Floor Statements

I thank the Senator from Missouri for her leadership. She is correct. She has prosecuted more of these cases than I think anyone in this body, so I appreciate her leadership.

Under the system that is put forward under the Gillibrand proposal-- let me thank her for her passion about this issue as well--we know it prohibits funding and personnel. How does that work when we are going to set up a whole new system? I worry about the deployability of this system. When someone is in Iraq or Afghanistan and they are a victim, where are these JAG lawyers going to be? Will they be in Washington making these decisions? But we won't be able to put any additional resources toward it. So is this system still deployable?

There are other problems with implementation. There are big concerns about the right to a speedy trial. If that happens, as we know, then the defendant can't be prosecuted.

Eliminating the ability to plea bargain--we heard Senator Reid speak about that, because this proposal eliminates two-thirds of the crimes from the UCMJ out of the authority of the commander, well beyond this issue of sexual assault, which we are committed to addressing. It also creates serious due process concerns. So there are serious implementation questions about this.

I wish to raise a question that keeps coming up: We need to hold the commanders more accountable. I agree with the Senator from Missouri. We cannot allow them off the hook. If we take them out of this equation, then there will be less accountability. Our proposal actually has it as part of how a commander is going to be judged, how the commanders handle these cases. That is not the status quo, because we want the chain of command to be more accountable. But we keep hearing we want victims to come forward, and the Senator from Missouri knows that from her experience as a prosecutor.

I would say this: Does the evidence support that more victims will come forward if we actually pass the Gillibrand proposal? Because why are we here. We want more victims to come forward. Will more victims see justice if this proposal is passed? Because this is ultimately what we are trying to get at.

Let me just say, this panel took on the key question. That is why we are doing this. I am doing this because I believe victims will get justice and there will be more accountability. I want to hold commanders more accountable for not only how they handle these crimes but also for that zero tolerance policy within their unit. That is why we want them judged on this basis.

That panel has looked at this issue of reporting and found that there is no evidentiary basis at this time to support a conclusion that removing senior commanders as the convening authority will reduce the incidence of sexual assault--which we want them to establish that climate within their unit to do so--or increase reporting of sexual assaults.

I would also say, if we want justice for victims, what about those 93 victims where the commander said: Bring the case forward, even though the JAG lawyer said no? They would not have gotten justice. So the evidence is the opposite. What would we say to those victims? The evidence shows that actually commanders are bringing cases more frequently than their JAG's lawyers and over their objections.

The panel also found that none of the military justice systems of our allies was changed or set up to deal with the problem of sexual assault. So for those allies who have taken it out of the chain of command, this panel said that none of them can attribute any changes in the reporting of sexual assault to changing the role of the commander.

We were told from the beginning of this argument that our allies changed this so that more people would come forward. Well, they have not. In fact, what we learned is many of our allies changed it to protect defendants.

Our reporting has actually--since 2013, in the Marine Corps it is up 80 percent and in the Army it is up 50 percent. That is even before the legislation that we have all worked on to have special victims counsels for every single victim that we have already passed in this body.

Yes, I will.

Madam President, I yield Senator McCaskill's time to the Senator from Nebraska.

I thank the Senator from Missouri, and I thank the Senator from New York for her passionate and important debate. Let's not forget the work we have already done in the Defense authorization, ensuring that every victim will have his or her own attorney to represent their interests, taking commanders out of overturning verdicts, and making retaliation a crime. So we have done very important work.

But why are we here today? The issue is will more cases be prosecuted if we take it out of the chain of command?

Actually, no. There would be 93 cases under the current situation that wouldn't have been brought where commanders actually made a different decision than their military lawyer. What about those victims and those victims having their day in court? I want more victims to have their day in court.

As we think about it, why are we doing this? Some of our allies did it. We looked at that issue. Our allies haven't seen any greater reporting, so there is no evidence that we are going to have reporting. Many of them did it to protect defendants. We are here to protect victims today. We certainly want a system with due process, but this is about having more victims coming forward.

I also want to make sure people understand that under the system now they do not have to report to their commander. We had people come to the floor and say they shouldn't have to go to their boss. They can go to a sexual assault response coordinator, clergy, minister, civilian medical personnel. Already they can come forward if they don't feel comfortable coming forward to the commander.

No evidence has been presented that we are going to help victims more or that more cases will be prosecuted or more will come forward if we take it out of the chain of command. That is why I want to hold commanders more accountable, not less. That is what Senator McCaskill, Senator Fischer, and I do in our proposal. We want to make sure they are not let off the hook. We want to make sure the victims can get not only justice but make sure they get swift justice. This proposal risks delaying that justice in the system.

I ask my colleagues to vote against Senator Gillibrand's proposal. I ask my colleagues to say what will hold commanders more accountable. That is our proposal. I ask them to say where is the evidence that more evidence will be pursued or more cases will come forward. There is no evidence. Our proposal is based on the evidence.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from Arizona for everything they have done on this important issue and to get to the truth.

Frankly, I will quote the Senator from Arizona from last weekend, when he was asked what Ambassador Susan Rice said on ``Meet the Press,'' because I agree with his sentiment: I am speechless.

I am speechless because when Ambassador Rice was asked on ``Meet the Press,'' do you have any regrets about what you said on every single Sunday show on September 16 of 2012, she said she didn't have any regrets. She said: What I said to you that morning, and what I did every day since, is to share the best information we had at the time. The information I provided, which I explained to you, was what we had at the moment.

Actually, that is not the full picture and the information they had at the moment. That is why I think the word ``speechless'' applies. The fact she would have no regrets about misleading the American people is deeply

troubling. Because we know that immediately after he heard about the attacks, GEN Carter Ham, who was the commander of U.S. Africa Command at the time, told Secretary of Defense Panetta this was a terrorist attack. In fact, Secretary Panetta testified before the Armed Services Committee, as did the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chairman Dempsey, they knew at the time it was a terrorist attack.

But apparently, when Ambassador Rice went on to tell the story about this being the result of a hateful and heinous video and protest that started in Cairo, she missed that testimony and this incredibly important information held by key security leaders in our government.

We also know on September 12, 4 days before she appeared on the Sunday shows, the day after the attacks, according to testimony given before the House Oversight and Governmental Reform Committee given last May, Beth Jones, who was then the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, sent an email on behalf of our government to the Libyan Ambassador in Washington, DC, which said the following:

The group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is

affiliated with Islamic terrorists.

This was 4 days before Ambassador Rice went on all the Sunday shows and said this was in response to a hateful and offensive video.

That was not the case.

Let's go further. This wasn't the best information they had at the time. This raises questions as well about the role of Mike Morell, who at the time was the Deputy CIA Director. I was part of the meeting with Mike Morell and Ambassador Rice at the time, and one of the things I learned in that briefing also troubled me a great deal about the representation Ambassador Rice made on those Sunday shows, including her statement that she has no regrets, apparently, and the claim they had the best information at the time.

One of the things that goes out is called the Presidential daily brief. In fact, Ambassador Rice had a very important position in our government at the time. I still wonder why she was the person who was sent out on every Sunday show with regard to the attacks on our consulate in Benghazi, but the daily intelligence briefing at the time actually contained references to the potential involvement of Al-Qaeda in these attacks. Yet somehow, when she went on the Sunday shows, she felt she could make the statement that Al-Qaeda has been decimated and then blamed the attacks on our consulate on this hateful video, further contradicting the information we had at the time.

I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to wrap up.

I thank the Chair.

I will defer to my colleagues, but the bottom line is this: We are speechless by what Ambassador Rice said last Sunday. We need to have her testimony before the Congress to get to the bottom of why these misrepresentations were made. Mr. Morell needs to be brought back before the Congress, and ultimately we need a select committee.

I defer to my colleague from South Carolina to wrap up.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about a grave threat to the United States of America, a grave threat to the world, and a grave threat to our friend and ally, the State of Israel; that is, the threat of Iran's nuclear weapons program.

As we stand here today, pending has been legislation filed by Senator Richard Burr which contains important sanctions which are essentially an insurance policy to make sure that Tehran does not play the United States of America and that they are, in fact, serious about stopping their nuclear weapons program. Unfortunately, there is a long history with Iran where we talk and they enrich. This is why it is so important right now that we have this insurance policy.

These sanctions pending would only go in place if Iran violates the interim agreement that has been entered into between the administration and other countries in the world and Iran and if they fail to reach a final agreement that is acceptable to the security interests of the United States of America and to our allies in the region to make the world a safer place.

We cannot accept a nuclear-capable Iran. Why is that? Iran is a country that has threatened to wipe the State of Israel off the face of the Earth. Iran has called our country ``the Great Satan.'' Iran is the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism. They have supported terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. They have, unfortunately, obviously worked against our strong ally Israel. They have supported the murderous Assad regime, providing Assad arms so he can murder his own people.

Unfortunately, there are so many examples of the danger of Iran having nuclear weapons capability. If Iran gets this capability, unfortunately we will also find ourselves in a position where we are in a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, a Sunni-Shia arms race, which would then also threaten the world and make that region even more of a tinderbox.

So we now find ourselves at a critical moment. I am deeply worried that the sanctions regime this Congress has worked so hard to put in place on a strong bipartisan basis is unraveling and we need an insurance policy to make sure Iran knows they are not going to play us and unravel these sanctions. The way we can do that is by having sanctions legislation passed which is prospective.

