the government of the u.s. for 30 years, and please help. about a year later she received also by another circuitous e-mail a photograph of him obviously later because his hair is long and there is a full beard. his hair is silver. his beard is silver.

and in both the video and the last item, the photograph, he appears quite gaunt. and of course we know that he has health problems, high blood pressure, and of course we fear. we also know that just this morning on cbs this morning, a fellow that he was seeing, an american who lives in iran a fellow that he was seeing on kisch island, saw him taken by iranian authorities. it is no secret that all levels of the government, including their florida senator have reached out to the iranian government over the years,

including the president of the united states when he spoke to the newly elected president of iran when that united nations meeting occurred in september. i have spoken within the last couple of days to the iranian ambassador to the united nations and reiterated the plea of those of us on a humanitarian basis for this family to be reunited with their loved one and have offered to the ambassador if it would in any way help that i am willing to go to iran if in any way that it would secure his release. if the iranian authorities took him, somebody in the government of iran knows of his

whereabouts. and i will conclude, mr. president, by saying that for the first time we have what appear to be successful talks going on between the two governments with regard to the iranian nuclear program. and those are at a critical stage to hopefully bear fruit within about five months from now. what better time for the government of iran to show their goodwill than to step forth and produce bob levinson so he can return home to his family. mr. president, that concludes my remarks on bob levinson for the moment. i will continue to speak on this. now i would like to turn to the

matter at hand with regard to the budget since my colleague from pennsylvania and, of course, our chair, the senator from washington, are here. i'd like to take a moment to acknowledge a small but significant provision in this budget compromise. it's section 203 of the budget act of 2013, and it limits access to what is known as social security's death master file, which is important because criminals utilize fraudulently the death master file to steal people's identities. when someone dies, the social security administration puts their information into the death master file and releases it to the public through the commerce department. and it lists their name, their

social security number, and other personal identification information. and the public release shortly after death of the death master file came about as a result of a freedom of information act lawsuit back in the 1980's, and over time federal agencies and industries came to rely on the information from the death master file. life insurers use it to know when to pay out benefits. banks and credit card companies use the information from the file to prevent fraud. a whole host of federal and state agencies as well. as other industries depend on the information for legitimate purposes, including pension funds, unclaimed property

auditors and identity theft companies. but, mr. president, there's somebody else that's using the death master file too, and it's the criminals who are stealing identities, including especially the social security number, when that is posted online. they're using it fraudulently. and what are they doing? they are filing an income tax return. they are utilizing somebody else's identity, in this case easily accessible, the death master file, creating a false return and getting a tax refund. now, mr. president, you may find this hard to believe, but this

actually happened in tampa, florida. street crime, you know, hijackings, stickups, burglaries, dope dealing, it actually dropped because the criminals found a new way of being able to steal people's money. and they did it with a latop instead of with a crowbar or a gun. and street crime actually reduced because the criminals found a new way. now they would steal people's identities in many different ways. they'd go to senior citizens' mailboxes and th*e'd get their -- and they'd get their i.d.. they would get their social security numbers. they would go through hospital

records. they'd get social security numbers. they would do it a number of ways. but one of the easiest ways was this death master file. now, i want to tell you about the story of alexis agan, the daughter of two courageous parents, john and neely, who have joined us today in this chamber and tragically alexis died from cancer two weeks shy of her fifth birthday. and obviously no parent should have to go through the pain of putting their child through this kind of ordeal and then to lose a child. and so you can imagine how they felt when months later they learned that someone had used

alexis' identity obtained from the death master file to file a fraudulent tax return claiming a refund. and the i.r.s., when they tried to correct this, the i.r.s. asked them to prove that alexis was their daughter and was not the one for the fraudulent tax return. well, because i've heard so many stories of innocent americans whose identities have been stolen, this senator filed this legislation that would restrict access to the death master file by establishing a certification program run by the commerce department while still allowing access to the death master file for legitimate purposes. now, this brings us to the budget agreement. i am very pleased that the

