the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal spirit, clothed with honor and majesty, you make the clouds your chariot and walk upon the wind. you cause the earth to yield its harvest and send blessings to those who fear you. guide our lawmakers today to fulfill your purposes. enable them to see

the stamp of your image in each person they serve, realizing that when they lift the marginalized, they labor for you. use them to bring order out of chaos, as you keep them on the road of integrity. reward their diligence with your bountiful blessings. we pray in your great name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty

and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., february 11, 2014. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable richard j. durbin, a senator from the state of illinois, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following my remarks and those of the republican leader, the senate will resume consideration on the motion to proceed to s. 1963, the military retirement pay restoration act. senate-designate john walsh of montana will become a senator today at 12:15. the senate will recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. to allow for our weekly caucus meetings.

today it is my pleasure to welcome the next senator from montana, lieutenant governor john walsh. governor walsh will be sworn in prior to the weekly caucus meetings. mr. president, i am really happy with this man coming here. my friend, the assistant leader, has heard me say this before, but i think it is worth repeating. when i served in the house of representatives, i served on the foreign affairs committee, and henry kissinger appeared before the committee -- subcommittee chaired by congressman solarz from new york. the congressman said to henry kissinger, i'm really at a loss here as to what to call you. doctor? he was a ph.d. mr. ambassador. he had been an ambassador. mr. secretary. and went through some other titles that he had had.

and finally, kissinger interrupted and said your excellency would be just fine. well, with walsh, we have the same problem. he has been a general. he has been lieutenant governor. it's protocol when you're lieutenant governor, you are referred to as governor. so he has a number of different titles. but soon he will be senator. i have talked to him, met him on a number of occasions. he's a fine man, and i am confident he will find his time here among the most rewarding experiences of his distinguished career, and it is distinguished. he spent his entire adult life serving the people of montana and our nation. lieutenant governor walsh served in the montana national guard for more than three decades. after enlisting as a private, he rose through the ranks to lead the montana national guard as add jute antigen. he led responses to the devastating wildfires in 2000.

general walsh also led 700 soldiers of the montana guard first batallion, 171st infantry regiment in combat in iraq, and combat it was. it was some of the most difficult fighting that took place in the entire war. it was the largest mobilization of guardsmen from montana since world war ii. the battalion was awarded the valoruos medal citation and general walsh himself received the bronze star for his exemplary service. in 2008, lieutenant walsh was appointed lieutenant general of the national guard. he led the state guardsmen until 2012 when he retired to begin public service in his new capacity, lieutenant governor of the state of montana. he has fought for access to education for veterans and for every montana child. the walsh family places great value on the power of education. lieutenant governor walsh was the first member of his family to graduate from college.

his wife of 29 years, janet, has taught in the public schools in montana for many, many years. in fact, john and janet met while they were both attending carroll college in helena, montana. they have two children and a grandchild of whom they are very proud. he received his master's at the army war college in 2007. john walsh was a true independent western spirit and a commendable dedication to the people of montana. i have no doubt he will continue to serve our state and his nation with distinction as a united states senator. in addition to swearing in lieutenant governor walsh, i expect that this afternoon the senate will adopt the motion to proceed to legislation to restore the earned pensions of military retirees. this measure restores cost of living adjustments for military retirees. although no veteran will be affected until the end of next year, there is no reason to delay a solution. i will continue to work with my republican colleagues to process

what we need to do to pass this important measure. we know that the ayotte amendment is one the republicans have indicated they want a vote on this. i see no reason we shouldn't allow them to have a vote on that. mr. president, on another topic, i was surprised this morning to hear republicans literally howling over president obama's decision to ease the transition for medium-sized businesses to providing health insurance for all their employees. republicans have complained health care reform is a burden to employers, but now, mr. president, they're complaining that president obama is trying to ease that burden and smooth the transition to the new system. think about that one. but this republican duplicity should come as no surprise. after all, republicans are the ones who invented the individual mandate. it was their idea, mr. president. it is a conservative idea that every american has the responsibility to seek insurance to cover their health care

needs, and the government has a responsibility to make that coverage accessible and affordable, but now republicans are attacking their own brain child, the individual mandate. the individual mandate was their idea, and republicans are willfully ignoring the fact that the affordable care act creates a transition period for individuals to obtain insurance as well. it's time for republicans to stop talking out of both sides of their mouths, mr. president. if they have legitimate concerns about the affordable care act, obamacare, and not just political gripes, they should work with the president and the democrats in congress to fix and improve the law. otherwise, they should stop complaining and get out of the way.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: the two parties have engaged in a lot of big debates over the past several years, and no one obviously should be surprised by that. the president came into office vowing to fundamentally transform the country, and a lot of us have had big problems with the policies he has tried to implement in pursuit of that goal, but there are some things we should all agree on, and one of them is this -- no president, no president of either party should use the power of the federal government to punish his ideological opponents. that's why when the targeting of conservative groups by the i.r.s. came to light after the last presidential election, just about everybody denounced the

nixonian tactics up and down and loudly declared that it should never, never be allowed to happen again. they knew that this kind of targeting represented a direct attack on our most fundamental of freedoms on our abilities to organize and educate and engage in the democratic process, and while the abuse may have been aimed at conservatives this time, it's easy to see how it could one day be used against organizations of any ideological hue. so america's culture of civic engagement simply has to be defended by all of us, and yet with the passage of time that's not what we have seen. instead of putting safeguards in place to protect our civil liberties, the obama administration is now dragging the i.r.s. back in the opposite direction. it's now pushing a regulation that would actually entrench and encourage the harassment of groups that dare to speak up and engage in the conversation.

it's trying to intimidate into silence those who send donations to civic groups, too. predictably, the obama administration has tried to spin these regulations as some sort of good government measure as reforms initiated in response to the i.r.s. scandal. but, of course, we know that's simply not true. in recent days, we learned that these regulations, regulations designed to suppress free speech, have been in the works for years, for years. so let's be clear. all of this is simply unacceptable, and after denouncing the abuse last year, i believe it is shortsighted of our friends on the other side not to oppose these rules forcefully today. the path the administration is embarking on is a dangerous one with the slipperiest of slopes. left-leaning civic groups should be just as alarmed about what these regulations could mean for

them and the future as to what the rules almost certainly will mean for conservative groups today. that's why some like the aclu have begun to speak out against these regulations. last week, i joined several of my colleagues in sending a letter to the new commissioner for the i.r.s. that laid out these concerns. we reminded commissioner koskinen that he was confirmed with a mandate to reform the i.r.s. and return the agency to its actual mission, processing tax returns, not suppressing speech. we expect them to fulfill that -- him to fulfill that mandate, to prove his reformist credentials by halting the regulations immediately and to enact new rules that would stop similar harassment from occurring in the future. this is something that commissioner -- the commissioner can and must do now. he needs to realize this isn't some issue to move past but a serious threat to be confronted.

mr. koskinen would go down in history as a hero just like the i.r.s. commissioner who stood up to nixon and said no to the harassment of political opponents. i want to believe that this is the choice he will make, that he wants to be remembered as a strong and independent public servant rather than some political pawn, but we can't be sure what he'll do, and the american people need a backup plan in case he decides his fealty lies with the opponents of free speech rather than with them. that's why i and others have introduced legislation that would prevent the i.r.s. from enacting regulations that would permit the suppression of first amendment rights. it aims to return the agency to its mission and get it out of the speech police business altogether, a goal that should be a bipartisan one. this is something worth fighting for, it's something i hope

commissioner koskinen will work with us to achieve, but if he doesn't, if he doesn't, he should know that we are prepared to go to the mat to defend the first amendment rights of our constituents and our neighbors and that we will continue to do so until those rights are safe once again. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 1963, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 298, s. 1963, a bill to repeal section 403 of the bipartisan budget act of 2013. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, you're new to the senate and we're glad to have you and you will find i think in the course of your senatorial experience that occasionally good legislative ideas come from

unexpected places. occasionally they come from phone calls to your office, e-mails and letters, where people tell their stories and from those stories you see the need for a new law, a change in policy. that happened to me 13 years a ago. a korean-american mother called my office in chicago with a problem. her problem was that her daughter, theresa, was about to graduate from high school and had an opportunity to go on scholarship to the manhattan conservatory of music in new york. this was a poor family. mom worked at a dry cleaners. they barely got by. but her daughter had an extraordinary musical tall he want of the shtalent.she was ant even as a senior in high school and this was her chance. as her daughter started to fill out the application form for manhattan conservatory of music, there was a box that asked her to identify her nationality, her

citizenship. she turned to her mom and said, what should i put here? and her mother said, i'm not sure. you see, theresa lee was brought to the united states at the age of 2 on a visitor's visa. and when the visa expired, her mom, her dad and she stayed in the united states and did nothing else. technically, theresa, having lived about 16 years in this country, was just another undocumented kid. and so they called my office and said, what do we do about this? well, we checked the law. the law is very clear, mr. president. theresa and those just like her were to be deported from the united states for a minimum of 10 years and then be allowed to petition to come back in. that seemed to me fundamentally unfair. and so i wrote a change for the law called the dream act. and the dream act said, if you are a child brought to this

country by parents under the age of 16, if you'll finish high school, have no serious criminal record and you're prepared to go to college or enlist in the military, we'll put you on a path to citizenship. i introduced that 13 years ago. as you can see, the wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow in the united states senate. but over the years, this idea of the dream act has really caught hold and the reason is not because of me, it's because of the dreamers. initially they were frightened, afraid of deportation, raised as children in families where they were warned every day, be careful, don't get in a position where you're going to get arrested. you'll get deported and the whole family might get deported. we don't want to break up our family so be careful. so they held back in the shadows wondering, worrying about a knock on the door.

