[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 43 (Friday, March 22, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2235-S2320]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONCURRENT BUDGET RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2014
Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of S.
Con. Res. 8, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 8) setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for
fiscal year 2014, revising the appropriate budgetary levels
for fiscal year 2013, and setting forth the appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal years 2015 through 2023.
Pending:
Reid (for Mikulski) amendment No. 431, to establish a
deficit-neutral reserve fund to require equal pay policies
and practices.
Reid (for Ayotte/Thune) amendment No. 158, to prohibit the
consideration of a budget resolution that includes revenue
increases while the civilian unemployment rate is above 5.5
percent, the administration's prediction for the unemployment
rate without the stimulus.
Reid (for Cruz) amendment No. 202, to establish a deficit-
neutral reserve fund to provide for the repeal of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and
Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 and to encourage
patient-centered reforms to improve health outcomes and
reduce health care costs, promoting economic growth.
Reid (for Murray) amendment No. 439, to amend the deficit-
neutral reserve fund for tax relief to provide tax relief for
low and middle-income families.
Reid (for Crapo) amendment No. 222, to establish a deficit-
neutral reserve fund to repeal the tax increases enacted
under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that
were imposed on low-and middle-income Americans.
Reid (for Shaheen/Stabenow) amendment No. 438, to establish
a deficit-neutral reserve fund to protect women's access to
health care, including primary and preventative health care,
family planning and birth control, and employer-provided
contraceptive coverage, such as was provided under the
Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148).
Schedule
Mr. REID. Mr. President, from now until 11 a.m., there will be
conversation on the floor. At 11 a.m., we will have six rollcall votes.
The first vote will be 15 minutes and after that the votes will be 10
minutes each, as we said yesterday, and I enforced it. When the time is
up, we are closing the vote. If the Republicans are not here, too bad;
if the Democrats are not here, too
[[Page S2236]]
bad. We are going to have a lot of votes today, so everyone should make
sure they are here. Understand if you are not here in time, the clerk
has been asked to turn the vote in.
After we complete the six rollcall votes starting at 11 a.m., there
will be 2 hours of debate remaining on the resolution. Therefore,
unless something untoward happens, the vote-arama is expected to begin
at 3 p.m. this afternoon. I hope everyone will understand we have had
about 400 amendments that have been filed. We are not going to vote on
400 amendments. The average is usually between 25 and 35 votes. So
everyone should understand that is about where we should wind up.
Everyone is going to be tired. The two managers have worked very hard
on this for a long time, so be considerate of their time, their
thoughts, and their efforts also.
Measure Placed on the Calendar
Mr. President, S. 649 is at the desk and due for a second reading.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by
title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 649) to ensure that all individuals who should
be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the
national instant criminal background check system and require
a background check for every firearm sale, and for other
purposes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with
respect to the bill.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection having been heard, the
measure will be placed on the calendar.
Reservation of Leader Time
Under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.
Under the previous order, the time until 11 a.m. will be equally
divided and controlled between the two managers or their designees.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wish to thank Ranking Member Sessions
once again for another good day of vigorous debate. There are clearly
some differences between us in the Senate, but all our constituents
benefit from having those views laid out and expressed clearly. I
appreciate all he is doing to help us move along as well as have the
good debate we are having.
Yesterday, the Senate did vote to reject the idea that balancing the
budget by an arbitrary date should come before middle-class families
and broad-based economic growth. Last night, the Senate voted to
continue down the path toward a truly balanced approach to tackling our
economic and fiscal challenges. It is the kind of approach that cuts
spending responsibly and calls on the wealthiest Americans and biggest
corporations to pay their fair share.
We voted on an approach that puts our economy first and foremost and
makes sure we are protecting, not threatening, our fragile economic
recovery. That is the kind of approach that is supported by the vast
majority of the American people, and the Senate stood strongly behind
that.
The Senate strongly rejected the budget that passed the House of
Representatives yesterday. Their budget would meet the goal by
balancing the budget with an arbitrary date but would do it in a way
that would be devastating for our families and the economy. It would
dismantle Medicare and end up cutting taxes for the rich while raising
them on the middle class; not only that, but it did rely on gimmicks
and tricks to hit that arbitrary date. There is nothing balanced about
that kind of approach. I am very glad every Member of the Senate had an
opportunity to be clear about where we stand on that.