If Iran is serious about a nuclear weapons agreement that takes away their capability of having a nuclear weapon, then they should not have a problem with prospective sanctions by this Congress. Again, those sanctions would only go in place if they violate the interim agreement. If their words mean anything, then they shouldn't have a problem with the fact that we are just saying: If you violate it, we will impose additional sanctions. We will not allow this sanctions regime to unravel.

What is the significance of this sanctions regime? The work done by this Congress on a bipartisan basis and with our partners around the world is what has brought Iran to the table. All of us want a diplomatic resolution that stops Iran from having a nuclear weapon, but we need to go into this with clear eyes, which is why having this insurance policy is so important. A final agreement with Iran will only be meaningful if it ensures they will not have the ability to enrich because their ability to enrich makes it easier for them to immediately ramp up to nuclear weapons capability.

I recently attended a security conference in Munich and met with some representatives of the Arab nations. They were asked in an open forum: If an agreement is reached and Iran is allowed to enrich, what will the rest of you want to do? Their answer was that they will want the right to enrich too.

This final agreement must stop Iran's ability to enrich. If we do not stop them, we will not only face the risk of Iran being able to quickly ramp up to a nuclear weapon and its capability to harm the world but also the risk that the Arab nations themselves will also enrich. Even if they don't have a nuclear weapon capability, they are all right at the point where they could break out to that capability, and that is just as dangerous for the world.

The amendment we have makes it clear that we are going to protect the United States of America and protect our allies and the world. It has to be clear. It should prevent Iran from that enrichment capability. This agreement should stop their capability at the Arak facility to produce plutonium. Our agreement should absolutely make sure we are given access to their military facilities so we can stop them from their programs where they are working on weaponization of nuclear materials.

I serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee. The Director of National Intelligence and others have told us that by 2015 Iran could have ICBM capability. Can you imagine if they were to continue with this nuclear program and have ICBM capability? This is a true risk to the world.

An agreement is only meaningful if it is an agreement we can rely on, that is open, transparent, verifiable, and absolutely stops them from having a nuclear program that could be a threat to the world. We need to make sure they stop enrichment and put a stop on the Arak plutonium reactor and weaponization program. We need full and open access.

We should be addressing Iran's acts of terrorism throughout the world. One of the grave dangers I worry about is that if Iran has a nuclear weapon, they may not use it, but they may pass it on to the terrorist groups that Iran is associated with, and that is a grave danger not only to our ally Israel but also to the United States of America.

One of the reasons I believe the sanctions legislation that is pending is so important is because some of the statements that have been made recently by the regime in Tehran are very troubling and harken back to their prior behavior of we talk, they enrich. We have to question how serious they are about a verifiable, transparent, and real agreement to stop their nuclear weapons program.

For example, on February 18--in talks between Iran and the P5+1 that were held in Vienna--Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the talks ``will not lead anywhere.'' In advance of the talks, President Ruhani, whom Prime Minister Netanyahu has described as a wolf in sheep's clothing--and I would agree with him on that--has stated that peaceful atomic research would be pursued forever.

Iran's Foreign Minister recently clashed with a lead U.S. negotiator, Wendy Sherman, over the Arak and Fordow facilities. Sherman stated that Iran had no need for either facility. Make no mistake, if Iran is serious about giving up its nuclear weapons capability--or the pursuit of that capability--then she is absolutely right; there is no need for the Arak facility that allows them to produce plutonium. There is no need for these underground facilities such as Fordow, where they are trying to hide their program from the rest of the world.

The Foreign Minister of Iran, in reaction to her comments, described her statement as ``worthless'' and reinforced Iran's position that their ability to produce atomic energy at the plutonium reactor at Arak is not negotiable.

This is deeply troubling, and it is one of the reasons we need to send a clear message here and now. They came to the table because of sanctions. The sanctions were having a deteriorating effect on their economy. Yet recently we have seen--and this has been my fear--the sanctions regime unraveling. They are actually using this negotiation with the administration to further unravel those sanctions in order to get what they want without an insurance policy to ensure that we will get what we want, and that is what this sanction legislation does.

One of the issues that came up in February, a French trade delegation--representing 116 French companies--

traveled to Tehran. I recently met with one of the Arab nation's Foreign Ministers, and he told me that the hotel rooms in Tehran are filled with business men and women looking to line up to do business with Tehran.

This is a real issue that the sanctions regime is starting to unravel, and the legislation we have pending with 59 cosponsors is an insurance policy to say: If you are not serious about this agreement, we will impose further sanctions to make sure we do everything we can to stop you from having nuclear weapons capability.

This is a critical moment in the history of this country. This is a critical moment for the safety of the world. We want to stop Iran from using diplomatic means as a way to have nuclear weapons capability because of the risk it presents to the world.

We cannot be naive. We have to understand the prior behavior of Iran because the prior behavior of Iran will allow us to go in with our eyes wide open rather than just taking their assurances that they are serious about a nuclear weapons agreement that will stop them from having this capability.

As we stand on the floor, I ask the majority leader to allow a vote on this legislation so we can send a clear message to Iran and the rest of the world that they should not think they should do further business with Iran unless Iran is serious about giving up its nuclear weapons program through a transparent, verifiable agreement that will ensure they cannot threaten the State of Israel and the rest of the world with a nuclear weapon. I ask the majority leader to allow a vote on this important legislation.

There are so few pieces of legislation that come through the Senate which actually have 59 cosponsors. This is one of them. It certainly has strong bipartisan support.

I don't buy the argument that if we were to pass this legislation, somehow Iran would walk away from the negotiations. If Iran walks away from the negotiations because we pass prospective legislation as an insurance policy to make sure they are serious about a real, verifiable agreement that stops their nuclear weapons program, then, frankly, we know they have been playing us. Because the reality is, if they are serious, they should not care if we put an insurance policy out there. If they are serious, they will follow through and will do what the interim agreement requires and will agree to a final agreement that stops their nuclear weapons program in a transparent, verifiable way once and for all.

On the other hand, if they are just going to walk away with a threat of prospective sanctions, how serious can they be? We will still have the sanctions in place that will continue to put pressure on them to say the United States of America and our allies will not accept a nuclear-armed Iran because of the threat it presents to us.

We cannot allow the largest state sponsor--and most serious state sponsor--of terrorism around the world to have this capability. We cannot allow a race in the Middle East--a Sunni-Shia race--to see who can have a nuclear weapon first because of the danger it presents to the world.

Finally, we cannot allow Iran to continue to threaten our friend and ally, the State of Israel. I understand and appreciate that when Iran and its leaders have made statements they want to annihilate Israel from the face of the Earth, our friends in Israel take that very seriously. They have vowed never again. We stand with them not only for their friendship but also for the safety of the world.

We have legislation pending on the floor that gives us an opportunity to make it clear what the United States of America stands for and that we will not accept a nuclear-armed Iran. They must be serious or there will be consequences in terms of economic sanctions.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I wish to celebrate the life and legacy of a great New Hampshire public servant--State representative Amy S. Perkins of Seabrook.

I was deeply saddened to learn of Amy's passing earlier this week. At age 43, she was taken from us far too soon. My heart is broken for her family and friends, as well as her constituents in Seabrook.

Amy represented the very best of New Hampshire's ``citizen legislature.'' She and her husband Koko, also a State representative, represented Seabrook together at the State House while also giving back to their beloved community in so many other ways.

Amy was active in her church in Seabrook and was a member of the Raymond E. Walton American Legion Post 70 Women's Auxiliary. Koko, who continues to serve in the legislature, is the deputy chief at the Seabrook Fire Department. As a husband and wife team, they committed themselves to giving back to others--embodying New Hampshire's distinctive spirit of community.

In addition to her public duties, Amy was also a devoted mother who leaves behind two children--her son Daumanic Fucile and her daughter Katelyn Perkins. She was also a daughter and a sister--and I extend my deepest sympathy to the family members who are mourning her loss.

Amy was a leader who refused to sit on the sidelines. She is someone who cared deeply about her town and her State, and she selflessly stepped up to serve. Amy leaves behind a legacy of service that I know her husband Koko will carry on--and her children will always be able to look to the example she set as a model of how to give back to others.

Amy Perkins will be deeply missed by those whose lives she touched. Her family and many friends will remain in my thoughts and prayers.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize and honor the Puritan Backroom in Manchester, a beloved New Hampshire restaurant that celebrates its 40th anniversary this month. The Backroom has earned its place as one of the Granite State's most popular family restaurants, serving up delicious dishes for four decades.

Today, the Backroom is part of a tradition of outstanding hospitality that dates back for nearly a century in New Hampshire's Queen City. In 1917, Arthur Pappas and Louis Canotas, who immigrated to the United States from Greece, opened an ice cream and candy shop on Hanover Street. They started a restaurant the following year, the first of several in Manchester and beyond. In 1938, Pappas and Canotas opened an ice cream stand on Daniel Webster Highway, later adding a candy shop and a restaurant. In February 1974, the Puritan Backroom served its first meal, and it is now a fourth generation family business.

There is something for everyone on the menu at the Backroom--from fresh seafood, to prime rib, to their saute specials.

The restaurant is perhaps most famous for its fried chicken tenders, which come with duck sauce, and can be ordered in a few different ways--regular, coconut, buffalo or spicy. Or, you could get them broiled in the Backroom's special sauce. Or, you could have chicken tenders parmigiana or chicken tenders cacciatore.