over time, though, something happened and i can't explain it. the same kids who used to stand outside my meetings after i would talk about the dream act in chicago, waiting in the darkness and the shadows to tell me in a whisper they were dreamers, decided to step up and speak to the united states. to identify themselves. it was really an act of courage. some people say, well, they were kids and kids do rash things. i think it was more courageous than rash. and i came to the floor on more than 50 different occasions to tell the story of the dreamers, who they are, what they've done, what they hope to do. amazing stories, incredible stories of young people across america just asking for a chance to be legalized, to be part of america's future. they felt they were americans start to finish. your colleague, senator bob menendez, used to talk about

hispanics who are the largest group of dreamers, standing in those classrooms, hand over their heart, pledging allegiance to the only flag they've ever known, who faced the cruel reality that they were not going to be american citizens unless we changed the law. here's the good news, mr. president. over time, a long time -- 13 years -- the sentiment not just of the american people but of members of congress started to change, change for the better. the house of representatives enacted the dream act. even the senate in comprehensive immigration reform bill this last year enacted the strongest dream act ever written. in fact, just last week when speaker boehner, in the midst of his examination, if you will, of the immigration issue, issued a statement of principles smack dab in the middle of it in clear language was an endorsement of the dream act. so though the speaker may have

some misgivings -- and i'm sorry to say i disagree with him -- but may have some misgivings about comprehensive immigration reform, he acknowledged that on a bipartisan basis, the dream act was something that both parties should embrace. i still believe in comprehensive immigration reform. the dreamers would be the first to say, don't forget my mom and dad when you're talking about immigration reform. but the reason i give this preface to my remarks is to put in perspective an amendment which will be on the floor of the senate this week offered by senator kelly ayotte of new hampshire. it is an amendment which addresses a provision of the tax code. here is what our laws currently say when it comes to taxes and families working in america. if you are undocumented, you are not legally allowed to work in america. that's what the law says. but if you do work in america, even undocumented, you have a

legal obligation to pay your taxes. so how would an undiewme undocud worker pay their taxes? well, they would have an i-10, they call it, a basic identification number that they can use to file their tax returns. and so many do. undocumented workers here in the united states pay their income taxes as required by law. one of the provisions in our tax code for every taxpayer says that if you're in certain income categories, you are allowed to claim a credit for your childr children. it helps 38 million american families who take this credit on their tax returns because they are working families and have children and the tax code said, we will help you raise your children. on its face, it's worth about a thousand dollars a year in reduced taxes. but there are limitations. if your income reaches certain levels, you don't credit for this child tax credit.

now comes senator ayotte and makes a proposal that we basically change this child tax credit as it applies to the tax-paying undocumented workers that we say to them, their children can only be claimed for this child tax credit if the children can produce a social security number. therein lies the problem. because many of these children, though they're legally claimed today, don't have a social security number. let's talk about dreamers. because that's a group that is affected most directly by the ayotte amendment. dreamers, those who would qualify if the dream act becomes law, have been given a special status because of president obama. he created a deferred deportation, deferred action program so that dreamers could step up, identify themselves to the government, register, be

given a work permit and be allowed to apply for a social security number. daca, it is called. we estimate that there are about 2.1 million eligible dreamers in america for the law that i want to change. so far, a half a million of them have applied for daca and, therefore, can obtain social security numbers. that leaves 1.6 million dreamers who cannot under the ayotte amendment be counted as children under the child tax credit. so ultimately what senator ayotte is doing is to deny those who are working in america and paying their income taxes that provision of the tax code which says you get a special consideration for your children. i think that's just plain wrong. listen to these numbers. the child tax credit, a refundable credit fork working families of a thousand

dollars -- credit for working families of a thousand dollars for each child under the age of 17. it is limited, as i mentioned earlier. the tax credit can be the most -- the most that anyone can claim for the tax credit is 15% of family income minus $3,000, regardless of the number of children. for example, minimum-wage worker earning $14,500 with two or more children would receive at most $1,725 as a tax credit or refundable tax credit. the credit is only available for taxpayers who are working, earning income and raising children. the ayotte amendment, though, has to be put in this perspective. nearly 38 million families are expected to benefit from this child tax credit this year. i should say this year filing for last year's income. 60% of those who claim this tax credit earn less than $25,000 a year. nearly half of the workers whose members of families working in

america, claiming the child tax credit earn $10 an hour or less. and 90% of those who would be hurt by the ayotte amendment are hispanic. the tax credit is legally available for qualified taxpayers -- pardon me, qualified taxpayers who have children with the i-10's. these are individual tax identification numbers. and not everyone who uses an i-10 is undocumented. this amendment, the ayotte amendment, would also affect lawfully present children who use i-10's, including victims of human trafficking, dreamers, as i mentioned, under daca, cuban and haitian entrants and those with a pending application for asylum. the child tax credit we estimate lifts about 3 million people, including 1 1/2 million children, out of poverty every year. it's an incentive for these low-income families who are working and paying taxes but not earning enough to take care of their kids.

the ayotte amendment would eliminate the use of a tax credit for 1 million children, pushing many low- and moderate-income families with children deeper into poverty. what senator ayotte is trying to do is to use the proceeds from this amendment she's offering to pay for the cost-of-living adjustment under the military pensions. mr. president, those veterans have already paid for their pensions. they paid by volunteering to serve this country and risk their lives. some of them have come home with visible and invisible wounds of war that will be with them for a lifetime. i don't believe we should come up with a pay-for for something these veterans have already paid for, number one. and, number two, i think it is just unacceptable for the united states -- mr. president, i ask the senate come to order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. durbin: mr. president, in addition to that, i think it is

unfair for us to impoverish more children in america as a means of helping our veterans. what a cruel choice to put before the united states senate. and don't take my word for it. i ask consent that the statement i'm about to refer to be placed in the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, sister simone campbell is somebody who i greatly respect. sister simone campbell is executive director of "network," a national catholic social justice lobby. she is also one of the organizers of nuns on the bus, catholic nuns who have traveled all over the united states speaking out on issues of social justice. she has sent us a statement opposing the ayotte amendment. and it's a lengthy statement. i won't read it all but i do want to read several parts that i think are important. sister simone campbell says, "to set the record straight, children targeted by the ayotte amendment do exist and they do

live in the u.s. 4 million of them are u.s. citizens. others are little dreamers, young children brought to this country by their families. under existing tax laws, their families may apply for the child tax credit if they qualify financially. if fraud is suspected, the solution is not to deny all eligible children access to this critical antipoverty program. that is cruel and ineffective." those are the words of sister simone campbell in reference to this proposed amendment. she concludes by saying, "responsible leaders in congress should look into their hearts and reject proposals like this one pushed by senator ayotte. this political tactic is not good for our economy or the well-being of the entire nation, especially children who are the future of our country. we are better than this."