senator from washington has included within this budget that we're going to pass -- it would be nice today but it looks like it's going to be tomorrow -- what some of us have been calling on for years, restricting access to this master file, making it harder for criminals to steal identities. and, therefore, making it harder to steal taxpayer money. that's where this actually has a revenue effect because we're going to actually save the u.s. government by doing this -- we're going to save the u.s. government money that otherwise is being stolen. so i want to thank the courageous chairman of the budget committee for including this idea in the act and in crafting it, what used to be

s. 676, the identity theft and tax fraud prevention act. it was never any intent of this senator or the cosponsors of denying access to the master file by the people who need it for legitimate purposes. and the language in this budget deal would include the file in the freedom of information act exemptions so that it isn't available to just anyone off the street. however, the social security administration and commerce would still be able to release the information in the file for those who need it. so i want to ask the distinguished chair of the committee, is it true that, as commerce sets up a certification

program, that the social security administration and commerce will still be able to release the death master file to folks who need to use it for legitimate purposes? mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the senator from florida and the senator from pennsylvania and respond to the senator from florida. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: mr. president, yes, the senator from florida is correct. that is absolutely our intention. there is nothing in law that prevents the continued public release of the death master file while the commerce department sets up the certification program. this act simply exempts the social security administration's death records from freedom of information requests under section 552 of title 5 of the united states code code, subsecn b. a senator: mr. president, i am pleased that it includes

language perpetrated from the death master file. tax fraud is a large and growing problem, we know that. in 2012 the i.r.s. reported that they identified over 1.2 million identity theft returns. as of june 2013 they identified 1.6 million for this year. thousands of these cases involve the identity of a deceased taxpayer. in a recent audit of the 2011 tax year identified 19,000 fraudulent returns from recently deceased taxpayers. under current practice, for $10, criminals can purchase the full name, social security number, data of birth, and date of death of a deceased citizen or real resident. as a member of the finance committee, i have worked with my colleagues to address this issue and i am pleased to see the language limiting access to the death master file in the budget deal.

as commerce begins its rule making, it is essential to strike the correct balance much the reality is that the death master files used by companies across pennsylvania and the nation to prevent fraud and provide other essential consumer protections. banks, investment companies, insurers and number u numerous r businesses run this file. striking the correct balance in the regulatory process is critical to ensuring the continued legitimate use of this information. businesses and those that contract for assistance with fraud prevention and other business uses must maintain access to the file. furthermore, access must remain available as those regulations are promulgated. in short, as the certification program is et up, it is important that we get it right. the death master file is critical to fraud prevention and must remain available to legitimate users.

to that poirnghts i ask the senator from washington, the distinguished chairwoman, is it the intention of the bipartisan budget act for the commerce department to seek input from sphaistakeholders as it createse certification program to ensure legitimate users maintain access to the file? mrs. murray: mr. president, the senator from pennsylvania is correct. we intended for commerce to follow the notice and comment rule making procedures in the establishment of the certification program. mr. nelson: mr. president, i want to close by thanking, again, the distinguished chairman of the committee. she has been a quiet hero and the proof is in the pudding of all of her labors, and she deserves the praise of the country that we have a budget, number one, but thank you for

making it a lot more difficult for people to -- criminals to steal the identities of those who have passed on. and i yield the floor. mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, we're watching america pass from the hands of the greatest generation to the hands of the debt-paying generation, with nothing to show for it but the bill. for months republicans have challenged president obama to fix the federal debt, to save entitlement programs that americans depend on, and to rescue young americans from being forever known as "the debt-paying generation." earlier this year, for example, i called on the president to show the same kind of leadership that president johnson did on civil rights, that president nixon did on china, that president carter did on the

panama canal treaty, that president reagan did on social security. confront your own party, say what needs to be done, do what needneeds to be done. this hasn't happened. i appreciate very much the efforts of the senator from washington and representative ryan to try to bring certainty to the budget process. that's why i voted today to allow a vote on the house-passed budget agreement. it seemed to me at least a republican senator could allow a vote on legislation passed by the house of representatives with the support of the house republican leadership and two-thirds of the house republicans. so i voted "yes," and we did allow a vote. however, i'm going to vote against the ryan-murray budget amendment because it avoids the federal government's single greatest challenge, and that is

