Repealing Section 403 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 - Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. AYOTTE. 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.

Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Ms. AYOTTE. Yes, I yield for a question.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair.

Does the Senator agree with me, if the budget deal had not been paid for it would never have passed?

Ms. AYOTTE. I would agree with that.

Mr. GRAHAM. Most Republicans, and I am sure some Democrats, would not have voted for a budget deal unless it was deficit-neutral and paid for. I know it wouldn't have passed the House. So now, after the fact, if you fix the COLA problem without paying for it, haven't you basically blown the budget deal apart?

Ms. AYOTTE. 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--

Mr. GRAHAM. And their response was: We can fix it later. Our response was: Well, will you pay for it later? And everybody said yes.

So here we are. I appreciate Senator Pryor and Senator Hagan from North Carolina wanting to fix it. The good news is everyone in the body wants to undo the damage done to our military retirees. That is the good news. The bad news is we are doing it in a fashion that would break the budget agreement, and I don't think that should be our choice.

In order to right a wrong done to the military retirement community--which was a $6 billion taking from them, unlike anybody else in the country--can we not find $6 billion over the next 10 years to make up for it? Because if we don't, we have broken the budget agreement and put a burden on the next generation. So, really, to help the military retiree, do you have to turn around and screw future generations by adding $6 billion of debt on top of the $16 trillion? I guess that is the question. And I would say no. That is why I appreciate the Senator's offset.

Ms. AYOTTE. 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----

Mr. GRAHAM. What is the Senator proposing here?

Ms. AYOTTE. 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.

Mr. GRAHAM. Let me see if I have this right. There is an earned income tax credit you can receive based on need; is that right?

Ms. AYOTTE. Exactly.

Mr. GRAHAM. We are not going to get it. You are not going to get it for your kids because you make too much money.

Ms. AYOTTE. Right.

Mr. GRAHAM. I think this is a Ronald Reagan idea. If you are working, even though you may not have any income tax liability, we are going to give you an earned income tax credit. I think it is $500 per child; is that right?

Ms. AYOTTE. This is the earned income we are talking about.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, I know. But under the earned income tax credit----

Ms. AYOTTE. I don't know the amount.

Mr. GRAHAM. I think it is $500. But the point is, do you have to have a Social Security number?

Ms. AYOTTE. Yes.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source