mr. president, i agree with sister campbell. why is it week after week from the other side of the aisle, from the other side of the rotunda we hear proposal after proposal to make it harder for working families, and particular lower-income families, to get by in america? when we talk about unemployment benefits for those who have lost their job so they can find additional work, only four republican senators would step up and join us in that effort. when we talk about extending the minimum wage so that those who get up and go to work every single day have a fighting chance, the opposition consist the presidentially comes from the other side of the aisle. and now we have before us this proposal to change the tax code to the disadvantage of the poorest workers and the poorest families and the poorest children in america. we are better than this. sister campbell is right. i would say to my colleagues if

you believe in the dream act -- and many of you have said you do -- you cannot vote for the ayotte amendment without realizing what it does to these children. to impoverish these children on one day in the senate and before that say we think they should be citizens someday. we've got to have a consistent moral ethic when it comes to the way we treat children in america. denying children the most basics in life, whether it's food stamps or assistance on the tax returns of their parents, is just not what america should be about. this ayotte amendment will really call in question our dedication to these kids and their families. these workers are stepping up, meeting their legal obligation to pay their taxes. all they're asking for is to be treated like everyone else under the tax code. the ayotte amendment will deny that to millions of these children. that is absolutely unacceptable. now let me address a very real

issue. senator ayotte has identified some instances -- i don't know how many -- of fraud in the use of this child tax credit. i stand with her in trying to fight back and end that fraud. but let's be honest. a person making barely minimum wage, filing their tax returns and claiming this credit is not likely to set out to game the system. the people who are gaming the system are the tax preparers. they are the ones who may be lying to the government, guilty of fraud. i will join with senator ayotte and any other colleague who wants to stop that perpetration of fraud. i don't stand for fraud in any program. i don't think any senator would. but to take this out on the children and low-income taxpayers is just plain wrong. i urge my colleagues let's stand by the veterans, restore their pensions. let's do it as quickly as we can. but please do not help our

veterans at the expense of children in america. this is an important amendment. it is one that calls into question our values. and i urge my colleagues to look at this very carefully. the last point i will make before i yield the floor -- i see other colleagues here -- i support comprehensive immigration reform. if the ayotte amendment is enacted into law, the cost of bringing the dreamers into citizenship has just gone up by billions of dollars, which we will have to raise to undo the ayotte amendment at a future time. let's not put ourselves in that position. for the good of these children and their families and to put this nation in the right place by fixing our broken immigration system, i urge my colleagues to oppose the ayotte amendment. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my colleagues. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. flake: mr. president, i rise today to bring attention to the latest installment concerning

political targeting by the i.r.s. last spring, we learned that the i.r.s. -- although the i.r.s. is targeting conservative groups that were applying for tax-exempt status thanks to a report by the inspector general. this report detailed how the i.r.s. singled out conservative groups for excessive scrutiny which caused some applications to lie pending for more than three years and another 28 organizations to actually give up on their unanswered applications. the president claims this targeting was due solely to -- quote -- boneheaded decisions, unquote. unfortunately, with the head of the tax-exempt organizations unit at the agency lois lerner choosing to plead the fifth and resign rather than answering questions before congress, we may find this problem is a little more troubling than that. thankfully, multiple

investigations are taking place to answer lingering questions such as this one. i look forward to their findings wherever they may lead. uncovering who directed and participated in the inappropriate targeting and why will allow us to bring justice to the groups affected and ensure that no such targeting like this occurs again. so imagine my surprise when over the thanksgiving holiday i learned that the i.r.s. had diagnosed the problem and offered its regulatory solution despite the fact that multiple investigations are far from complete. on friday, november 29, without warning, the i.r.s. published a proposed rule that would restrict the activities of 501-c-4 organizations, effectively limiting their speech and curtail their civic participation. now, this brings a whole new meaning to the term black friday. this rule singles out the same conservative groups that were previously targeted by the i.r.s. and threatens to shut them down.

it further attempts to legitimatize the targeting of organizations that hold ideological views that are inconsistent with the administration's views. it should be no surprise since critics of these conservative organizations have openly called for their excontinuation -- extinction if this is occurring. at the least, some would like to force these organizations to ill-fitting structures devised more appropriately for political committees in order to require the disclosure of conservative supporters. the i.r.s. and the white house claim innocently that the proposed rule is meant to clear up confusion about how the process of applications for 501-c-4 organizations are involved in political activities. over the past several months, we have heard this administration tell the public multiple times how confusing the applications are. yet, 501-c-4 applications have been processed for years without excessive complaints of confusion that have occurred in

recent months. in fact, before the i.r.s. began flagging the applications of conservative groups in february of 2010, these types of applications were being processed within three months. young people traffic between i.r.s. employees shows that the applications of conservative organizations were not flagged out of confusion but rather because of media attention and potential interest to washington. so let's call this rule what it is. it's an attempt to silence the voices of conservative organizations. to be clear, 501-c-4's are permitted to engage in the political process and in political discourse, and they should continue to be allowed to do so, but this regulation seeks to limit their participation in a host of advocacy and education activities, even nonpartisan voter registration and education drives. these activities have a clear role in promoting civic engage ment and social welfare,

the precise purpose of the 501-c-4 structure. unfortunately, the rule would suppress conservative voices by forcing organizations to quit these activities or be shut down. in fact, according to evidence collected by the house ways and means committee, dave camp -- chairman dave camp, the administration has been working on this rule since 2011. not surprisingly, the treasury department kept quiet of its plans. in fact, it neglected to mention consideration of this rule in the agency's 2011 or 2012 policy guidance plan, and these are usually which detail upcoming projects. if it sounds suspicious, it is. just three months after the i.r.s. abuse surfaced, the treasury department listed in its 2013 plan the development of guidance related to the political activities of 501-c-4's. conveniently, the publicity of the i.r.s. abuse provided an opportunity to finally roll out

the agency's rule as a solution to its -- quote -- boneheaded decisions, but this administration is not fooling anyone. over 20,000 people have already submitted comments to the proposed rule. according to the new i.r.s. commissioner, this is the largest number of comments ever received by any agency. clearly, the public sees through the administration's veiled attempt to squash free speech and to shut down opposition to its priorities. this is not a way to win back trust. just this past december, the i.r.s. commissioner known for his ability to turn around organizations was confirmed as the new -- he was confirmed as the new i.r.s. commissioner. this is john koskinen. he promised to work toward restoring trust to the scandal-ridden agency, but he has yet to turn things around and is allowing this politically charged rule to move ahead. so i come to the floor today, along with my friend from

kansas, senator roberts, and with the support of 37 additional members to this body to introduce legislation to stop the rule's implementation. i see senator hatch from utah, senator cornyn of texas, who will also speak to this in a moment. the stop antarcticaing of political believes by the i.r.s. act will prevent this rule or any other that seeks to continue the targeting of groups based on their ideology. it's time to end the intimidation and harassment. let's preserve the first amendment rights of all groups, regardless of their ideology, especially those that commit themselves to improving our society. and let's restore the public's faith in the ability of the i.r.s. to fairly administer our nation's laws. i hope the rest of the senate will join us in this effort. i look forward to coming back to the floor later in the week to ask unanimous consent to pass this legislation outright. mr. president, i would yield the floor to my friend from kansas, senator roberts.

mr. roberts: mr. president, i would first like to thank my colleagues for working with senator flake and myself to bring this proposal forward. this is a critical issue, one that really gets to the -- straight to the heart of our american democracy. the current investigations of the i.r.s. clearly show it is not an overreaction, i don't think, to say that the internal revenue service did suppress political opposition. now, to kansans, to arizonans, to texans, to utahans all across the country and to my colleagues, this is not only a scandal but one that is egregious. there is a great deal more than a smidgen at stake here. it gets right to the heart of our system of government. the government must be held accountable for its actions and must never be permitted to travel on the -- trample on the constitutional rights of our

citizens. the behavior of the i.r.s. in singling out select groups at their discretion for extra scrutiny and harassment just because they hold views that differ from the administration is simply outrage. worse, the i.r.s. continues to target groups whose politics doesn't like even as we speak here on the floor of the senate. and in fact the proposed i.r.s. 501-c-4 regulations will even more directly prevent groups the i.r.s. doesn't favor from really participating in the political process. the proposed regulations would place much tougher controls on what would be considered political activity, effectively blocking the normal practice of a wide range of not-for-profit organizations. not only conservatives. under the proposed rules, healthy debate and discussion of political issues, political candidates and congressional actions would be prohibited.