reducing the growth of runaway entitlement spending. instead, it spends savings that should be used to strengthen medicare, to strengthen pensions, to strengthen the air transportation system. it spends those on other programs. l i believe in user fees. when you build a highway, you have a gas tax to pay for the highway. you don't raise the gas tax to pay for education, you don't raise the gas tax to pay for a health program. a user fee is relatived to the service that it -- is related to the service that it provides. this budget agreement doesn't stand that test. it would have been much better, mr. president, to pay for this budget agreement at least by a small part of the $1 trillion in entitlement savings that senator corker an i have sugges and i hd identified in the fiscal sustainability act or with meaningful entitlement savings from the president's own budget. the fiscal sustainability act

that corker and i suggested would slow the growth of out-of-control mandatory spending by, among other things, recommending a realistic consumer price index. this is a consumer price index that most economists have said is more realistic in its assessment of what the increase in the standard of living is. the monthly difference of the current consumer price index to the more accurate consumer price index is about $3 per month per beneficiary, which is less than the average cost of a gallon of gasoline. this modest change would help to slow the growth -- not cut, help slow the growth of mandatory entitlement spending, and the purpose of that, mr. president, is to help make those programs solvent so beneficiaries can depend on them. the medicare trustees have told us that medicare will not have enough money in it in eight

years to pay the hospital bills. what are seniors going to think of united states senators in 2013 to didn't take the steps to make medicare solvent? we could do that. if we would begin to adopt some of the recommendations in the corker-alexander fiscal sustainability act or in the president's own budget. he also recommended a smaller version of the more realistic consumer price index. he recommended several hundred billion other dollars of changes in intieme entitlement programsn republican senators can agree with. according to the c.b.o., if we just focused on the changes in savings of spending, it is $162 billion over ten years. that's twice as much money as we needed fo for the budget agreem. the rest could be used to reduce the debt today and the reduction would be more in future years. the and ace emphasiz as i empha,

the purpose in reducing entitlement programs is so the programs are solvent. so a beneficiary doesn't say, why doesn't medicare have enough money to pay for my hospital bills? or here is another way we could have cut wasteful spending: eliminate the wind production tax credit. the senator from west virginia and i have written a letter to the finance committee and suggested we do that. here we are in the budget agreement struggling to find $63 billion over the next ten years. where would we find $63 billion? that about equals what would happen if we did not extend the wind production tax credit each year for the next ten years. so any way you slice it, we could either have taken some of the president's suggested savings in entitlement spending. so we could have taken half of the savings from the more

realistic consumer price index, paid for the budget agreement that way, then i could have voted for it, because we would have moved money from out-of-control side of the budget over here, the mandatory spending, and moved it over here to relieve the sequester. and we would have done what we should have done. what i have to ask with all respect is, where was the president in all of this? if lyndon johnson can pass a civil rights bill and richard nixon can go to china, if jimmy carter can pass the panama canal treaty and ronald reagan can work with tip o'neill on social security, why can't president obama get involved with his own budget recommendations and help us begin to deal with entitlement spending, which everybody knows is the single-biggest problem we have facing our country? washington could learn a lot about debt and taxes from tennessee. tennessee's tax burden ranks third-lowest of any state. has the lowest per-capita debt, it balances its budget every

year. all of that didn't happen by accident. i was governor when we needed three big road programs. instead of borrowing the money, we paid for it as we went. paid for it is a we went. we used user fees -- the gasoline tax, but we allied it t-- but we applied it to the roads. we have one of the best four-lane highway systems in america and zero road debt, while other states have billions of dollars of road debt. we have zero, so all of our gas tax money, lower than the national average, gos -- goes to keeping one of the best four-lane highway systems. mr. president, getting debt under control is the foremost problem we have facing our country. if we don't do that the people who depend upon medicare and other important programs will be not able to depend on it to pay their hospital bills.