For dessert, you can not beat the Backroom's homemade ice cream. On hot summer nights, it is not unusual to see customers lined up in front of the ice cream stand, eager to choose from among dozens of flavors. You will find the standard offerings--vanilla and chocolate--alongside Backroom favorites, including: Baklava, Moose Tracks, and Mudslide. Speaking of mudslides, they're also on the drink menu, and the Backroom was once recognized for being the top buyer in the Nation of Baileys Irish Cream.

The Puritan Backroom is more than just a restaurant. It is part of the heart and soul of Manchester, NH. It is a place for friends to meet and enjoy a meal. And it is a place for families to celebrate special occasions. I know that my family always looks forward to heading to the Backroom, where we know we will see familiar and friendly faces.

The family ownership, management and staff of the Backroom have made this special restaurant a true New Hampshire treasure. The Backroom sets the standard for excellence in hospitality in the Granite State, and I am so proud to join citizens across our State in congratulating the Puritan Backroom on its 40th anniversary.

I come to the floor to talk about an amendment I have pending to the bill pending on the floor to fix the unfair cuts to our military retirees.

Let me remind everyone of how we got to this point. It was right before the holidays and there was a budget agreement that was reached between the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and the chairman of the House Budget Committee.

Let me remind everyone in this Chamber that I serve on the Senate Budget Committee. No one on the Senate Budget Committee--at least myself, I wasn't included, I guess I missed it--brought to our attention the budget agreement before it was brought as a fait accompli to the floor, and that is one of the problems that brought us to where we are today. Only in Washington could you serve on the actual Budget Committee, they come up with a budget agreement and actually never show it to you--even though you are on the Budget Committee.

Had they shown it to me in advance, I can tell you what I would have told them, that this idea to single out our military retirees is totally unfair. It is the wrong priority for America to single out those who have taken the bullets for us when, if we look at the changes that were made in the budget agreement to the contributions for Federal employees, they were prospective. Only new hires had to pay additional contributions.

But for our men and women in uniform, those working-age retirees under 62--and originally our wounded warriors were included in that as well--took the cut. So when I did find out about it--and I see my colleague from South Carolina, who also serves on the Senate Budget Committee, is here--when we and others found out about it--also my colleague Senator Wicker from Mississippi--we pointed out from the beginning, before this body even voted on the budget agreement, that the cuts to military retirees were unfair; that of all the people we were going to single out, why would we single out the people who have taken the bullets for us? What kind of message does that send to those who have served us and sacrificed so much for our country?

So I remember it. We came down here before Christmas, before the holidays. Senator Graham, my colleague from South Carolina, came down here, Senator Wicker from Mississippi, and we said to our colleagues then: Let's fix this. Let's fix this unfair cut now before we actually pass this budget into law, because we have time to do it. Do you know the response we got? We are in a rush. We have to get home to our families before the holidays, rather than fix what was wrong from the beginning.

Right now I hear so many of our colleagues coming to the floor and saying: We have to fix this, even though they voted for this budget agreement.

Yes, I yield for a question.

I would agree with that.

Well, that is the irony of where we find ourselves. We have people who came to the floor, even though we warned them and said this is really unfair, why are we doing this to military retirees, we should fix this now and we can find other ways to cut spending--

The answer is no. Of course we don't. We don't have to burden the next generation to fix what we should have fixed from the beginning, which was unfair from the beginning. That said, I have an offset----

I have an offset that is pretty straightforward. We have two major refundable tax credits in our Tax Code, the earned income tax credit and the additional child tax credit, both of which, when you claim them, you actually get money back under the Tax Code. My amendment is pretty straightforward. When you file for the earned income tax credit, you actually have to put a Social Security number when you file for it as the tax filer. Also, if you have a dependent, you have to put a Social Security number. For the additional child tax credit, there was a Treasury IG report done under this administration in 2011 and it raised real concerns about the way this tax refund was being administered, because when you filed for it, you didn't have to put a Social Security number. Also, for any child for whom you were seeking a refund, you didn't have to put a Social Security number.

My fix is very straightforward: All I am asking is, if you want to seek that tax refund for your child, you list a Social Security number for the child. Why is that important? It is important because the Treasury IG found with this tax refund billions and billions of dollars going out the door. In fact, with the amendment I just mentioned, we can save $20 billion over the next 10 years.

There were investigations done of this tax refund, and guess what they found. Massive examples of fraud, which I will go through in detail, of people claiming kids who may not even live in this country; of people claiming kids who might live in Mexico, because there are absolutely no parameters on the way this is being interpreted right now.

So here is the question: Should we fix fraud in our Tax Code and really address this issue, still allowing American children and children who the President has said are eligible--certain DREAMer children--to get this tax refund--real children in this country--or should we let this fraud continue and also add to our debt and not address the underlying problems facing our Nation?

I don't understand why we can't pass something commonsense like this.

Exactly.

Right.

This is the earned income we are talking about.

I don't know the amount.

Yes.

The American taxpayer would save $20 billion over the next 10 years. This is about protecting the American taxpayer. Let me talk about some of the fraud that was found.

In Indiana, they found 4 workers were claiming 20 children living inside 1 residence. The IRS sent these illegal immigrants tax refunds of a total of $29,000-plus. They also found many people were claiming the tax credit for kids who live in Mexico. These are our taxpayer dollars going out the door in this way.

An Indiana tax preparer, who acted as a whistleblower, said: We have seen sometimes 10 or 12 dependents, most times nieces and nephews, on these tax forms. The more you put on there, the more you get back, even though they are not verifying that any of these children live here or exist. That is our tax money going out the door. The whistleblower had thousands of examples.

Another example from a whistleblower: We have over $10,000 in refunds for nine nieces and nephews, he said. It is so easy. I can bring out stacks and stacks. It is so easy, it is ridiculous.

In North Carolina, investigators tied at least 17 tax returns totaling more than $62,000 in returns to a Charlotte, NC, apartment that 1 woman leased. At another apartment nearby, investigators discovered 153 returns valued at over $700,000 in refunds. Another address in the same apartment complex had 236 returns worth over $1 million in returns.

This is money taken into our treasury and turned back in. All I am saying with this amendment is if you can put a Social Security number for the child you are claiming the credit for, you can get this credit. That is all this is, making this consistent with the earned income tax credit. And in fact, the filer can be an undocumented worker in this country and have a child who legitimately has a Social Security number and get the credit for it. So I have modified my amendment to address that issue.

What I am saying is this: Let us end fraud and let us take that money that is being taken from the American taxpayer--$20 billion--and take $6 billion of it to be used to restore these military cuts. This will make sure we do not burden the next generation and we fix a wrong that should be righted.

Let me talk about some other examples of what we have seen. In Tennessee, a search warrant was prepared by the IRS for a tax company that was encouraging undocumented workers to lie on their tax returns by claiming children who live in Mexico as dependents. Why can this tax preparer even encourage that? Because right now, when the refund for the additional child tax credit is filed for, you don't have to put anything about the child to prove the child even exists. So simply requiring a Social Security number for the child you are getting money back for would end that fraud.

The IRS says the Tennessee tax preparer has filed 6,000 tax returns over the last 3 years, and although his--listen to this--although his clients only paid $3.3 million in taxes, they were able to receive back $17 million in refunds. Imagine that: $3.3 million in taxes his clients as a whole claim they have paid, and they received $17 million in refunds back. Pretty good deal, isn't it. Well, it is a bad deal for the American taxpayer.

This amendment makes so much common sense I just hope I can get a vote on it on the floor of the Senate. In the past, when I have tried to bring this amendment forward, I have been denied a vote on many occasions.

I hope the people of this country understand what the vote on the floor is. The vote on the floor is straightforward. This amendment fixes the unfair cuts to our military retirees and ensures we aren't breaking the budget agreement that was just passed or burdening the next generation with debt. In fact, my amendment will further reduce the debt because it saves more money than just paying for this fix. We can also fix this tax fraud and do the right thing by the American taxpayer.

What worries me most is that because this is Washington, and this makes so much sense, I fear I won't get a vote and that my colleagues will use excuses to say: We shouldn't vote for this because--as I heard my colleague from Illinois on the floor this morning saying--we are going to harm children. Well, children will still be able to get this refund. Put a Social Security number down and American children will get this refund. Also children the President has already deemed eligible--so-called DREAMers. In fact, my colleague from Illinois who came to the floor this morning admitted already \1/2\ million of them have filed for a Social Security number, and they too could receive this tax refund.

If we don't pass this amendment, there are two groups that lose: the veterans, but also, most importantly, all of us--the American taxpayer.

Before I conclude, I wanted to mention the groups endorsing my amendment: the American Legion, American Veterans--AMVETs--Concerned Veterans for America, the Military Officers Association of America, the National Guard Association of the United States, the National Military Family Association, the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association, the Retired Enlisted Association, the U.S. Army Warrant Officers Association, the U.S. Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers Association, and the U.S. Coast Guard Enlisted Association.

I hope my colleagues will vote for this commonsense amendment, so we can fix this unfair cut to our military retirees and pay for it and make sure we aren't also adding to our debt and burdening future generations.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the attack on our consulate on September 11, 2012. I am here to talk about the fact that four brave Americans were murdered that day by an act of terrorism. One of those murdered was our Ambassador to Libya when those four Americans were killed at Benghazi at our consulate.