this is in effect suppression of free speech for these americans. the proposed regulations would result in continued sanction intimidation and harassment of these groups and permit the federal government to be used as a partisan tool. we recently learned that the proposed regulations have been under development for some time. senator flake has just mentioned this. this is nothing new. perhaps as far back as 2011, some say even 2010. now these proposed regulations until recently have been considered off-line -- my colleagues, pay attention to this -- off-line. off-line means that the regs are being considered outside the normal regulatory process, which in my view has been done in order to circumvent the administrative procedures act. there is no transparency here. i cannot help but think that all of this, the targeting, the slow walking of exemption

applications, the proposed regulations are part of a calculated plan to deny unfavored groups their first amendment right to participate in the political process of the nation. my colleagues, this is simple. what we are seeing is a deliberate effort to infringe the people's first amendment rights. it's incredible. i never thought i would live to see the day that this happened on the -- in the united states that we would have to be debating this. this is a copy of the constitution of the united states. first amendment by james madison this was given to me by robert c. byrd, the institutional flame of the senate who sat right over there to the left of the distinguished ranking member from utah, and i know -- who is our republican lead in regards to the investigation of all of this in the finance committee. congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging

the freedom of speech, the freedom of speech, my colleagues, or the press, the right of the people peacefully to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. as former chair of the intelligence committee, i can tell you that the arrogant response of the administration to the i.r.s. actions, the denials, the evasions, the attempts to downgrade the implications of the i.r.s. efforts and now counteraccusations, they look like they came from some counter espionage handbook. here is the real problem. the i.r.s. has proposed these regulations before congress has even completed. the senator from arizona has pointed out, it's investigating into the agencies matters. these raise integrity about the rule-making progress, the exact opposite direction the agency should be taking. even worse, the i.r.s. proceeds with these rules when they have done as much as possible to slow

down the finance committee's investigation. i'm a member of that committee. senator hatch is leading the effort on the republican side. by responding to document requests at a glacial pace, at best, and redacting large amounts of critical information. now, senator flake and i have really proposed a very straightforward, very commonsense approach to this entire mess. we simply halt further action on the proposed regulations until the justice department and the congressional investigations by the house ways and means committee and the senate finance committee into the i.r.s. actions are complete. the bill freezes further i.r.s. action for one year and would make it clear that the i.r.s. can only enforce the regulations that were in place before all this mess began. it is no wonder, no wonder, given the i.r.s.'s behavior, that kansans and virtually every american, with every good reason, doubt that the agency

can in good faith administer not only this but the tax code. clearly the i.r.s. has no capacity to regulate any political activity without running roughshod over the people's fundamental constitutional rights. i have said this many times. but the scandal also shows the i.r.s. is too big, too intrusive and too involved in taxpayers' business. the final for us to scale it back is now. in fact, it's easily the most distrusted agency in the federal government. that's a shame. the i.r.s. has become a four-letter word. this growing lack of faith in the i.r.s. is a very strong reason why congress should consider a wholesale rewrite of the tax system by simplifying tax collection and reducing the government's intrusion into economic and other affairs of the public. this is the main reason i am supporting legislation to scrap the tax code and move to a simplified, single-rate tax system. we do not need the i.r.s. regulating constitutionally

guaranteed free speech and muzzling lawful -- lawful activity in regards to politics and taking part as a partner in government. will rogers once said, "the difference between death and taxes is death doesn't get worse every time congress meets." well, today will rogers is wro wrong. it's not congress that's making things worse. it's the i.r.s. so let's pass this bill and work to get the i.r.s. out of americans' lives and their freedom of speech. and i thank senator flake again for being a cosponsor of the legislation. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman from kansas and would yield now to the gentleman from utah, the ranking minority member on the finance committee. mr. hatch: well, i thank my colleague from arizona and my colleague from kansas as well. mr. president, i rise today in support of the stop targeting of political beliefs by the i.r.s. act. the bill introduced today by our

senator from arizona and the senior senator from kansas. this is a senate companion bill to the bill being marked up today in the house ways and means committee. this is an important piece of legislation that will protect free speech and ensure at least for the time being that the internal revenue service does not use as -- is not used as yet another political arm of this administration. as we all know, last november the i.r.s. unveiled proposed regulations that would fundamentally alter the nature of the activities that tax-exempt 501-c-4 organizations can engage in. under current regulations, 501-c-4 organizations, or social welfare groups, can engage in political activities on a limited basis so long as their primary activity is the production and promotion of social welfare. however, they remain free to educate the public on important issues, even those that may be politically charged, because that falls within the exempt

purpose of promoting social welfare. they can also conduct voter registration drives and distribute voter guides outlining candidates' priorities on issues important to the organization. under the proposed regulation, virtually all of these activities would be considered political activities and would be considered inconsistent with various groups' exemptions under 3501-c- -- 501-c-4 of the internal revenue code. as a practical matter, this would mean that grass-roots organizations all over the country would be forced to shut down or, to put it more bluntly, grass-roots conservative organizations all over this country would be forced to shut down. and, mr. president, that's precisely the point. the obama administration does not want grass-roots organizations, even those that are legitimately nonpartisan, educating the public on issues of the day. they don't want tax-exempt organizations to be able to tell voters where candidates and politicians stand on the issues.

and they certainly don't want these types of groups participating in the political process in any meaningful way. that's why we're seeing these regulations. that's why they were drafted in the first place. and that's why the administration seems to set to finalize them right before the 2014 midterm elections, or at the very latest, before the 2016 presidential election. we need to call this what it is, mr. president. this is an affront to free speech and the right of all american citizens to participate in the democratic process. in ithis is an attempt by the oa administration to further marginalize its critics and keep them on the sidelines. it is a blatant attempt to continue the harassment and intimidation that has already been taking place at the i.r.s. over the past few years. this regulation is just one of many problems we see at the i.r.s. indeed, the american people have ample reason to doubt the credibility of the i.r.s.,

particularly when it comes to dealing with organizations that might be critical of the president and his policies. the i.r.s. is currently under investigation on three separate congressional committees for its targeting of conservative organizations during the run-up to the 2010 and 2012 elections. on top of that, the agency recently came under widespread condemnation when, in the midst of these ongoing investigations, they announced that they were reinstating bonuses that had been canceled in response to the targeting scandalmen scandal. it's almost as if they believe there was no scandal at all and the president tries to get people to believe that as well, and we all know that's pure bunk. of course, if you've been listening to other people in the obama administration, that type of thinking appears to be the predominant view. several weeks ago, for example, leaks from the justice department indicated that no criminal charges were likely to be filed in the targeting scandal even though this scandal

is still under investigation. talk about politics. talk about political control. talk about ignoring what's going on. and on super bowl sunday, president obama said in an interview that there was not a -- quote -- "smidgen" of corruption at the i.r.s. well, mr. president, when it comes to suppressing free spee speech, there is far more than a smidgen of corruption at the i.r.s. and if anything, these proposed regulations on 501-c-4's are additional proof. it's one size trying to one-up the other in all cases because they happen to control the presidency. and one house of congress. when the proposed rule was first made public, the i.r.s. said that it was drafted in response to the 2013 tigna report that

revealed all the issues the agency was having with regard to 50-1-c-4 a-- 501-c-4 applications. however, as we learned in a ways and means committee hearing last week, those regulations were under consideration for two years before the report was issued. two years. on top of that, the regulations were pursued outside of the normal channels for i.r.s. and treasury department regulatory efforts, in a manner that some i.r.s. officials labeled -- quote -- "off plan." off plan in this case means hidden -- hidden -- h-i-d-d-e-n -- from the public. now, why does the i.r.s. need to hide a draft regulation from the public when a regulation project is normally listed on a public treasury guidance plan? i suppose we can only speculate, but i think it's fair to assume

that they didn't want the public to know that these regulations were in the works. and they expect the american people to believe that there is no political motivation for these regulations. give me a break. the fact of the matter is, these proposed regulations december straight that -- demonstrate that the i.r.s. is willing and able to carry the president's political water even when the agency is, by law, supposed to be an independent and nonpartisan agency. that's why this legislation that has been introduced today by the two distinguished senators who preceded me in their remarks is so important. we need to send a message to the administration that it cannot tamper with the rules of free speech just because it doesn't like what being said. if enacted, this legislation would delay the implementation

for these rules for a year. this is the least we can do to protect free speech, mr. president. people from all across the political spectrum, from the aclu to the u.s. chamber of commerce, to the unions, have recognized just how egregious this proposed rule is. it needs to be stopped and our bill would stop it. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. indeed, everyone who supports the right of american citizens to participate in the political process, whether they're republican or democrat, should support this bill. and i might just say to our new commissioner, who i fought to get confirmed, who i believe is sincere, who i believe is a person who can clean up this mess over there, this nest of partisan people who are in the i.r.s., where there should not be any partisanship,

mr. koskinen. i'll just say to mr. koskinen, you have the power to stop this, to stop this regulation from becoming final. the commissioner should stop this. all he has to do is just not sign it. now, i've got to say that i'll be watching very, very carefully because i'm sick and tired of the i.r.s. being used for political purposes. i don't want it to be used for republican purposes or democrat purposes, for liberal purposes or conservative purposes. i want freedom in this country and i want people to be able to express themselves freely. it's outrageous what they're trying to do and it shows an administration that can't win fair and square, with all of the advantages that it has.