runaway spending is going to leave our young americans forever known as "the debt-paying generation." we're watching america pass from the hands of the greatest generation to the debt-paying generation, with nothing to show for it but the bill. i thank the president. i yield the floor. ms. warren: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. the. ms. warren: i come to the floor today in support of the equal employment for all act, a bill i introduced today with senators blumenthal, brown, leahy, markey, shaheen and whitehouse. this legislation would prohibit employers from requiring prospective employees to disclose their credit history as part of the job application process. it makes sure that hiring decisions are based on an individual's skill and experience, not on past financial problems. this is also about basic

fairness. let people compete for jobs on the merits, not on whether or not they have enough money to pay all their bills. many people have bad credit because they hit hard times. they got sick, their husband left, or their wife died, that he lost their jobs. these are tough events urnsdz er any circumstance and put a strain on a person. the strain sometimes results in late praimen payments orange inn the amount of money they -- or an increase in the amount of money they must borrow. the problems of bad credit were compounded following the 2008 crisis. man depreciated savings left people with a smaller financial cushion to survive fluctuations in their income. people lost their small businesses and found themselves mired in debt.

for too many people, the fallout from the 2008 crisis also damaged their credit. much of america, hardworking, bill-paying america, has a damaged credit rating and the impact of that bad credit rating lasts a long time. negative information generally remains on a credit report for seven years and in some cases it lasts even longer. most people recognize that one consequence of bad credit is they're going to have trouble borrowing money or they're going to pay more when they borrow. but for many people, a damaged credit rating can block access to a job. after a terrible blow, a job loss, a death in the family, a divorce, a serious medical problem, many people are scrambling to get back to work or to pick up a second job or to change jobs so they can get back on their feet financially. but they're knocked back by damaged credit.

today highly qualified applicants with bad credit can be shut out of the job market. this is wrong. it was once thought that a credit history would provide some insight into a person's character and today many companies routinely require credit reports for job applicants. but research has shown that a credit rating has little to know correlation with his or her ability to succeed in the workplace. a bad credit rating is far more often the result of an unexpected personal crisis or economic downturn than a reflection of someone's character or abilities. the equal employment for all act would amend the fair credit reporting act to put an end to these unfair and harmless -- and harmful practices. this would benefit millions of american families down on their luck, giving them a chance to

rebuild their financial security. it will particularly help women, minorities, students and seniors because these groups are disproportionately likely to be hit hard by bad credit ratings. for example, the economic fallout from a divorce often hits women's finances particularly hard. it only gets more difficult for women when they apply for good jobs for which they are fully qualified but they are barred because employers insist on examining their credit history. another challenge with using credit reports during the job application process is they're not always accurate. according to a february 2013 f.t.c. report, 20% of consumers could identify at least one error on their credit reports. unfortunately, someone whose credit report has a significant error may have trouble learning about the mistake and even if the mistake is identified have

trouble getting it corrected in a reasonable time. according to the same f.t.c. report, correcting report errors can be difficult to manage and the reporting agencies can be unresponsive. this means innocent job applicants are paying the price for a credit reporting company's mistake. this is just one more way the game is rigged. a rich person who loses a job or gets divorced or faces a family illness is unlikely to suffer a drop in his credit rating. but for millions of hardworking families, a hard personal blow translates into a hard financial blow that will show up for years in a credit report. no one should be denied the chance to compete for a job because of a credit report that bears no relationship to the job performance and that can be

riddled with inaccuracies. in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, a crisis that hammered middle-class families and from which millions of families are still struggling to recover, these practices should be stopped. it's time give more families a chance to get back in the work force and to get back on their feet. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent to dispense with the calling of the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: and, mr. president, i also ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. i come again to the floor to remind my colleagues that in 11 days, 1.3 million americans will lose their unemployment insurance. with the goal of providing certainty to these families that they will continue to have access to this vital lifeline, i and my colleague from nevada, senator heller, are introducing a bill that would extend unemployment insurance compensation benefits for three months. i hope this sensible and bipartisan approach will provide