I really want to talk about what I believe is a pattern of misinformation, misimpressions, and, frankly, misleading the American people about what happened there and, during an election season, what was represented about the attack on our consulate on September 11. Let me walk through some of the situation and the tangled web that was woven here.

First of all, right after this attack occurred--we know that on September 16 Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on behalf of the administration on every major Sunday television show, and during that time people rightly wanted to know what happened. This was a big deal. An ambassador had been murdered, along with three other Americans in Libya, where we had gone in to remove, working with our NATO partners, Qadhafi and really had established alliances with Libya. So here we have a murdered Ambassador on September 11, and that day Ambassador Rice, during the context of a Presidential election, went on every Sunday television show, and when she was asked about what happened on that day, she blamed it on the spontaneous reaction to a hateful video.

Recently, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence did some very good bipartisan work looking at what happened with regard to the attack at the consulate. That report contains something very telling. That report found that ``contrary to many press reports at the time, eyewitness statements by U.S. personnel indicate there were no protests at the start of the attacks.'' In fact, the then-Deputy Director of the CIA received an email sent from the CIA's Chief of Station in Tripoli to him on September 15--4 days after the attacks occurred--and in that email the Deputy Director of the CIA, Mike Morell, was told the attacks were ``not an escalation of protests.'' Not an escalation of protests.

Why is that important? It is important for many reasons because what ends up happening during this period is that Ambassador Rice is going on the Sunday shows to talk about this. She is designated to do this on behalf of the administration. We have always wondered why. Why did she go on, as opposed to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or perhaps then-Secretary Panetta, the Secretary of Defense? But she is sent that day onto the Sunday shows, and on those shows she said this was a direct result of a heinous video--protests that came as a result of this video.

Yet the day before, the then-Deputy Director of the CIA had already gotten an email from the people on the ground--eyewitness statements. There were survivors, people who survived this attack and who were interviewed to find out what happened. As you would in any situation where you have had a terrorist attack or a murder case, you are going to talk to the eyewitnesses on the ground. So there were eyewitnesses, and they were spoken to. As a result of those eyewitness interviews, the day before she goes on those Sunday shows, the Deputy Director of the CIA is told that there was not an escalation of protests, that what has been reported is not the case. Yet she went on the show and said that anyway.

What is even more troubling is that this information is communicated to the Deputy Director of the CIA, and somehow there are talking points prepared that don't reflect this information. Moreover, somehow this information that was given to the Deputy Director of the CIA was not given to the President--or, I don't know, maybe they didn't like the story they received because during that period of time, if we look at this, on September 11 the President gave many media interviews

during this period. It was during a Presidential election.

On September 18, which is 7 days after the attacks on the consulate, 2 days after Susan Rice went on the Sunday shows, the President is on the Dave Letterman show. We have all watched the comedy show, the Dave Letterman show, and Dave Letterman asks the President about the attacks in Benghazi. On that show he talks about the video, this heinous video being a cause of what happened and the attack at the consulate. Yet, on September 15, the then-Deputy Director of the CIA already had some information that said this is not an escalation of protests. There were interviews done of the survivors on the ground. Yet on the Dave Letterman show a week later--in fact, 3 days after this information is received by the Deputy Director of the CIA--we have the President talking about the video.

But it gets worse. Nine days later--9 days after the attack, so on September 20--the President gives another interview at the Univision Town Hall. This is 5 days after the Deputy Director of the CIA is given this information, apparently coming from the survivors. And what does the President say?

What we do know is that the natural protests that arose

because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse

by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S.

interests.

That is what he says when he is asked about the attacks on our consulate.

So here we are 9 days after the attack, 5 days after this information is given to Mike Morell, the then-Deputy Director of the CIA, and yet we have another interview on ``The View,'' another popular show, 13 days--almost 2 weeks after the attack on the consulate, and again the President of United States talks about this being about the video and a reaction to the video.

So here we have the work that was done on this--clear misinformation about what happened that day and a very troubling pattern in the context of an election, where on those Sunday shows Ambassador Rice made sure to tell everyone Al Qaeda has been decimated because that was the narrative during this time period, that Al Qaeda has been decimated. So if this was a terrorist attack, that would be problematic to that narrative.

In fact, we had testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee from then-Defense Secretary Panetta. When he testified before the Armed Services Committee, he said clearly:

There was no question in my mind it was a terrorist attack.

In fact, he said:

When I appeared before the committee 3 days afterwards, I

said it was a terrorist attack.

Secretary Panetta made clear he knew from the beginning this was a terrorist attack. Yet the President, on September 12, even though the day of it he said, ``We won't tolerate any act of terror''--he is asked directly by the interviewer, Mr. Kroft from ``60 Minutes,'' ``Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack. Do you believe this was a terrorism attack?'' The President said, ``Well, it's too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans.'' The President refused then to call it what it was, what his own Secretary of Defense knew--that it was a terrorist attack--because, of course, we know the narrative at the time was that Al Qaeda had been decimated, and if it was a terrorist attack, it didn't quite fit with that narrative.

In fact, recently the President gave an interview on FOX News with Bill O'Reilly--on February 2--and this is what he said when he was asked about the attack on the consulate:

We revealed to the American people exactly what we

understood at the time. The notion that we would hide the

ball for political purposes when a week later we all said in

fact there was a terrorist attack taking place the day after

I said it was an act of terror, that wouldn't be a very good

coverup.

I guess the President, when he told Mr. O'Reilly that, forgot about the interview he had given on ``The View,'' which was almost 2 weeks after this event--13 days after it.

Almost 2 weeks later he was asked by Ms. Behar:

I heard Hillary Clinton say it was an act of terrorism. Is

it? What do you say?

Well, no act of terrorism then. He doesn't acknowledge it. He said:

We're still doing an investigation. There's no doubt that

[with] the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing

assault, that it wasn't just a mob action.

This is in the context, of course, where his Secretary of Defense said he knew right away it was an act of terrorism. In fact, he came to the Armed Services Committee 3 days after and said it was an act of terrorism. Yet, again, within a week he isn't saying it was an act of terrorism when he is directly asked if it was an act of terrorism.

In this recent interview with Mr. O'Reilly the President talked about the security at the consulate. In fact, there was a strong report recently done by the Senate Intelligence Committee on a bipartisan basis. In fact, one of the issues they raised deep concerns about is that the State Department should have increased its security posture more significantly in Benghazi based upon a deteriorating security situation on the ground and that the threat reporting on the prior attacks against westerners in Benghazi--and there were many cables leading up to this too that had been made public--warranted there was sufficient warning that security should have been increased at the consulate.

The President acknowledged that in his recent interview with Mr. O'Reilly, where he said:

In the aftermath what became clear was that the security

was lax, that not all the precautions that needed to be taken

were taken.

That is certainly confirmed by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee. So if that is the case, why is it that Ambassador Susan Rice was on the Sunday shows on September 16--she is sent on the shows to talk about what happened that day, and she responds in this fashion to this question directly and specifically asked by Chris Wallace in that interview:

He says:

Terror cells in Benghazi had carried out five attacks since

April, including . . . a bombing at the same consulate in

June. Should U.S. security have been tighter at that

consulate given the history of terror activity in Benghazi?

What is her response? Well, we obviously did have a strong security presence.

She was on several shows--ABC with Jake Tapper; she was on ``Face the Nation'' with Bob Schieffer. During the course of those interviews, she was asked about the security at the consulate, and she described the security at the consulate that day as significant and substantial. What was the basis for that? Did anyone give her information that ``security was significant, substantial and strong'' that day? Because there was absolutely no evidence of that. In fact, everything in this investigation has shown that security was absolutely lax at that consulate, unacceptably so given the prior history of intelligence at the consulate, given the prior attacks that had been made on the British and on the Red Cross, and unfortunately this really was a death trap.

So in the context of an election, why is she--and the President as well--not only pushing the video story but also saying that the consulate security was strong, it was substantial, it was significant, when there is no evidence to support that? It all goes to the contrary.

There has been a lot of discussion about the video. Ambassador Rice goes on the Sunday shows and she talks about the video. She talks about the causal effect of the video in terms of the attacks on the consulate. What she essentially says is this: This was a direct result of a heinous and offensive video which was widely disseminated and which the U.S. Government had nothing to do with and which we have made clear is reprehensible and disgusting. And we have also been very clear in saying that there is no excuse for violence, that we have condemned it in the strongest possible terms.

This ``direct result of a heinous and offensive video,'' which she said on all those Sunday shows and which the President then also talked about in the interviews: 1 week later on David Letterman; the interview, 9 days after the attack, on Univision; and the interview almost 2 weeks later on ``The View''--why are they still talking about the video?

From the beginning, I have thought the talking points were fascinating. These talking points were created for dissemination. Ambassador Susan Rice was given these talking points, she said she relied upon them, and there are serious deficiencies with these talking points.

Even so, I challenge people to find any reference to a video in these talking points. I have looked and looked, and I couldn't see the word ``video'' in these talking points anywhere. Yet we have Ambassador Susan Rice, on behalf of the administration, on September 16 on every Sunday show, talking about the video. We have the President of the United States on David Letterman 1 week later, then 9 days later, after the attack, on Univision, and almost 2 weeks later, 13 days later on ``The View'' talking about a video. Yet there isn't a reference to a video in these talking points. I have never understood. Where did the video story come from? Do you think we will ever get the answer? I think we deserve an answer to that, especially now.