501-c-4's are basically organizations that have a conservative tilt. 501-c-5's are the unions that we know almost 100% support democrats, even though 40% of union members are republicans. i know. i used to be a skilled tradesman. i learned a skilled trade, went through a formal apprenticeship, worked for a 10 years in the construction trade unions of the i'm proud of that. i was proud to be a union member. 40% of union members are republicans yet almost 100% of their effort goes to elect democrats. by the way, the uptick in 501-c-5's was just as high as athe uptick for conservative organizations in 501-c-4's. we didn't see any of this stuff being used against 501-c-5's. the only thing you can conclude is, is that there's a group of

people who basically want to support only one side of the equation. we've got to get politics out of the i.r.s. i don't know what that means. it may mean, like other agencies where we don't want any politics involved, getting rid of any partisan controls. that might include the union. because we've got people that were partisan here, that did wrong things. our investigation's not complete but it is a matter of great concern to us. and then to come up with this type of stuff, it's enough to make you just want to cry. or should i say, throw up? look, i'm a republican. mr. president, you're a democrat. we're friends. we don't agree on a lot of things. that's what makes this country great.

but when one side tries to stifle the free speech of the other side, we both have to stand together. i hope mr. koskinen, the new commissioner, will do what's right here and get rid of these regulations. my gosh, let's not have regulations that give a tilt to one side or the other. let's have the i.r.s. be down the middle, straightforward, decent and honest, which it has not been in the last number of years. and we're going to show that. all i can say is i commend my two colleagues for their leadership in -- in bringing this bill to the floor. it's long overdue and i happy to every senator in this senate will support it. i yield the floor. mr. flake: i appreciate his recitation of the chronology here and how this happened. these regulations are supposedly in response to the scandal that came up, although the president

is not calling it a scandal. he said there is not any evidence that there was any wrongdoing. but these plans were actually being developed a couple of years ago, so long before we knew that the i.r.s. was targeting conservative organizations. so the notion that this is in response to what just occurred is wrong. what is equally troubling or more troubling, as the gentleman from utah noted, that these plans in an internal memo were described as off plan, around the process that were hidden, and so that's what they are asking with this legislation. let's not do any rule making inform the results of the investigations that are going on come back to us. that's a prudent thing to do. i hope that we will follow through. i yield to the gentleman from texas, the minority whip, mr. cornyn. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i'll be brief.

i just want to commend the senator from arizona and kansas and my friend and colleague from utah, senator hatch, for their comments and for their support for getting the i.r.s. out of the speech police business. if there's anybody who thinks the i.r.s. doesn't have its hands full already, in addition to the -- with the addition of the implementation of obamacare on top of all of its other problems, i don't know anybody that thinks they need more to do, particularly when it comes to discriminating against people based upon their political affiliations and their desire to engage in debate in the arena and to advocate their views, and this is a politically neutral issue because we know this also will protect people on the left as much as on the right. but i have to agree with my colleagues that it appears that there has been a disproportionate attention being

paid under this administration to people on the right, and i know my colleague from arizona has heard of katherine englebrecht of houston, texas, with king street patriots and true the vote. she founded the two organizations dedicated to improving elections and furthering the ideals of our founding fathers. she led a coalition of citizen volunteers to work as election monitors to provide resources for voter registration and to root out election fraud. you would think those would be commendable, not a reason for government discrimination and investigation. but for three years, the i.r.s. denied her organization tax-exempt status while comparable organizations -- i think the senator from arizona has pointed this out -- have received basically expedited or fairly routine treatment. but in the meantime, she was subjected to over the top inquiries by the i.r.s. and by

the a.t.f. even and other government organizations, but the i.r.s. wanted to subpoena her -- every one of her tweets on her twitter account as well as entries made on her facebook account. this isn't -- you can't really make this stuff up, but it is extraordinarily offensive. so what these proposed rules are going to do, they are going to institutionalize the role of the i.r.s. as the speech police, something we ought to avoid like the plague. we ought to make sure that people of all ideological and political affiliations are free to engage in their constitutional rights of association and of political speech. and i just want to point out in conclusion, there is -- 60 years ago the supreme court of the united states handed down a very important decision. it was called the naacp versus

alabama, and the question there was whether the government could compel the disclosure of the membership list of the naacp when the naacp felt like its members would then be targeted by the government in a negative sort of way, and the supreme court said the constitution of the united states and the first amendment guarantees a right of free association. in addition to a right of speech and that that was constitutionally protected activity, given the importance of that right under the constitution and also given the likelihood of negative attention by the government. they said that the naacp could keep its membership list confidential. so at a time when the american people have their taxes on their mind -- i know my wife said that we have a deadline in our family by the end of february to get this to the people who help us prepare our tax returns -- and with a midterm election looming, the last thing we need to do is

to support the i.r.s. becoming the speech police and suppressing the constitutional protected rights of the american people. particularly i would say to my friend from arizona that i pulled out a gallup poll, a report dated january 15, 2014. government was cited as the top problem, and so 21% in this poll said they were dissatisfied with the government and congress, politicians, poor leadership, corruption and abuse of power. what greater abuse of power could there be than to confer upon the i.r.s. a legitimacy to intimidate and suppress people exercising their constitutionally protected rights of free speech? so i commend the senator from arizona and others who are working on this. they can count on me to lend my voice and my support to their efforts. mr. flake: mr. president, i

thank the gentleman from texas and my other colleagues who have participated in this colloquy. i hope that we can speedily bring this stop targeting political beliefs by the i.r.s. act to the floor. the gentleman from texas, when he talks about his constituents and what they endured at the hands of the i.r.s., how anybody could say that there is nothing amiss there, nothing wrong, in somebody's application for 501-c-4 status to give up their facebook tweets or their facebook posts and let the i.r.s. review them, and to see if they are worthy of receiving such status, there's something wrong there. i think americans know that. so i appreciate the support of my colleagues on this legislation. i appreciate the gentleman from kansas, my partner in this, and i yield back the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. pryor: mr. president, i understand that we are in a quorum call. the presiding officer: we are. mr. pryor: i would ask that we dispense with the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. pryor: mr. president, i rise today really for the purpose of notification, and that is i want to just put the senate on notice that later today or tomorrow, i intend to ask for unanimous consent that two of my judges -- two of my judge nominees be

voted on this week. both are noncontroversial. both have been heartily endorsed by senator boozman, my colleague from arkansas, and basically everybody else who has looked at this. they came out of the judiciary committee. one of them came out on october 31. the other came out on november 14. they are completely noncontroversial. we have a sense of urgency here, not only because we have two vacancies on the federal bench in arkansas, which is in and of itself a problem, but we have a real sense of urgency here because one of these judges is an elected judge, and in arkansas, those are nonpartisan elections. one of these judges is an elected judge, and the filing period for his seat opens up on february 24 and closes on march 3. so we find ourselves in a situation where we're here this week, then we'll be on recess

next week, and then we'll come back on the evening of february february 24, presumably for 5:30 votes if things work on this day like they typically do around here, we'll presumably have a 5:30 vote. at that point, the filing will be open. we have other lawyers and judges interested in that position, and there is a domino effect that happens in arkansas because of that. so i'm not going to ask for unanimous consent right now, but i wanted to put all my colleagues on notice that i intend to do that either later today or tomorrow. so with that, mr. president, i will yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. begich: mr. president, thank you very much. thanks for allowing me to be on the floor. i'd like to speak for enough time to be consumed for my comments here. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. begich: mr. president, first, i want to thank senator pryor. senator pryor and a group of us have introduced a piece of legislation that rights a wrong,

that makes sure that our military continue to receive their cola in full course and full amount. as you know, we had that budget issue we worked through, and in that process, the cola for our active retired military would be reduced by 1%, but we all knew that we would take the time, because we had the time after the budget passed, to fix this problem. we have already done it for our disabled retired veterans. now it's to fulfill the final promise, the full promise of their cola in total. i spoke last night about this issue and then the vote occurred on cloture, 94-0. 94-0. if that isn't an indication of how much support there is to make sure the cola comes back in full force, i don't know what is, but i do know starting right after that vote, i'm starting to hear from people already, coming up with, well, i voted for cloture but i have a caveat, i have some qualifications i want

to add on that vote. i want to have these things in washington, they are called pay-fors. well, let me make it very clear, mr. president, to the veterans in my state, 77,000 veterans who live in my state, the highest per capita in the nation is in alaska. they have paid the bill. they have paid the bill time and time again, and i think this is such a perfect photo to give the example of our military who serve in combat, who serve on the front lines, and if you think about those that have already paid the ultimate bill, almost 6,800 service members have died in iraq and afghanistan. alaska alone, 22. i'm going to read some of those names in a second, but first i want to make it very clear. you're going to hear these convoluteed reasons why we should have this pay-for, despite the fact i wasn't here when they paid for these wars. no, i'm sorry. they didn't pay for these wars.