The Senate also voted yesterday to specifically reject the idea that
Medicare should be dismantled or voucherized. I am glad we had strong
bipartisan support on that amendment. We also voted clearly for the
idea that while both sides favor closing tax loopholes and ending
wasteful deductions that favor the wealthiest Americans and biggest
corporations, the Senate thinks some of that revenue should be used to
tackle the deficit and invest in the middle class, not to be used to
simply cut tax rates for the rich the way the House budget did.
We have a few more hours of debate this morning between now and 11
a.m., followed by some votes, and then we will close out the debate and
move on to all the rest of the votes we will take before final passage
late tonight or early tomorrow morning.
As the majority leader said, we have hundreds of amendments. If we
were to vote on all of them, we would be here every single hour voting
between Monday and Tuesday. I think every Member knows that is probably
not going to happen. I encourage every Member of the Senate to work
with the manager on their side so we can get the amendments up sooner
rather than later and vote on the ones each side wants us to.
I urge all my colleagues to work with us and our staff to make sure
we know where the priorities are, how to proceed, and we will work with
everyone to combine similar amendments. Obviously, among those 400
amendments, there are a number that are similar. We will clear as many
noncontroversial amendments by voice vote as we can, and we will get
through as many votes as possible in a fair and reasonable manner. We
look forward to working with Senator Sessions to make sure we can do
that.
I encourage our colleagues--there is a bit more time for them to have
their say before we vote. If anyone would like to have their say, make
sure our staffs know before making any statements.
With that, I yield to my colleague, Senator Sessions.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have enjoyed working with Senator
Murray. She is a strong leader. She makes clear decisions and sticks by
them and executes them. I respect that. She has stayed within the rules
as the chair of the committee. We disagreed on a number of things. Our
vision for the financial future of America is quite different.
I understand how difficult it is to produce a budget. That is not an
easy thing to accomplish. When there is a divergent caucus, it is
particularly difficult.
Politico said the budget was written by the left of the Democratic
caucus to the left of President Obama. I think that is probably
correct. It is a very big spending, big tax budget. It is the wrong
thing for America. It is the wrong thing for economic stability. It is
the wrong kind of plan if made into law to help us grow our economy,
create jobs, create wealth, get people overtime and bonuses and pay
raises, the kind of thing we have when the economy is growing.
This budget is the wrong medicine. I have to say I strongly believe
it takes us in the wrong direction. What does it do at the bottom? It
raises taxes. It raises taxes, according to the chairman, by $1
trillion--$985 billion. That is almost $1 trillion. We think it raises
it $1.5 trillion. There is a reserve fund to make it easy to raise more
taxes. I asked the chair to close that so it could not be used to raise
taxes easily, but she declined, which continued to cause me to believe
that is an additional part. Regardless, $1 trillion in new taxes is a
huge tax increase.
In January of this year, the President got a $600 billion tax
increase on the rich. Plus there is $1 trillion in tax increase in the
President's health care bill. So we are already at $1.6 trillion in new
taxes, and there is a proposal in this budget for at least another $1
trillion. That is not healthy for the economy.
We all know when we extract more wealth out of the economy, it does
have effects. One of them is it weakens the economy and strengthens the
central government. The central government is not managing the people's
money well. We have no interest, it appears from this budget, in
listening to the American people and running their government better,
leaner, more productive, get more bang for the buck. What do we do? We
ask for more money. We haven't done anything wrong; send us more money.
I have to urge my colleagues to honestly examine what the budget
does. In addition to raising taxes, we would think that would help us.
They say they have a balanced approach. We started counting how many
times my Democratic colleagues used the word ``balance.'' I think it
suggests a guilty conscience myself because the budget in no way comes
close to balancing a
[[Page S2237]]
budget. It doesn't pretend to. It explicitly rejects it. There is not
an arbitrary date. There is not a date proposed to balance the budget.
In fact, because it makes no changes in the drivers of our debt, the
big entitlement programs, the big welfare programs, the interest on the
debt, none of those are constrained by this budget. We know the next 10
years that are outside the budget window will be even worse. They will
be on an unsustainable course, accelerating even off the course we are
on today, which is unsustainable. So I am very disappointed.