a path forward to extending the program through 2014, which will give families and our economy more time to recover. and in many parts of the country, the recovery is just getting underway. my own state of rhode island has 9% unemployment. there are states throughout the country that have over 8% unemployment. there are some states that are doing well and we're awfully glad they are. but for the millions of people who are still looking for work, they need this help. this program is designed so that workers continuing to look for work while they receive a very modest compensation. in my state, the average is about $348 a week. that's not the kind of money that's going to induce someone to simply sit back and collect. it's going to provide some support for them to just put food on the table. this safety net is really there

not just for them, it's for everyone. 23.9 million americans have received these benefits since the start of the program in 2008. some, thankfully, have found work and have returned to work. but all of them in a very critical time received the assistance and support. and they only qualified for such support because they worked. this is a program that is based on one fundamental principle -- you have worked long enough to qualify for these benefits. and as a result, i think we have to go ahead and follow through and not leave 1.3 million people on december 28th literally with nothing, in many cases. now, as we look by households, the number of americans in this program has helped -- has risen to about 69 million people. not just the workers but their

families, their sons and daughters, their spouses. in fact, it includes about 17 million children that would not have received benefits without this program. and in terms of income, over 40% of those households new to receiving u.i. in 2012 had household income between $30,000 and $75,000. that's an important point to make. these are wor working families. these are people that were enjoying a reasonably good living and suddenly, because of many changes -- globalization, downsizing, you name it -- they were without a job in a very difficult job market. and they went from being people with good, solid, middle class jobs to looking desperately for work. and at least this program gave them some support as they made that great effort to look for work. so this program has been and

continues to be a crucial benefit to millions of american households all over the country, of nearly every conceivable demographic background. and it's become a significant part of our recovery, too. its expiration will hurt families. it's been estimated that if we do not extend this program for the next year, we will lose 200,000 jobs, because the logic of this program is very compelling. people who are receiving these benefits, people who used to make $50,000 a year, for examp example -- and many of them did -- they're not going to go ahead and turn around and take these benefits and just sort of squirrel them away or go off on a vacation. this is about paying the rent, paying for fuel in a cold winter or a hot summer in the south and southwest. it's about making sure that the children get a little something. again, about 17 million children have benefited over the last several years, since 2008, from

this program. so this is absolutely critical. it's critical to our economy. it's not only the right thing to do, it's the economically smart thing to do. it's been estimated that without the extension of unemployment insurance, we will lose .2% of g.d.p. growth this year, at a time when we all, and i think very sincerely, profess to say our number-one job is jobs, getting people back to work, growing the economy. and if we grow the economy, that has many, many beneficial effects. not only does it lower the number of people that need this type of assistance, but as a result of that and other activities, it begins to lower our deficit. so for so many reasons, both economic and central to our purpose as a government, which is when people who have worked hard run in through no fault of

their own a situation where they lose their employment, there is something there for them, and i hope we can move forward. i am so pleased that the senator has stepped up and joined me and i would join him in urging all my colleagues to give us the opportunity not only to bring this legislation up for at least three months, to extend it so we can look longer term. there are some of my colleagues that have raised some very, very interesting points. perhaps there are reforms necessary for the program. in the context of a program that expires on december 28, it's hard to take the legislative time and insight to develop reforms that will work for everyone, but if we can extend this at least for three months, we have that opportunity. so, mr. president, again i will return. this is not the last time i will speak on this point, but i want to come back and remind people

this program is central to so many families. it is an important part of a -- continuing our economic expansion, and it is particularly difficult at this time of year when 1.3 million americans in this holiday season are facing a cutoff of benefits that for many of them are the difference between paying the rent, paying the mortgage, keeping the kids in their sports programs, doing those things that families in america not only expect to do, but we are here so that they can accomplish those things. so, mr. president, with that, i would notice the absence of a quorum and yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: i would ask that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. ayotte: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor today to talk about an issue that i am deeply concerned about, and that is while i appreciate the work that was certainly done by congressman ryan and senator murray on the recent budget agreement, there is a provision in this agreement that in my view that makes it a deal breaker, and that provision is that there is $6 billion taken