$2 trillion-plus, they didn't pay for these wars, but now it's time to pay the bill for those that committed to serve our country, to go to the front lines when called upon, to ensure that we have the freedom we enjoy in this country, and now we say yeah, we want to give you that retirement cola but. there should be no but here. a promise made that we made is a promise we need to keep. my view is we should have their backs every single day, and this is the day to do it. when you think about the people who are going to have this convoluted reason why they have to have it paid for, let me make it very clear to them. this is a vote for vets or a vote against vets. they can have all -- like i said, all their gobbledygook, all their convoluted arguments, but at the end if you vote against this bill, without all this stuff added to it, clean and simple, give the cola back and let's move on. let's give them their full cola.

if you vote against this bill, you're voting against vets. i don't care how you try to press release it, how you try to spin it or what amendments you want to add because you want to try to convolute the situation and create a political situation for other members on other issues that are unrelated to vets, that's unacceptable. i'll say it again -- a promise made is a promise we need to keep. we need to have their backs. they have our backs every single day to make sure this country is safe, no matter where american citizens are in this country and in this world. it is our time to do what's right for veterans. again, mr. president, i told some stories last night of alaskans who are just struggling with this whole issue. the commitment they thought they had. one gentleman served 18 years already in the military. he's close to retirement. he's wondering what did he sign up for. he knew he was serving his

country. he has had enormous pressures on his family. he's moved six different times, two children, one disabled. a variety of personal issues. but he continues to serve this country. and for us to play politics about, well, we should start talking about immigration, we should start talking about child tax credits or this or that, forget it. it is time to do what's right for our veterans, to make this -- put this cola back in full force. that is why over 30 veterans' organizations support this bill. this bill with no pay-for, clean and simple. senator pryor and i were on a phone call last week, talked to many of these. they're anxious. i don't care if it's the air force association or the army aviation association or the fleet reserves or the gold star wives, u.s. army warrant officers -- i can go through the list. 30-plus organizations that work with our veterans every single day want us to pass this bill.

not an amended bill, this bill. get it done, give a peace of mind to our veterans and our retirees that they know -- and our active military. let me say one other thing. this puts our readiness to some degree at risk. why do i say that? well, if you're thinking about joining the military, part of when you're joining the military, you're looking at the benefits and how it all works. you know you're going to put your life on the line. at some point, you may be called to duty, in a sense of life on the line. so they're looking at what those benefits are, what can they provide for themselves and their families. what's that retirement that they may become a career officer, a career enlist the member, what are they going to do. and now they're questioning should they. i had some e-mails from some folks about their sons and daughters who are currently enlisted and now wondering what did they get in to, when at a moment's notice the commitment, the promise we made, they can --

"we" congress, can change overnight. our readiness is at risk. the promises we made are questioned. the commitments that we make to our military. so today is the start of a day to make sure our commitments are there. again, we cannot say to our veterans, sign up, we'll promise you these things and tomorrow we might change them. that doesn't help our readiness, doesn't help our commitment. so, again, mr. president, i hope and i know -- and i get it. there's going to be a lot of policy wonk conversation down here by some members because they want to kind of confuse the issue, to make it hard for people to understand what's really going on in washington. well, simple. it's very simple. i know, as a matter of fact, just walked in, the chairman of the veterans' committee. he knows this issue. it's simple. it's about our vets. very, very simple. you vote "yes," you're for our

vets. you vote "no," you're against our vets. that's it. they can put all the spin, all the amendments they're going to try to craft to make it sound so good, you know, but in reality they're trying to cover an activity that they are struggling with and that is they don't necessarily like that some of us who are on this bill are the sponsors. i get that. but let's put aside our politics. let's do what's right for the vets. let's have their back. let's keep the promise we made to them. and, again, this bill is simple. it's not complicated. as a matter of fact, it's so simple, it's one page. it just says, repeal that action. it's not complicated. i would hope my colleagues on the other side who are wondering about what they should do just vote for the vets, vote "yes" on this, don't mess with amendmen amendments, don't try to have this pay-for convoluted argument that the vet at home who will be watching doesn't care about. they just want to make sure their cola's there. and let's give them the peace of

mind they deserve. mr. president, i thank you for the time. and let me just end with one comment. i'm just going to read a few of the names who have paid the ultimate sacrifice. i read some of these last night. gunnery sergeant christopher easeman, marines, age 28 from moose pass, alaska. sergeant joe clarkson, army, age 23, fairbanksment lance corporal grant frazier, marine reserves, age 22, anchorage. specialist shane woods, army, age 23, palmer. again, just a few of the 22 alaskans who have lost their lives. i don't know if they would have been long-term career, if they would have stayed in the army or air force, but they sacrificed their lives, they put their lives on the line to make sure that we do the right thing here. it is time we do it.

today's the opportunity. don't convolute it with all kinds of amendments. you vote up or down, you're for votes or you're against vets. i yield the floor. mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: mr. president, i rise in strong support of the legislation on the floor. i think most members understand that is part of the 2013 bipartisan budget agreement. language was included which cut colas for military retirees. i think most members here in the senate and the house understand that that was a mistake, an oversight and it's something that should be rectified and it should be rectified now. promises made to people in the military should be kept and our job is to do that.

mr. president, what i want to do this morning is say a word on broader issues impacting the veterans community. and i say that as the chairman of the senate veterans committ committee -- veterans' committee. shortly, when this legislation is disposed of, we are going to move on to a comprehensive piece of legislation that addresses many, many of the very serious problems facing our veterans' community. and this morning i just wanted to give a brief -- say a few words, give a brief overview of what that legislation does. the legislation is the comprehensive veterans health and benefits and military retirement pay restoration act of 2014. it is s. 1982. and the first point that i want to make, mr. president, is that

i honestly believe that in terms of veterans' issues, there is widespread bipartisan support. i can tell you that on our committee, the veterans' committee, every member of that committee, democrat or republican, or in my case independent, believes very much that we owe our veterans more than we can provide them. their sacrifices are too deep, the pain too great. but they're all members of that committee in a bipartisan way, are doing their best to the protect of interests of our veterans and i want to thank all of them for their hard work. and to as great a degree as possible, the bill that will be on the floor, the comprehensive veterans' bill is a bipartisan bill. it contains many, many

provisions brought forth by my republican colleagues. this bill consists of two omnibus bills that were unanimously passed by the senate veterans' affairs committee. unanimously. support of democrats and republicans. it also includes other provisions that had strong bipartisan support. this legislation also contains two new provisions, both of which have bipartisan support. the first new addition addresses the restoration of cuts made to military retiree colas as a result of the 2013 bipartisan budget agreement, the exact same issue that is being debated on the floor right now. we also have that language in our bill. promises made to veterans have

got to be kept. we've got to restore those cuts to colas for military retirees. and the second new provision that was not discussed, frankly, by the committee is also -- also has widespread bipartisan support. it authorizes the v.a. to enter into 27 major medical facility leases in 18 states and puerto rico. also, interestingly enough, the legislation that will soon be on the floor contains two major provisions already passed by the house republican -- house republicans. so to as great a degree as possible in terms of language in the bill, in terms of working with our republican colleagues in the house, this is a bipartisan bill and should have the support of every member of the senate who believes in

protecting the interests of veterans and i hope that is the vast majority of the people here. mr. president, as senator begich just mentioned a moment ago, our veterans have paid a very, very heavy price. and if you were to ask me what i have learned in the one year -- a little bit more than a year that i've been chairman of the veterans' committee, is i think most americans, including myself, were not fully aware of what that sacrifice was. and what that sacrifice was, just in recent years, was not just loss of over 6,700 americans who lost their lives in afghanistan and iraq but the impact of those wars on hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of

thousands of veterans who came home, either wounded in body -- loss of arms, loss of legs, loss of hearing, loss of sight -- or the more invisible wounds of w war. and, mr. president, what most americans don't know -- and it's a rather shocking number -- but we are now dealing with hundreds of thousands of men and women who came home from iraq and afghanistan who are doing their best to cope with post-traumatic stress disorder, which has a terrible impact on their lives, on their families' lives, on their ability to go out and get a job and keep a job, and traumatic brain injury, the result of being in the presence of these i.e.d.'s and all of the explosions that men and women in iraq and afghanistan experienced.