Because of the recent Senate intel report, we know that the Deputy Director of the CIA, the day before Ambassador Rice first appeared on those Sunday shows to tell this story, received this email which reported that the attacks were ``not/not an escalation of protests.'' So if it is not an escalation of protests--let's look at these talking points again. These talking points do not refer to a video. We are not sure how that story got told.

Why is it that the talking points that went out say: Available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against our U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex and that they were participating in violent demonstrations. Why wasn't what they learned the day before taken into account in terms of what was represented to the American people? I think a bigger question is, How is it that the Deputy Director of the CIA can receive relevant and important information and that information never gets to the President of the United States as late as 9 days later? On September 24, on ``The View,'' he is still talking about this video. Yet it turns out the video never had anything to do with this. It really raises so many questions in terms of the tangled web of this whole situation.

I have yet to talk about what was an incredible change in these talking points, which was the removal of the reference to Al Qaeda. Before they went through various modifications, the original set of talking points talked about Al Qaeda or the potential of Al Qaeda- affiliated groups being involved in these attacks. Of course, that now has been confirmed by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report recently revealed. But at the time, the reference to Al Qaeda was removed from these talking points. It was removed from these talking points, and Ambassador Rice was free to go on the Sunday shows on September 16, and she said Al Qaeda had been decimated. Imagine if the talking points kept the reference to Al Qaeda. Do you think she would have gone on every Sunday show and said Al Qaeda had been decimated? I would hope not because it was not true that Al Qaeda had been decimated, as evidenced by the attack on our consulate.

So we still don't know who removed the reference and what happened with these talking points. But what really troubles me is the Deputy Director of the CIA, through the Senate Intelligence Committee report, received this email on September 15 which said the attacks were not an escalation of protests. He worked on these talking points. He was part of the group who actually had feedback on the talking points that went out the door. Yet somehow this wasn't included.

The Al Qaeda reference was removed, and apparently no one, even after receiving the actual eyewitness interviews of what happened on the scene, ever thought to go to the administration--the President of the United States--and correct him: By the way, we are not sure this video really pans out, that it is a demonstration and that this is a protest in response to a video. Somehow that doesn't get up the chain of command? We have big problems if this kind of information is not getting up the chain of command. Why those representations were made when there was intel that contradicted it has never been answered.

Finally, and most of all, the President said he was going to bring the individuals who committed these attacks to justice. Yet no one has been brought to justice. The families who lost loved ones deserve to have these terrorists brought to justice. And what we have seen in some of the reports--the intelligence committee itself essentially identifies that more than 1 year after the Benghazi attacks, the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks have still not been brought to justice.

The intelligence community has identified several individuals responsible for the attacks. Some of these individuals have been identified with a strong level of confidence. So why hasn't anyone been brought to justice? Why haven't we pursued this to pick up the people who committed these terrorist attacks and to hold them accountable? The victims deserve justice, and they have not seen justice. I hope we will get those who murdered our Ambassador and three other brave Americans on September 11, 2012, and bring them to justice. It is totally unacceptable that has not yet happened.

We have seen press reports of people like Abu Khattala--reported to have established Ansar al-Sharia, an Al Qaeda-affiliated group, and identified as a prior commander of this group--identified by witnesses as being there that night during the attacks on our consulate, and yet we haven't picked him up or anyone else. In fact, he is sitting at cafes, and press in the United States are able to find him, interview him, talk to him, and yet we haven't brought him or anyone else in. There have been news reports that there may be a secret warrant for him, but he hasn't been brought in. Where is the attention to this?

I have talked about this tangled web which has been woven, which is really troubling in terms of the misimpressions and misleading nature of how this has been represented to the American people. But I hope we will all focus on bringing the people who committed these terrorist attacks to justice because the victims of these terrorist attacks deserve justice.

The terrorists who committed these acts against our consulate need to know that we are coming after them and that we are going to hold them accountable. If you commit a terrorist attack against our country, you should not be in a position to be out drinking coffee in a cafe. You need to be held accountable.

We need to send a message to other terrorists: Don't mess with the United States of America, because right now they are getting the opposite message with no one being held accountable for the terrorist attacks on our consulate on September 11, 2012.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I wish to thank my colleagues, the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from Arizona, who have been relentless in finding the truth about what happened in Benghazi where our ambassador and three brave Americans were murdered.

There are so many questions, but I would start with the accountability question the Senator from South Carolina raised. No one has been held accountable. Who has been held accountable for the failures?

If we look at this intel report, it is very clear the intelligence community, according to this report, provided ample strategic warning that our people in Benghazi were at risk. There were failures, and no one has been held accountable. Why?

As I look at these talking points, the question was raised: Why was the reference to Al Qaeda removed from the talking points? Who did that in the context of a Presidential campaign? But also, take a look at these talking points. There is no reference in these talking points to a video. Look at the actual language of the talking points.

Why is it that the spokesman for the President, on September 13, is out there saying that this is a reaction to this movie? Why is it that Susan Rice, the Ambassador, is on television on multiple shows blaming the video? Not only was it absolutely wrong when she said Al Qaeda was decimated--and it was misleading, particularly the fact that Al Qaeda had been removed from the talking points, but there is no reference in the talking points to a video. So who in the administration made up the video story?

That is important for the American people to know because it wasn't just Ambassador Susan Rice who relied on the video story. It was our President of the United States who talked about the video and talked about it, frankly, after the Ambassador went on all of the Sunday shows on September 16. In fact, the President said as late as September 18 when asked--basically, he talked about the video and said: You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character--here is what happened--who had made an extremely offensive comment. So we have the President of the United States, as late as September 18, and then again on September 20--we have the President saying on Univision Network, responding to the possible involvement of Al Qaeda: Is Al Qaeda involved? Here is what we do know: That the natural protest that arose because of the outrage from the video were used by the extremists to see if they could harm U.S. interests.

Where did the video come from? Even what the intelligence community came

up with, which was deficient and which was clearly subject to political influence because it removed the reference to Al Qaeda, has no reference to a video. So I think there are a lot of questions that need to be answered.

Here is the most important question: Why has no one been brought to justice? The President, I believe it was on September 12, said: We will find out who did this, and we will bring them to justice. For those families, those victims, no one has been brought to justice. In fact, we have people such as Abu Khattala, who was a former commander of Ansar al-Shariah, who is believed to have been there that night sitting in cafes in Libya giving press interviews, and yet there is much evidence to suggest that he is likely to be involved in this, and many other terrorists, but no one has been brought to justice. So why is that? Why doesn't anyone have the curiosity not only to answer the questions of what happened that night but also to ensure that justice is done?

May I also add to that the President--we heard testimony that obviously the Secretary of Defense and others knew right away this was a terrorist attack. Let's not forget the 16-minute interview where he is asked about that on September 12, and he said it is too early to tell exactly how this came about. When he is asked directly if this is a terrorist attack, he would not identify it as a terrorist attack.

I will also add this. What is so sad about this is no one has been held accountable. The warnings were there. Not only were the warnings there from the August 16 cable that came from the embassy, from Ambassador Stevens, saying that the consulate could not withstand a coordinated attack, but what has been lost in all of this? When we talk about the New York Times trying to erase Al Qaeda from this, the day before, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the head of Al Qaeda, released a video just before September 11, 2012, just before this terrorist attack--which, by the way, occurred on September 11, of course, which should have given us a pretty direct clue that this was a terrorist attack. But al- Zawahiri issued this video acknowledging and eulogizing the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi in a drone strike and calling for terrorist attacks. Al-Libi was a Libyan who served as the second in command in Al Qaeda under Zawahiri and was a top leader in the Libyan Islamic fighting group.

Think about the evidence that was there before, not only what we didn't do to protect that consulate but the warnings that a terrorist attack was coming.

Let me ask the Senator from South Carolina this. Does anyone care that the Secretary of State claimed she knew nothing about this August 16 cable? She didn't know about these cables leading up to what had happened in Benghazi, about the warning the Red Cross left and the French left, the hole blown through the consulate, and the August 16 cable. Yet Secretary Panetta was aware of it. Chairman Dempsey was aware of it when he came before the Armed Services Committee, but the Secretary of State wasn't aware of it.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Indiana. As he said, I, as did my colleague from Indiana and my colleague from Ohio, moved to allow this bill to go forward for debate. I thought it was important that we have a debate on obviously the situation of struggling workers in our country and on the issue of whether to extend unemployment benefits for them.

I have been clear that on the pending bill if there is a way we can responsibly pay for this temporary 3-month extension to do that, I would be willing to support that--except the current bill does not have a way to pay for it--because I do not believe we should be adding to our debt, $17 trillion, and our yearly deficits in order to do this.

But let me say that I have a very commonsense amendment. It is amendment No. 2603. Let me say what it is about. My amendment fixes what is an abuse in our Tax Code. The Treasury inspector general found that individuals who are not authorized to work in this country are collecting billions of dollars in tax refunds by filing for an additional child tax credit. The disturbing part about this trend is that there has been a steady increase each year of billions of dollars collected by illegal workers seeking these refunds.