from our current military retirees over the next ten years from their cost of living increases to pay for this budget agreement. i believe that we do not have to take from the backs of our men and women in uniform to pay for more spending. i believe that there are ways that we can find $6 billion in trillion dollars of spending, trillions and trillions that we will spend over the next decade, rather than taking it from the men and women in uniform who have sacrificed the most for our country. what troubles me most about this particular provision of this budget agreement is that our military retirees that are under the age of 62 were singled out.

there is no group under this agreement that is cut, that their benefits are cut, in fact, there are some changes to the contributions that federal employees will have to make to their retirement, but those changes are only made prospectively to new hires. our men and women in uniform were not grandfathered under this agreement. they're the ones, the only ones that were singled out in the agreement to have their bers had benefits -- to have their benefits cut now. what i find most appalling is the question that we asked and we pressed and we pressed the department of defense for, and that is what happens to our disabled veterans, because when, unfortunately, many of us have been to walter reed, we've seen the injuries that our men

and women in uniform have sustained, fighting on our behalf in afghanistan, some did multiple tours in afghanistan and also served our country in iraq. and when you have ale disability that occurs in the line of duty you're entitled to a disability and this will cut the cost of living increases for our disabled veterans, which i find appalling, particularly some of the horrific injuries that many of -- too many of our men and women in uniform have sustained defending our country and taking the bullets for all of us. under this agreement an e-7, a sergeant first class, who retires at age 40 could stand to

lose $72,000 by the time he turns or she turns age 62. to put that in perspective, the average retirement for an e-7 is roughly $25,000. and so in that period this cut of 1% to their cola could equate to $72,000. and think about the impact that has on our veterans and our men and women in uniform who have done so much for our country. and why are they being singled out in this agreement? the other issue that i want to raise is this notion that some have said we have to vote for this agreement or we're going to face another government shutdown. i think that's a false choice.

we may be in a rush to get home to our families for the holiday, but the notion that we can't find $6 billion somewhere else on a bipartisan basis for our men and women in uniform, that's a false choice. we can keep this government open, we can address the budget issues, but we should not do so on the backs of our men and women in uniform that are singled out in this agreement. right now as this agreement stands on the floor of the senate, the so-called amendment tree has been filled. that means that any amendments that either side would want to offer cannot be offered right now because the majority leader has filled every part of the amendment tree , not allowing individual members to offer amendments.

were i allowed to offer amendments i have filed two amendments that would address this issue for our military, and have found other pay-fors to address the issue, and those are just two ideas that i came up with, and i'm sure if we committed in this body to working on this issue, that we could quickly find $6 billion that would not be taken from the backs of our men and women in uniform, would not be taken from the backs of our disabled veterans who have already suffered too much on behalf of our nation. i do not believe that this is too much to ask of us here. we are blessed to be in this country and blessed to enjoy the freedoms that we enjoy in this country because of our men and

women in uniform and what they have done to defend our nation. and make no mistake, a military retirement is not like any other retirement. when you retire from the military, you understand that you can be called back. you can be called back at any time. and who is most likely to be called back? our younger veterans. in fact, since 2001, thousands of our veterans who thought that they were going back into civilian life have been called back by our government to serve their nation again. they didn't get to say yes or no. they had agreed that they were going to do that even though that they thought that they would be retired. that's what distinguishes a military retirement from other retirements or an average civilian retirement.