we are also dealing in this rough economy, this struggling economy, this high unemployment economy with many young veterans coming home unable to find jobs. some who left, in national guard, decent jobs, came home and found that those jobs are not there. we are dealing with a fact that i think virtually every member in the senate understands, that at a time when the v.a. went from paper to digital, made the transformation necessary to deal with the claims process, that claims process today remains too long, the backlog is too great. we have got to deal with that issue. we are dealing with a situation, mr. president, where people were wounded in war, men and women were wounded in war, young men and women, who had hopes and

dreams of starting their own families but as a result of injuries sustained in those wars for whatever reason lost their reproductive capabilities and they still want to have families. we are dealing with issues of sexual assault, a scandal, an outrage that i know every member of the senate feels strongly about. women and men sexually assaulted coming home in need of treatme treatment, unable to get that treatment. we are dealing with a situation today above and beyond the wars in afghanistan and iraq where today there are people, often women -- wives, sisters -- who are taking care under great stress of disabled veterans who have no arms and no legs, they have devoted their lives to those people and they are hurting as well.

mr. president, as chairman of the veterans' committee, what i have done is listened as carefully as i could to what the veteranveterans communities, representing millions and millions of veterans, had to say about the problems that veterans are facing, and i and my very fine staff and my republican colleagues and their very fine staffs, we worked together and we said, all right, these are the problems facing our veterans. and we all know that on veterans day and on memorial day, every member of the senate goes out and they give great speeches about how much they love and respect veterans and how much they appreciate the sacrifices made by veterans. well, now is the time to stand up and go beyond words and

rhetoric. now is the time to, in fact, address the real problems, the serious problems facing those men and women whose families experience the ultimate sacrifice and those men and women who came home wounded in body and in spirit. we cannot solve all of the problems facing veterans. we cannot bring back loved ones lost in iraq and afghanistan, in vietnam, and the other wars. we can't bring them back to their wives, to their mothers and dads and kids. we can't do that. and we cannot magically replace the arms and legs lost in war or the eyesight lost in war. but we do have the moral obligation to do everything humanly possible to protect and

defend those men and women who protected and defended us. that we can do, and that we must do. mr. president, i am very proud that this legislation that will soon be on the floor has the strong support of virtually every veteran veterans and miliy organization in this country, and that includes all of the major organizations representing millions and millions of veterans. and i want to thank the american legion, the veterans of foreign wars, the v.f.w., the disabled american veterans, the military officers association of america, the iraq and afghanistan veterans of america, the paralyzed veterans of america, the gold star wives, and dozens and dozens of other veterans and military organizations who are

supporting this legislation. the senate ernst haves affairs committee has -- the senate veterans' affairs committee has received letters of support from virtually all of these organizations, and if members want to check out why these organizations, representing millions of veterans, are supporting this bill, they will find those letters on our web site. well, let me just say this: let me quote from one of the letters. and that was from the disabled american veterans. and this is what they write, and i just quote one segment of it: "this bill, unprecedented in our modern experience" -- this is from the d.a.v. -- would create, advance, and extend a number of v.a. benefit services and programs that are important to d.a.v. and to our members." end of quote. they see it, as do many of the

other veterans organizations, as one of the most comprehensive pieces of veterans legislation brought forth in the modern history of congress. and i'm proud of that. and i want to thank the veterans organizations, not just for their support of this legislation but for the help that they gave us in drafting this legislation. this legislation did not come from bernie sanders, it didn't come from anybody else on the committee. it came from the veterans community itself. it came from representatives of veterans organizations who came before us in hearings, who came before us in private meetings and said, senator, here are the problems facing our veterans. and if you are serious about going beyond rhetoric and speeches and you really want to help veterans and their families, this is what needs to be done. and we listened. we listened. couldn't do everything, but we

did put in this bill many of the major concerns facing the veterans community. and i want to thank the veterans organizations for being our partner in drafting this legislation. i also want to take this opportunity to thank those people who have currently cosponsored that legislation, and that includes senator landrieu, senator be begich, senator schatz, senator brown, senator blumenthal, senator boxer, senator casey, senator gillibrand, senator heinrich, senator merkley, senator murray, senator reed, senator shaheen, senator whitehouse, senator rockefeller, senator tester, and senator can' cantwell. i thank all of them for their strong support. mr. president, let me take a few minutes to touch on -- just touch on -- some of the areas

that this bill -- this comprehensive bill covers. and as i return to the floor in the coming days, i will go into greater length about each of these provisions, because each of these provisions, unto themselves, is enormously important in terms of the needs of of our veterans. as i mentioned earlier, and consistent with what's on the bill right now, the pryor bill, the bipartisan budget act of 20 -- the bill -- our comprehensive veterans bill will restore the cuts made in the bipartisan budget act of 2013 to military retirees. so in our bill, we address that issue. this comprehensive veterans legislation deals with another issue -- not necessarily a sexy issue -- buissue, but one that a

large number of veterans all over america. that is, it will allow v.a. to enter into 27 major medical leases in 18 states and puerto rico. for a variety of reasons too complicated to get into right now, we have cbucs -- community-based outreach clinics -- that are beyond being on the drawing board, but we haven't been able to pull the plug on it. it is very important to veterans all over this country. it is important to republicans, it is important to democrats, it is time to get this done. and, by the way, this has been passed in the house of representatives. we need to do it here, and that is part of this legislation. mr. president, this legislation includes groundbreaking provisions that would expand access to v.a. health care.

in my view, and in the view of veterans all over this country, the v.a. provides high-quality, cost-effective care to millions and millions of our veterans, something like 6.2 million veterans accessing v.a. health care today. about 8 million are in the program, signed up for v.a. care. what this legislation does is expand access to v.a. health care, allows more veterans to come in, ends a very complicated eligibility situation where we have hundreds and hundreds of different eligibility levels all over the curntion makin countryy confusing for priority-8 veterans to determine if they are eligible. the result is that more veterans will be able to access v.a. health care.

what we also do is expand complementary and alternative medicine within the v.a. the v.a. is now doing a good job in providing complementary and alternative medicine. that means meditation, acupuncture, yoga, and other treatments to veterans who are concerned about not being dependent on medication. one of the great problems we have nationally and in the v.a. is overmedication of people who have problems associated with pain and other ailments. the v.a. has done a good job. we are going to expand that opportunity. my experience, having gone around the country, is that both within the department of defense hospitals and the v.a., more and more veterans are looking at these alternative-type treatments and want to break their dependence on overmedication. what we also do in this legislation is something terribly important. it is my strong belief that

dental care must be considered a part of health care, and the fact is that in this country, where millions of people above and beyond the veterans community cannot find affordable dental care, right now within the v.a., dental care, with the exception of service-connected problems, homeless veterans, is not open to veterans, and we begin the process through a significant pilot program to bring dental care into the v.a. and that, to me, is extremely important, and i think for the veterans community it is important. mr. president, i think all of us remember not so many months, a the government of the united states was shut down. it caused all kinds of problems for all kinds of people. what is not widely known -- what is not widely known is that veterans, disabled veterans, veterans who are receiving their

pensions were seven to ten days away from not getting their checks. so you got disabled veterans all over this country who live month to month through those checks. they were seven to ten days away from not getting those checks. this legislation provides for advanced appropriations for mandatory v.a. benefits. and by passing that provision, we will never again put disabled vets or veterans who are dependent on their pensions in the position, if there is ever a shutdown, of not getting their checks when they need it. mr. president, one of the issues that has been discussed a great deal is the issue of benefits backlog. there is no disagreement in this senate, whether you are a republican, democrat,

independent, that it is not acceptable for benefit -- for veterans who apply for benefits to have to wait years to get those benefits. in my view, what the v.a. is now doing is undergoing a massive transformation of her to benefit system, going -- of their benefit system, going from pap paper. incomprehensive to me in 2008 their system was paper. i want to see them make more progress. this legislation includes some important provisions to make sure that we end this unacceptable backlog of the v.a. benefits. one of the issues that has also received some attention is the issue of in-state tuition assistance for post-9/11 veterans. what that has to do is a number of years ago we passed very significant legislation which enables some 900,000 veterans