Investigations of these tax refunds have found some gross examples of fraud; examples of refunds for children, children who do not live in the United States of America; examples of fraud of many children who may not even exist. For example, in Indiana, they found four unauthorized workers claiming over 20 children who lived in a residence, fraudulently collecting tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars. They found examples of tax refund claims for children who live in Mexico, not the United States of America. In North Carolina, 1,000 tax returns were linked to 8 addresses--1,000 tax returns were linked to 8 addresses, refunding $5 million in tax refunds. Another example in North Carolina: 398 returns associated with 2 apartments--398 returns, refunding $1.9 million to workers who are not authorized to work in our country. There was no evidence that the children being claimed either lived in the United States of America or even existed, for that matter.

My amendment is very straightforward in terms of the fix. The filer of the tax return who is going to claim the additional child tax credit would have to list a Social Security number. This is the same requirement for those who claim the earned income tax credit for which you can receive a tax refund if you qualify. So it would be simply to add that same requirement.

What the Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated is that we could save $20 billion over the next 10 years simply by treating this child tax credit just like the earned filers income tax credit, that filers would have to use a Social Security number as well.

What would this $20 billion go for? With this $20 billion, we can pay for the recent cuts in the budget that were unfair, where our men and women in uniform, military retirees, were singled out for cuts to their retirement, to their cost-of-living increases, including, by the way, our wounded warriors, those who have medically retired, who got a cut to their cost-of-living increase in this recent budget. This was the only group that was singled out in

this way, those who have taken a bullet for our country, many who have done multiple tours for us in Afghanistan and Iraq, and some who have suffered horrible wounds, including those many of us have had the privilege of visiting at Walter Reed. So we can pay for and fix the military retirement cuts, as many Members on both sides of the aisle have said we have a commitment to do, because we think that was unfair.

What else can we do with this? We can also pay for the bill pending on the floor, the 3 months extension of unemployment benefits for American workers who are struggling during this period, who are trying to get back to work.

Finally, we can also take the remainder of the savings and apply it to the deficit. Again, fix tax abuse, where there has been fraud, rampant fraud found by investigations by requiring a Social Security number, such as the earned-income tax credit, and in return it is a three-for.

We can pay for the 3-month unemployment extension on this floor, we can fix the unfair cut to military retirees and to our wounded warriors, and we can help reduce our deficit.

Mr. President, let me just say I share in the comments of my colleague from Indiana and my colleague from Ohio. The three of us voted in good faith to debate this bill. I did so because I thought we should try to debate this issue; that both sides, if they had an idea about how to pay for this in a responsible way, we should bring it forward. When I hear the majority leader say I have been waiting since Monday, I filed an amendment on Tuesday. That amendment is straightforward. That amendment is one that would fix fraud in our Tax Code that came to light in 2011 in a Treasury IG report. What it would simply require is those who seek the additional child tax credit to file a Social Security number just like those who seek the earned- income tax credit in this country.

Why is that? Because the investigations of this tax refund people receive found they were claiming it for people who, No. 1, were basically not authorized to work in this country but were claiming it and, second, for children who may not even exist. Investigations found that for children who do not even live in this country. So a commonsense amendment that--by the way, would it pay for it? It would pay for 3 months of unemployment insurance for American workers and for this issue we have before this Chamber. It would pay for it to fix the military retirement cuts to the COLAs--that also impacted our wounded warriors--that were done in the most recent budget that were unfair, that Members of both sides of the aisle have come together to say we should fix and agree it is unfair.

What else would it do? It would reduce the deficit. What I hear from the majority leader is: I hear that idea. We have heard that before. You may have heard it before, but we have not been allowed a vote on it.

Are they so afraid of having a vote on something such as this that the people of New Hampshire whom I represent can't get a vote on, trying to fix this abuse in our Tax Code, on trying to solve this issue pending on the floor and to pay for it so we do not add to our $17 trillion in debt?

By the way, is it so unreasonable? I happened to sign a letter from a Member of the Democratic conference who, after the Treasury IG report was issued that I am citing, was equally as concerned as I am about this abuse in the Tax Code, in fact, described it as improper payments and said it seemed reasonable to presume that unauthorized workers were not eligible for this tax credit and called on the Commissioner of the IRS--this is a respected Member of the Democratic conference who expressed concerns about it. That Member said: ``We need to stop these unauthorized payments immediately.''

That was in 2011 and we cannot even get a vote on this? We can reasonably disagree, but the only way we can express those disagreements in this body, as my colleagues have said, is to be allowed to vote and to be able to represent our States and to get votes on amendments.

With that, I will ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment No. 2603.

Mr. President, I would say, first of all, I voted in good faith, one of six Republicans, to debate this bill to solve this problem. I cannot get a vote. If the Senator from California objects to this amendment, then why don't we vote on it? This is nothing about protecting children--unless the Senator is trying to protect children who may not exist or trying to protect children who do not live in the United States of America. This is about protecting abuse within the Tax Code which, again--I have a letter from a Member of her caucus who recognized this problem as well, based on a Treasury IG report done during this administration. This amendment is about protecting the American taxpayer, and the American taxpayer needs some protection in this body when it comes to tax fraud.

Let me say that we need to be able to have votes on behalf of our States and on behalf of the American people, and if we disagree, let's vote them down. I don't see what the issue is unless they are worried it is going to pass because it just makes too much sense.

I have a parliamentary inquiry. Is it correct that no Senator is permitted to offer an amendment to the unemployment insurance bill while the majority leader's motion to commit with instructions with further amendments is pending?

I have a further parliamentary inquiry. If a motion to table the Reid motion to commit with a further amendment is successful, would there still be Reid amendments pending that would prevent me from offering my amendment or any of my colleagues from offering their amendments which would pay for this and improve it and try to address the problems we are supposed to be debating on this floor?

I have an important amendment, and that amendment would fix the abuse within the Tax Code that has been identified by a Treasury IG report and subsequent investigations. My amendment would pay for this 3-month unemployment extension for American workers--those who are struggling to find work. It is an amendment that would fix the unfair cuts to our military retirees and

wounded warriors. I am concerned about the $17 trillion in debt and what it will do to the future of our children and this country, and this amendment would reduce the deficit as well.

I would ask for a vote on my amendment, amendment No. 2603, but in order for the Senate to consider my important amendment and amendments that my colleagues have talked about--and I hope amendments on the other side that we should be voting on--I move to table the pending Reid motion to commit with instructions, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about an amendment I will seek to offer on the pending bill, amendment No. 2603.

We all sympathize with those who are struggling to find work in a difficult economy, and I want to see people get back to work. Certainly a short-term extension for those who are relying on unemployment insurance--if it is paid for--will allow a transition for those who are out of work. What we need to do most in this Chamber is to give them an opportunity to get a good-paying job. The focus in this Chamber, most of all, needs to be on enacting progrowth policy that will encourage both small and large businesses to thrive and grow in our economy and create jobs.

I have voted today to begin debate on the legislation to provide a temporary extension of unemployment insurance. I voted to begin this debate because I believe both sides of the aisle can find a way to grant this temporary extension to those who are struggling to find work in this difficult economy while making sure we don't add to the $17 trillion of debt that also threatens our country and our economy.

I continue to believe that any temporary extension in a long-term unemployment benefit should be paid for in a responsible manner. So I have submitted an amendment, Ayotte amendment No. 2603. I think it is an amendment that makes a ton of sense.

Let me tell you what this amendment does. This amendment pays for

the 3-month extension of unemployment insurance. It fixes the unfair cut to the military cost of living that was just enacted in the budget I voted against. I felt this was unfair to those who have served in our military and were singled out for cuts to their retirement benefits, unlike anyone else, and it included, by the way, those who were retired because they had a medical retirement. In other words, those who many of us--I know the Presiding Officer has visited Walter Reed, as have I; those who have lost arms, legs--they have received a medical retirement, and their cost of living was cut under this budget as well.

So my amendment not only would pay for this temporary unemployment insurance for those who are struggling to find work, to give them a transition to get them back to work, but it would also pay to fix and reverse this unfair cut in military retirement benefits--many who, by the way, have served multiple tours for our country and have sacrificed a tremendous amount because they moved around, because they served both in Iraq and Afghanistan, on behalf of our country.

It would also give approximately $7 billion toward reducing our deficit.

The way I pay for this is to fix an egregious problem in our Tax Code. It is a problem that was identified by the Treasury IG. It is, frankly, egregious. This is a problem in our Tax Code that has allowed illegal immigrants to claim a refundable tax credit for children who should not be entitled to it--children that do not even live in the United States of America or may not even exist. Why? Because when someone claims this refundable tax credit, they do not have to include a Social Security number on their return. A Treasury IG report identified this problem.

This amendment--a simple fix that would require a Social Security number for anyone who is claiming the additional child tax credit on their tax return--is estimated to save approximately $20 billion over the next 10 years. So paying for reversing the cost-of-living increase for those who have sacrificed so much for our country, paying for a temporary unemployment insurance extension for those who are struggling to find work, and reducing our deficit by approximately $7 billion over 10 years--all three of those things are done by fixing an egregious problem in our Tax Code.

The audit of the Treasury IG in 2011 reported that individuals who are not authorized to work in the United States of America received $4.2 billion by claiming this additional child tax credit. The audit found that the payment of Federal funds through this tax benefit appears to provide an additional incentive for aliens to enter, reside, and work in the United States without authorization, which contradicts Federal law and policy to remove such incentives.