they earn this for defending our country. i believe we should fulfill our responsibility to them that they should not be singled out of all the groups to single out, they should not be the group to single out, and particularly everything that they have done for our nation. so, mr. president, here's what i ask. i would ask that we take a few moments in this body, that we come up with $6 billion some other way instead of taking it from the backs of our men and women in uniform. why don't we have an amendment process that would allow us to address this issue? would allow us to fix this now? and to those who are saying we'll fix this later, that is such a washington answer. if you're serving our country right now in afghanistan, what kind of comfort is that to you

that we'll fix this down the line after we vote for this agreement? how about fixing this now? i ask my colleagues to fix this now on behalf of our military, the best in the world, those who have sacrificed the most for our country. and if this body is to pass this agreement, i would call on our commander in chief to veto this agreement. bring us to the white house. make the house, make the senate sit together and resolve this issue. as the commander of chief in this country, don't accept the cuts to the military and have our military retirees singled out, particularly our disabled veterans, in this agreement. we can get this done. we can get this done before the holidays. yes, we'll suffer some personal inconvenience.

but think about that. that is nothing compared to what our veterans have done for us and continue to do for us every single day in this great country. so with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you. i would want to join in with the senator from new hampshire and alabama to try to urge the body to take a pause here before right or wrong, but it matures here. the good news is we had a bipartisan agreement to try to fund the government in a fashion where we would not have a government by crisis. i appreciate that. i understand how hard it is to reach consensus around here. and our objection is not to the, at least my objection is not to the deal as a whole. i appreciate the fact that sequestration relief occurred for our d.o.d. budget for two years and non-defense spending,

and it was paid for. i appreciate that very much because sequestration is really cut into our ability to defend this nation in dramatic fashion. and to have it paid for is also a worthy thing to do, the right thing to do. what senator ayotte's trying to -- the point she's trying to make, i'm trying to make and i think senator sessions is, budget is about your priorities. you know, what we're doing here today is we're telling everybody in america what's important to the congress, the senate and the house, when it comes to getting a budget passed for two years and how we should do this. how should we pay for it. here's what i can't understand. of all the groups in america that you would go to and single out unlike any other group to pay for the offset to come up with some money out of their pocket to get this budget deal passed which doesn't keep us

from any means but i applaud effort, we've picked the military retired community. here's what we have done to the retirees. past, present and future we've taken their cost of living adjustment, reduced it by 1% until they get to 62 and if you're e-7, master sergeant in the air force and retires at 42 at age 2016 by the time you get to 62, the 1% of cola a year amounts to lost benefits. do you know how much a master sergeant with 20 years of service makes in retirement? it's less than $25,000 a year. so that $71,000, almost $72,000 number is requiring that master sergeant to give up three years of retirement, because $25,000, $24,000 a year is what they make

for a 20-year period. the cost of the cola reduction is almost $72,000. so basically you've taken three years of retirement away to do a budget deal that could be accomplished without having to do that to our military. and nobody else in the country is doing this, by the way. no social security recipient is giving up a dime. the cola formula for the military is exactly the same as social security and other colas that we get around here. now, should we look at reforming our military retirement pay pension benefits system? yes, because it's unsustainable in the future. entitlement growth in the military is real, just as it is in the civilian side. but nobody has ever envisioned picking it, doing it this way. to take the military retiree

community and retroactively apply a benefit cut to them that takes $6.3 billion out of retiree community. these are the people who have been fighting the wars for 20 years. these are the people who have been serving continuously since 9/11 overseas and at home trying to protect the nation, and this cola reduction doesn't just apply to people who have retired and in good health at 40 or 42 or 45. it also applies to people who are medically retired, someone who has had their legs blown off in afghanistan or iraq who are not going to be able to get a second job most likely. they're going to lose thousands of dollars of cost-of-living adjustment, and nobody else in the country is like situated. can we do better?