today -- post-9/11 veterans -- to get education throughout this country, higher education, and family members as well. this legislation would give our transitioning service members a fair shot in attaining their educational goals without incurring an additional financial burden, and i would deal with the issue -- and we deal with the issue of somebody from out of state moving into another state and making sure that that veteran is paying no more than what the in-state tuition is for that state. this is a very important provision. and, by the way, it is a provision that was passed in the house of representatives. we have pretty much the same language here in this bill. mr. president, what we did is promise veterans who served in iraq and afghanistan that they would have five years of free v.a. health care when they came home. we think it is important now, for a variety of reasons --

people have not taken advantage of that. we think it's important to extend from five to ten years unfettered access to v.a. health care for veterans. that's what this legislation does. mr. president, i don't have to mention anybod to anybody that r economy, while slowly improving, still has many, many challenges. unemployment much, much too high. what this legislation would do is reauthorize provisions from the "vow to hire heroes" act, a two-year extension for the veterans retraining assistance program, the v-rap program. what we're saying to our veterans is when you come home, we want a job to be there for you. we want you to get integrated back in to civilian life, so we have some very important provisions in here for employment opportunities for our

veterans. as i mentioned earlier, sexual assault is a scandal. the numbers are appallingly high, and what this legislation does is enable those women and men who were sexually assaulted to come into the v.a. to get the quality of care that their situations require and deserve. and this provision was inspired by ruth moore who struggled for 23 years to receive v.a. disability compensation. so we have language in there making sure that those who suffered sexual assault will get the care within the v.a. that they absolutely are entitled too. i mentioned earlier also, mr. president, that several thousand men and women who served in iraq and afghanistan were wounded in ways that make it impossible for them to have

babies, and these are people who really want families. and some of them are now spending a very significant amount of money in the private sector through a number of approaches in order to be able to have babies. and we have language provision in this bill which would help female and male veterans who have suffered significant spinal cord reproductive and urinary tract injuries to start a family. i think that is an absolutely right thing to do. mr. president, several years ago this congress did the right thing by establishing a caregivers act which said to those people who are caring for disabled vets, that we understand how difficult, how difficult that work is, that you

are taking care of people who need constant attention, loved ones who need constant attention, and we are going to help you doing what you have been doing. the good news is that we passed that legislation. the bad news is that it only applied to post-9/11 veterans. and i think there was a general understanding and assumption that we were going to expand that program to all veterans: vietnam, world war ii, korea so, that those people, mostly women who are staying home taking care of veterans, get the support that they need. so the extension of the caregivers act is also included in this legislation. those are some of the provisions. this is a 4 hundred-page bill, and i just talked on some of them. but let me end in the way that i

began. there is no way that we can ever fully repay the debt we owe to the men and women who put their lives on the line defending this country. that's just the simple nature of things. we're not going to bring back the husbands who were lost in war, the wives who came back without any legs. we're not going to bring fathers back to children who lost their dad or their mom. we're not going to restore eyesight to people who are blind. we can't do that. but if this country means anything, it means that we have got to keep the promises that we made to veterans and to their families that we, while we can't do everything, we have got to do as much as we can to make the lives of our veterans and their families, their loved ones as

happy and productive as we possibly can. so this legislation is legislation that listened to our veterans, heard their concerns, worked with them and developed this comprehensive bill. and let me conclude once again by thanking all of the veterans organizations, that we have virtually every veterans organization in america. not all but almost all supporting this legislation. we thank them for the work that they do every day on behalf of our veterans, and i thank them very much for all the help they have provided me and the committee in writing this legislation. mr. president, speeches on veterans day and memorial day are great. that's good. it's an important thing that we all do. but now is the time to go beyond speeches. now is the time to address the problems facing the veterans community. this legislation does this in a

very comprehensive way, and i ask for the support of all my colleagues in the senate. thank you. i yield the floor. ms. stabenow: mr. president, before my colleague leaves the

floor -- mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you. before the chairman of the veterans' affairs committee leaves the floor, i just want to say thank you to him for his passion and advocacy. the legislation he spoke of this morning is incredibly important. if i'm not yet on that bill, senator sanders, i need to be and will be. please sign me up. it's absolutely true that we need to do more than just make speeches. we need to put our commitment, our resources, keep our promises to our veterans. that's what this bill does. and we thank you very, very much. we also, mr. president, have a bill in front of us that is about our veterans. and this bill -- maybe some can come down and help me out on this. this bill is about our veterans. and the question is on a "yes"

or "no" on this final bill: do we support our stphrepbs -- our veterans? you vote "yes." if we do not support our veterans, want to play political games with it, find some other excuse not to vote veterans, you vote "no." it's very simple. keep our promise, vote "yes." don't care about keeping our promise, vote "no." we had a vote last night here in the senate to end a filibuster that i think was embarrassing that we had to have the vote. i want to thank our friend and colleague, the senior senator from arkansas, senator pryor, for putting this forward along with a number of colleagues. but we should not even have had to have to have a vote to end a filibuster and move forward on this bill. this is something that everyone should want to do as quickly as possible. it should not be controversial.

but, unfortunately, instead of moving it forward and getting this done, we are seeing republican colleagues who are arguing about amendments, amazingly, that would increase taxes on families in order to -- quote -- "pay for helping our veterans." now, i think every veteran in america should find this absolutely outrageous. i know that i do. these men and women have sacrificed for our nation. some did not come home. some came home without an arm or a leg or a closed head injury. they have paid in full for this bill, mr. president. paid in full. that's what we stamp on this piece of legislation. i'm proud to represent nearly

700,000 veterans that are living in michigan, veterans and their families. that's my pay-for for this bill. they have paid in full to make sure that they get their veterans benefits, their pensions, the health care that we promised them. and i'd like to read just a very few of the names of people in michigan, mr. president, that are the pay-for i offer today in the senate. richard belaw from saint joseph, michigan, retired from the coast guard after 21 years of service. 21 years of service. he has paid in full for this bill. bill ballinghouse of holland, spent 22 years in the navy. i'm partial to the navy, my dad was in the navy. then five years working in the

navy as a civilian. 22 years in the navy, 5 years working in the navy as a civilian. he has paid in full for this bill. richard eversoul of sumtph-pber spent 22 years in the air force, retired as a master sergeant. richard has paid in full for this bill. frank bow from kalamazoo, retired ten years ago as a senior master sergeant in the united states air force. 51 years old, so he will see his pension cut by 1% every year for the next 11 years. this needs to be fixed now. no games, no debating about amendments. yes or no on making sure frank bow gets his full pension, because he has paid in full for this bill.

david lord of sheboygan retired from the navy after 20 years of service. again, he has paid in full. john furlow of st. charles spent 20 years in the navy before retiring in 2006. joseph borgman of gwen, michigan, spent 32 years -- 32 years -- in the navy. served in iraq and afghanistan. he flew 177 combat missions defending our country, putting himself in harm's way on behalf of all of us. i believe that joseph has paid in full for his pension and the other benefits that we have promised he and his family.

debbie rasmussen from sheridan, michigan, wrote in on behalf of her military family. debbie and her husband are both navy veterans and their son matt is an active duty sailor with over 15 years of service, including service in afghanistan. and they believe and i believe the rasmussens have paid in full for this benefit. karen rodicelli, the wife of an active duty army major currently stationed at the pentagon. curt and karen have been a military family for 12 years. the rodicellis have paid in full. i could go on and on with so many similar letters. every service is represented in these letters because veterans

from every part of our armed services would be hurt by what has been put in place. we know that this needs to be addressed and needs to be fixed. we've all said that, that this needs to be fixed. we need to honor the commitment we have made to the men and women who have served us and continue to serve us. this bill will restore the cost of living adjustments for all military retirees. we need to act now so that our veterans have the certainty and the peace of mind they need to move forward with their lives. we should not be involved in wrangling and folks trying to find political advantage and take political hostages, score points in some way. we need to just get this done.

no amendments, no jockeying here. just vote for this bill and get this done. this bill is about keeping our proms to the men and women who have -- keeping our promise to the men and women who have served us and continue to serve us. a "yes" vote says we've got your back. a "yes" vote says we honor and support you. a "no" vote or other votes that confuse the situation and play political games are really votes that turn your back on our veterans. very simple. vote "yes" to get this done. no distractions. no extraneous issues. no matter how people feel about other things, bringing them into this is not right, it's not fair. this is about yes for veterans

or no for veterans. and i hope, mr. president, that we will all stand together and understand the pay-for are the people who have served in our states and continue to serve us today. they have paid in full. we need to vote yes and get this done. madam president, i have five unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders and i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you, madam president. mr. thune: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: madam president, i come to the floor today t