The audit was based upon an analysis of tax returns filed by persons with individual taxpayer identification numbers which are issued to individuals who are required to have a taxpayer ID number for tax purposes but are not eligible for a Social Security number because they are not authorized to work in the United States of America.

Again, this saves approximately $20 billion over the next 10 years.

Let me tell you how egregious this is. Here are some of the reports about this problem in our Tax Code. It is fraud. This is fraud we are going to fix here. This is good government. We should fix this now, regardless. This $20 billion is money that should not be going out the door over 10 years.

Here are some examples from Indiana. In fact, I just saw walk into the Chamber one of my colleagues from Indiana, Senator Coats. In Indiana, a local television station found that an undocumented worker who was interviewed at his home in southern Indiana by a reporter admitted his address was used this year to file tax returns by four other undocumented workers who do not even live there. Those four workers claimed 20 children who live in one residence, and, as a result, the IRS sent the illegal immigrants tax refunds totaling over $29,000.

The local station has found many undocumented workers are claiming tax credits for children who live in Mexico. Many children who do not even live in this country are being used by those committing fraud on the IRS to claim this tax credit.

In Indiana, a tax preparer who acted as a whistleblower to an Indiana news station said: ``We've seen sometimes 10 or 12 dependents--most times nieces and nephews--on these tax forms. The more you put on there, the more you get back.'' The whistleblower had thousands of examples.

Another example from the whistleblower: ``We've got an over $10,000 refund for nine nieces and nephews,'' he said, pointing to the words ``niece'' and ``nephew'' listed on the tax form nine separate times. ``We're getting an $11,000 refund on this tax return.'' ``There are seven nieces and nephews,'' he said, pointing to another set of documents. ``I can bring out stacks and stacks. It's just so easy, it's ridiculous.''

In North Carolina, investigators uncovered more than 1,000 tax returns linked to eight addresses in that state last May, with refunds worth more than $5 million. Investigators tied at least 17 tax returns, totaling more than $62,000 in refunds, to a Charlotte, NC, apartment one woman leased. At another apartment nearby, investigators discovered 153 returns, valued at over $700,000 in refunds.

Another address in the same apartment complex had 236 returns worth $1.1 million in refunds.

At another Charlotte apartment complex, investigators traced 398 returns to two apartments, totaling more than $1.9 million in additional child tax credits, with no guarantee that the children even existed or lived in the United States of America.

Another North Carolina woman owned a tax preparation business. A search of that business and her home turned up more returns, dozens of uncashed U.S. Treasury checks, a FedEx box containing dozens of foreign birth certificates, and a notary public stamp and signature stamp listing her as a notary. That fraud case by the IRS totaled over $5 million.

In Tennessee, a search warrant prepared by the IRS claims that a Murfreesboro, TN, tax company encouraged undocumented workers to lie on their tax returns by claiming children who live in Mexico as dependents. The IRS says that the Tennessee tax preparer has filed 6,000 tax returns over the last 3 years and although his clients only paid $3.3 million in taxes, they were able to claim more than $17 million in refunds. The refunds left the United States on the hook for $14 million.

So here is the question in this Chamber. The question is, Should we fix egregious fraud in our Tax Code, where we have people, who are not entitled to work in this country, claiming tax refunds for children, some of whom have not been determined to exist, some of whom do not even live in our country? Should we fix that in our Tax Code? Isn't that good government?

And if we fix it, we can use the pay-for, the $20 billion that the Joint Tax Committee has estimated to save over the next 10 years, to do the following: to provide for a 3 month temporary extension of unemployment insurance to those Americans who are struggling for work right now; to fix the unfair cut to our military retirees, including those who have gotten a medical retirement, those who are our wounded warriors who have been injured, many of them serving in Afghanistan and Iraq; and return $7 billion to the Treasury.

So here is the choice. Only in Washington would this be the choice: We can fix the egregious problem with the Tax Code, where there is all kinds of fraud and save billions of dollars; we can fix it for those who have sacrificed the most--the unfair cuts to their cost-of-living increase--those who have served our country admirably, and our wounded warriors; and return money to reduce the deficit or what? We can be denied a vote. I hope I will get a vote on this amendment. It is pretty outrageous if I am not granted a vote on this amendment to prevent tax fraud that needs to be fixed on behalf of the taxpayers in this country.

If I cannot get a vote to take that $20 billion to help struggling workers and to fix the unfair cuts to those who have sacrificed the most and taken the bullets for this country and also to help fix our deficit--only in Washington would that be a tough choice for anyone. How do you vote against doing that?

I really hope the majority leader will allow a vote on this commonsense

amendment that will allow us to help struggling workers without adding to the $17 trillion debt, that will allow us to say to our men and women who have sacrificed the most: We are not going to continue to target you with these unfair cuts to your cost of living, when no one else has sacrificed under this budget agreement like that--and particularly our wounded warriors--and to say to the American public: We are going to fix fraud in our Tax Code, and also take some money and apply it to the deficit.

It makes so much sense that only in Washington would I even be asking the question on the Senate floor: Will I get a vote on this commonsense amendment that allows us to do important things for the Nation and fixes egregious fraud in our Tax Code, putting taxpayer dollars to uses that they should be put to.

I end with the hope that I will get a vote on this commonsense amendment and that my colleagues will support this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from South Carolina.

I picked up an editorial this morning from the Washington Post that calls the cuts to the cost-of-living adjustments to military retirees minuscule and demeans this criticism. It calls the cuts teensy-weensy.

I don't understand why anyone would want to support a measure that singles out--in other words, under this budget agreement, the group that got the cuts to their current benefits are those who have sacrificed the most for our country. To call this minuscule or teensy- weensy--I don't think it is so minuscule, as the Senator from South Carolina said, to an E-7 who makes about $25,000 a year in retirement and will lose close to $72,000 from the time he or she retires at 40 until they are 62. That is about 3 years of their retirement. That is not minuscule in a working family.

This is not a minor situation. It is not minuscule to our veterans, those wounded warriors who have given the most, and who have, unfortunately, suffered so much.

I yield.

It does. We have all visited Walter Reed and we have all met our wounded warriors who are heroes. They have sacrificed more than we could ever ask anyone to sacrifice for our Nation. Some of them don't have arms, legs. They receive a medical retirement because of their service and their disability as a result of the service they have rendered so gravely for our country, and they get cut under this too. I don't think the cut to them is teensy-weensy or minuscule. Only in Washington would this be minimized in terms of how people are viewed as minuscule or teensy-weensy in light of the service they have given to our country. I thought this description of it was wrong and offensive and demoralizing in terms of the message it sends to our men and women in uniform.

I think the encouraging part of where we are right now is that so many in this body have come forward and said we need to fix this and recognize this does have an unfair impact on our military retirees and, of course, those who have received a medical retirement.

Whether I disagreed with my colleagues voting for the agreement, regardless of where my colleagues stand on the agreement, I think it is time for us to come together on a bipartisan basis and do the right thing and fix this on behalf of our men and women in uniform, especially our wounded warriors.

Obviously, this body realizes this is not minuscule and this is not teensy-weensy in terms of the impact on our heroes and those who have sacrificed so much for our country. I am very encouraged to see so many of my colleagues over the last couple of days coming forward with different ideas about how we can fix this and do the right thing on behalf of our men and women in uniform.

I have introduced a piece of legislation that would come up with billions of dollars for a pay-for to fix this. I know others have different ideas. But I know this: We can put politics aside. We can fix this for our men and women in uniform.

After we go home for the holidays, I think when we come back in January, this should be a No. 1 priority in this body, which is to do the right thing for our military retirees, for those who are our wounded warriors. The number of people I have seen speak out on this issue in the last few days gives me encouragement that we will be able to do this and do it quickly on their behalf, to right this wrong. Some of them are 19 years in. Maybe they have done multiple tours in Afghanistan and are thinking of retiring. We need to let them know we understand their sacrifice, we should not have singled them out, we will get this right, and that we understand that of all the people who should not have been singled out in this agreement are those who take the bullets for us and whose families have

had to go through multiple deployments.

I think about the fact that when someone has done a 20-year military career and one has had multiple deployments, the spouse can't have the same kind of career as if they were able to live in one place. They sacrifice so much because they are traveling around the world and the retirement they receive obviously recognizes that.

So as we leave for the holidays, I hope when we get back, we get this right, we take this up, we honor the service of our men and women in uniform and do what is right.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, yesterday I came to the Senate floor to discuss two amendments I had filed to the budget agreement that would have addressed an egregious part of this agreement, which is the cuts to military retiree benefits. In particular, I think the most egregious part of it is to those who have been disabled. We have all been to Walter Reed and seen and met our brave heroes, some who have lost limbs, serving our country in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet in this agreement we are cutting their cost-of-living increases for the retirement they earned on behalf of our country.

So yesterday I came to the floor to talk about what I think is an appalling part of this budget agreement, but also to say, Why can't we amend the budget agreement and fix this now?

I offered two possibilities of how we could do that with two amendments I filed on this budget agreement. I am sure others could find in the trillions of dollars CBO has said we are going to spend over the next 10 years--$47 trillion--we can find $6 billion rather than taking it from our military retirees.

What happened yesterday on the floor was there was a motion to take down the tree so we could actually amend this budget agreement and fix provisions such as that, and it was voted down. So now we have no ability to amend this budget agreement, so I cannot bring the amendments I talked about yesterday to help our military retirees and ensure they do not get singled out in this agreement, which I think is appalling and wrong.