you better believe it. now here's what congress told the military compensation and retirement modernization commission. we set up a commission last year to advise the congress next year how can we fairly adjust retirement packages to make the personnel costs more sustainable in the department of defense in the future, and how can we do that fairly. you know what we told the commission? we mandated that any change they recommend has to grandfather existing forces in retirees. we put it in the law that created this commission, we put a restriction on the commission's ability to come up with pension, pay and benefit reform by saying you cannot apply it to people who have already -- who are in, who have signed up expecting certain things. they're grandfathered. we should have told ourselves that. we limit the commission, but we

do exactly what the commission is not allowed to do. now, i don't know how you're going to explain this when you go back home. i hope somebody will ask you what you're trying to accomplish up here. trying to have a bipartisan budget that avoids a government shutdown is a good thing. but asking the people who have been on the front lines of defending this nation, who have been in the military for 20 years, and do you have any idea how many times the average military family moves in 20 years? do you have any idea how many schools their children will attend because they move every couple of years? do you have any idea what it's like to serve this country since 9/11? all i can say is that if you want to find $6.3 billion over the next decade to pay for this

budget deal, you can find better alternatives than this if we just take some time. if you don't like what senator ayotte's doing, there's other ways. i'm not asking a democrat to defund obamacare to keep the government open. i'm not asking a democrat to take away a safety net from a group of americans who are struggling. i'm not asking a republican to raise taxes. i'm asking both of us before christmas to rethink what we're doing here and put a little bit of time to fix a problem that, quite frankly, is unconscionable . if you make over $250,000 a year in retirement, you receive $109 a month subsidy to pay your part-d prescription drug bill. and here's what i would say. if you want to pick on rich people, let's do it.

to me, $250,000 puts you in a category of living pretty good. why in the world does our government give you $109 a month to pay your prescription drug bill when we're broke as a nation? that subsidy alone is worth $54 billion over the next ten years. what if we took some of that money? what if we went to the $250,000 retiree and say would you give up some of your subsidy to pay your drug bill so a military retiree doesn't have to lose the retirement benefits they've earned and they have fought so hard to defend this nation for so long. i bet you they would say yes. here's the point. we're going to rush through this thing. and if you ask me what bothers me the most about this, it's how insensitive we've come as a nation. we trip over ourselves to welcome the troops home when

they come back from deployment. members of congress want to be there when the guard unit leaves. we want to show how much we love the troops. that's a good thing. every american, republican, libertarian, vegetarian, democrat, we all love the troops. but your congress is expressing that love in a very strange way. how far have we fallen? do we have no shame? as a body elected by the american people to make sure the nation will run, what's the proper first role of the federal government? to defend the nation. tell me how you defend it without people willing to die for it. you know, the budget doesn't defend this nation. the c.b.o., the o.m.b. and all these acronyms do not defend the

nation against radical islam. so i'm urging my colleagues in a spirit of bipartisanship, in a spirit of common decency, do not single out the military retiree who has served so long and so hard and ask them to give so much when others are doing almost nothing. as to our federal employees, you're being asked to contribute more to the federal retirement system, and i'm sure that is a burden. but what do we do to federal employees? we say that everybody who's in the system today does not share that burden. they're grandfathered. it's only for people who are hired in the future. but as to the military retiree, thank you for all your hard work. boy, do we have a deal for you. this is not going to stand. this is going to pass because everybody's hellbent on getting out of here and going home and celebrating a bipartisan

breakthrough. and we're going to talk about how we've become functional again. and i do appreciate the effort to become functional, but to me, in our effort to become functional, we have lost our way. and, quite frankly, lost our soul. any political body who would do this in the name of good government has forgotten what government is all about. it's for, by and of the people. and i tell you right now, from the c.e.o. to the doorman, when they hear about what we've done to pay for a budget deal at the expense of the military retired community, they're not going to be very appreciative. and i promise you this. if we don't fix it now, not only are we going to review it, we are going to fix it. and to our president, there's only one commander in chief. how could any commander in chief sign a bill that does this?

mr. president, call us down into the white house, put us in a room republicans and democrats, and don't let us out until we find a $3.6 billion off sthaet doesn't do injustice to the military retired community. if i were president, i sure as hell would do that. nobody would be going home until we got this right. so, mr. president, you owe a duty to the troops greater than everybody because you're their commander in chief. i don't know if we're going to get this fixed. the train is running and the military retired community is on the tracks. a you a foof u few of us are trt them off. i promise their families, if we fail today we're going to come back at this tomorrow over and over and over again until the congress finds it's soul. i yield.