But I also cannot bring an amendment that I also filed that addresses an issue that is very important to the State of New Hampshire. That deals with an objection I have to a particular provision in the budget agreement that would make it easier for the Senate to pass legislation requiring online retailers to become the tax collectors for the States and the rest of the Nation--this so-called Marketplace Fairness Act that the Senate passed earlier this year.

Within this budget agreement there is what is called a reserve fund that allows the chairman of the Budget Committee to bypass certain procedural limitations that are normally allowed and procedural objections you have and all Members have to these types of legislation--budgetary objections--and these procedural objections are waived when these types of reserve funds are passed.

This provision, which I fought on the Senate floor on the Senate's budget--it did eventually get passed--is included in this agreement, even though since this body passed the Marketplace Fairness Act, the House has refused to take it up. The House has wisely found that there are major objections to this piece of legislation, which would require businesses--many of these businesses around the country that we see thriving on the Internet--to become the tax collectors for the rest of the Nation.

In fact, my State of New Hampshire does not have a sales tax. What it would require is that businesses in New Hampshire--online businesses that have written to me--it would place tremendous burdens on them. They would have to become the tax collectors for nearly 10,000 tax jurisdictions in this country, trampling on New Hampshire's choice not to have a sales tax, and also putting a tremendous burden on businesses to do the jobs of the States in becoming tax collectors for the rest of the Nation.

This legislation is bad for the economy, and I think it is bad for businesses, and particularly businesses in my home State of New Hampshire. So I object to the provision, the reserve fund, that is in this budget. I have filed an amendment that would strike that provision. But, again, no amendments are going to be heard on this budget agreement because the majority leader has filled the tree and said there will be no amendments heard, no matter the merits of the amendment, no matter how important the amendments are, including amendments I talked about that impact and help address the real egregious provision that impacts our military retirees.

This is just another example of an issue that is very important to the State of New Hampshire. Were I allowed to bring my amendment forward, I would have again expressed my opposition to this reserve fund that is within this budget, that is objectionable, that makes it easier to pass future legislation, a future version of the Marketplace Fairness Act, that will put a tremendous burden on businesses in New Hampshire. It is wrong to have online businesses become the tax collectors for the Nation.

I believe we should be allowed to amend this budget agreement, to vote on these amendments, and particularly on issues that are important to our men and women in uniform, as I have described. But not only that, this issue on the remote collection of sales taxes by online businesses throughout the country is a very important issue to the State of New Hampshire--which does not have a sales tax--but not just to the State of New Hampshire, to online businesses across the country that do not and should not have to be the tax collectors for States throughout the Nation.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, would the Senator from South Carolina yield for a question?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina for his leadership on this important issue. What I want to ask the Senator is this. Some have come to this floor and said: Pass this budget agreement, and we will fix this later. Does the Senator think that is a good way to solve this problem?

Of all the people who deserve our effort, doesn't the Senator think we could stay here as long as we need to before the holidays--a little bit of inconvenience for us--to fix this? Because one thing I see from this is we are saying to our military retirees: Do not worry. Trust the politicians in Washington to fix something they voted for.

Here we are. We know the problem is here now. People yet have not had a final vote on this budget agreement. Yet they are still saying: Oh, we know the problem is there, but we are going to vote for it anyway. I do not understand this.

If you are someone who is serving our country, what kind of message does that send?

Right.

I could not agree with the Senator from South Carolina more. I heard the chairman of the Budget Committee say the fact that disabled veterans are included in this, those who have had a medical retirement--we have talked about them; we have been to Walter Reed; we have seen those who have sacrificed so much for our country and are getting a cut to their cost-of-living increase in their retirement under this agreement--that this was somehow a ``technical glitch'' or something.

If it is a technical glitch that we know is there, why are we going home before it is fixed? I do not understand it and even putting one shred of doubt in their minds that we stand with them, and that we know this problem exists in this bill, and that it can be fixed.

Right.

Right.

Let me just say, we can do the right thing. We do not have to set our expectations so low that we cannot come together and find a pay-for that is acceptable to both sides of the aisle that says what we should say to our men and women in uniform; and that is: Thank you. Thank you. God bless you. The first responsibility of our Nation is to defend our Nation and to keep it safe. Of all the things that would keep us here--would keep us here till Christmas--I think this is one of the most important things we could do for the people who go in there first for us and ensure that we have the privilege of being on this floor, have the privilege of going home and spending the holidays with our families.

So of all the things, to say that this is not possible, I think it is very possible, and we should have the will to do it for our men and women in uniform. We should have the will to do it for those who have been disabled because of their brave service in the line of duty for this country. I would hope we would rise to the very best of this body and fix this and not go home for the holidays with any uncertainty for our military retirees or our men and women in uniform of where we stand, and we stand with them.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about an issue about which I am deeply concerned.

While I certainly appreciate the work done by Congressman Ryan and Senator Murray on the recent budget agreement, in my view there is a provision in this agreement which makes it a deal breaker. That provision is, there is $6 billion taken from our current military retirees over the next 10 years from their cost-of-living increases to pay for this budget agreement.

I do not believe we have to take from the backs of our men and women in uniform to pay for more spending. I believe there are other ways we can find $6 billion in the trillions and trillions we will spend over the next decade, rather than taking it from the men and women in uniform who have sacrificed the most for our country.

What troubles me most about this particular provision of this budget agreement is our military retirees under the age of 62 were singled out. There are some changes to the contributions that Federal employees will have to make to their retirement, but those changes are only made prospectively to new hires.

Our men and women in uniform were not grandfathered under this agreement. They are the only ones singled out under the agreement to have their benefits cut.

What I find most appalling is the question we pressed and we pressed the Department of Defense for an answer to, and that is: What happens to our disabled veterans?

Many of us have been to Walter Reed. We have seen the injuries our men and women in uniform have sustained fighting on our behalf in Afghanistan. Some did multiple tours in Afghanistan and also served our country in Iraq. When you have a disability that occurs in the line of duty, you are entitled to a disability retirement, and this agreement will also cut the cost-of-living increases for our disabled veterans, which I find appalling, particularly with some of the horrific injuries too many of our men and women in uniform have sustained in defending our country and taking bullets for us all.

Under this agreement, an E-7--sergeant first class--who retires at age 40 could stand to lose $72,000 by the time he or she turns age 62. To put that in perspective, the average retirement for an E-7 is roughly $25,000. So in that period, this cut of 1 percent to their COLA could equate to $72,000. Think about the impact that has on our veterans and our men and women in uniform who have done so much for our country. Why are they being singled out in this agreement?

The other issue I wish to raise is this notion about which some have said: We have to vote for this agreement or we are going to face another government shutdown. I think that is a false choice. We may be in a rush to get home to our families for the holidays, but the notion we can't find $6 billion somewhere else on a bipartisan basis for our men and women in uniform is a false one. We can keep this government

open, we can address the budget issues, but we should not do so on the backs of our men and women in uniform singled out in this agreement.

Right now, as this agreement stands, the so-called amendment tree has been filled. That means any amendments which either side would want to offer cannot be offered right now because the majority leader has filled every part of the amendment tree, not allowing individual Members to offer amendments.

Were I allowed to offer amendments, I have filed two amendments which would address this issue for our military and have found other pay-fors to address the issue. Those are just two ideas which I came up with. I am sure if we committed in this body to working on this issue, we could quickly find $6 billion that would not be taken from the backs of our men and women in uniform and would not be taken from the backs of our disabled veterans, who have already suffered too much on behalf of our Nation. I do not believe this is too much to ask of us.

We are blessed to be in this country and blessed to enjoy the freedoms we enjoy in this country because of our men and women in uniform and what they have done to defend our Nation.

Make no mistake, a military retirement is not like any other retirement. When you retire from the military, you understand that you can be called back. You can be called back at any time. And who is most likely to be called back? Our younger veterans. In fact, since 2001, thousands of our veterans who thought they were going back into civilian life have been called back by our government to serve their Nation again. They didn't get to say yes or no. They agreed to do that even though they thought they would be retired. That is what distinguishes a military retirement from other retirements, or an average civilian retirement.

They earned this for defending our country. I believe we should fulfill our responsibility to them, and that they should not be singled out. Of all the groups to be singled out, they should not be the group to be singled out, especially after everything they have done for our Nation.

I ask that we take a few moments in this body and come up with $6 billion some other way instead of taking it from the backs of our men and women in uniform. Why don't we have an amendment process that would allow us to address this issue and allow us to fix this now?

To those who are saying: We will fix this later, that is such a Washington answer. For those who are serving our country right now in Afghanistan, what kind of comfort is that to them that we will fix this down the line after we vote on this agreement? How about fixing this now?

I ask my colleagues to fix this now on behalf of our military, the best in the world, those who have sacrificed the most for our country.

If this body is to pass this agreement, I would call on our Commander in Chief to veto this agreement. Bring us to the White House. Make the House and the Senate sit together so we can resolve this issue. As the Commander in Chief of this country, don't accept the cuts to the military and have our military retirees singled out, particularly our disabled veterans, in this agreement.

We can get this done. We can get this done before the holidays. Yes, we will suffer some personal inconvenience, but think about that. That is nothing compared to what our veterans have done for us and continue to do for us every single day in this great country.

With that, I yield the floor.