Everybody who has been involved or who has participated--whether it
is the Gang of 6 or the committee of 12, as our chairman did, the super
committee--knows that nearly 60 percent of the money the government is
now spending, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on
the debt, food stamps, those programs are out of control. They are
entitlements, which means we set up legal standards that if those
standards are met, anyone can walk into a government office and demand
the money. They have to give it to them. If they don't, they can sue
the government. I am 68 years old, I want my Social Security check. We
can't say we don't have any money.
So this is the kind of thing that needs to be fixed now. It needs to
be discussed now. Every expert who is an independent adviser to the
government has said: You guys need to get together and fix this.
So what the budget before us today says is, no, we are not going to
fix any of that. We have no plans to construct any of that. And any of
our Republican colleagues who suggest that these programs have to be
changed, we say they don't like old people. We say they don't like poor
people. We say they don't want people to have food.
That is what we say--attack, attack, attack, when everybody knows
change must occur. We know that. It is not in this budget--nothing in
the budget. So they don't change the programs within the budget. I
suggest that is not responsible. I suggest that is not a budget worthy
of a party that says they want to lead America. The great Democratic
Party is absolutely refusing to confront the great financial issues of
our time. No, we won't talk about it, and if our Republican colleagues
do, we are going to attack Paul Ryan because he has a creative,
insightful way to preserve Medicare and make it more healthy in the
future and put it on a sound path. We are going to say he is trying to
destroy Medicare.
Paul Ryan has a plan to save Medicare, bring it into the 21st
century, and make things better. It ought to be discussed openly and
fairly, not demonized. That is the level of debate we are in here.
In private when we talk to our colleagues, they say: Yes, we need to
make changes. We really do.
Well, when? And when the paper is printed, when the budget is
printed, it is not there. It is not there. So there is no reform of the
fundamental drivers of our debt.
We also know that last year we spent $750 billion on 83 government
welfare programs, means-tested programs; that is, if a person's income
is below a certain level, the government deems that person worthy of
some subsidy of some kind. Many of these 83 programs are duplicative.
There is not a coherent focus on them that endeavors to help the
people, really, other than giving them money, giving them aid. There is
not a sufficient focus in all of these programs in actually helping
that struggling mother with children who is out of work, who lost her
job, who can no longer get overtime or bonus pay, and young people who
are struggling to get up on the ladder of work and prosperity. This is
not helping them. And these programs are just temporary. We have
billions going out for unemployment insurance, food stamps, temporary
assistance to needy families, earned-income tax credit, all of these
programs.
It is time for us to begin a massive overhaul, review all of these
programs, and several things can happen. One thing that can happen is
we can make them better, and we can actually create programs that allow
each person in their time of need to get temporary assistance, to be
able to refocus their life, to move into the workforce, help them find
the training they need to get into areas that need jobs right now, and
help them move forward. But do my colleagues know what we have in our
Senate and among a lot of the Members of the House? We have a goal to
see how many more workers we can bring in without effectively helping
American workers who are unemployed.
We have an immigration policy that says we have jobs but we don't
have enough workers. That is what the businesses are telling us. We
don't have enough workers. They all ought to add--when they send us
that message, they ought to say: And by the way, you need to give more
welfare and more aid to people who don't have jobs. Now, what is the
disconnect there?
We need to be protecting American citizens who are here, out of work,
and hurting today--minorities, Blacks and Whites and all colors and
races that are hurting today with high unemployment, but we seem to be
more focused on how we can ram through this Senate a bill that would
legalize millions and create an even more robust guest worker program.
There are not enough jobs now. Give me a break.
So we are talking about $750 billion going out now for these 83
programs, projected to go up 80 percent in the next decade--the total
of those programs--go up 80 percent in the next decade. We have
calculated those numbers, and if it went up 60 percent, it would save
$1 trillion. I think we can make those programs more effective, more
helpful, and organized in a way that really advances the needs of poor
people and save $1 trillion. That ought to be our goal. We will let it
grow as much as we have to allow it grow to take care of people in
need. We are going to make sure people have their needs met in America
who are struggling out there, but at the same time, it can be done
better, and every American knows it. They will talk to us when we ask
them about it. They are uneasy about the easy money and the feeling
that this system isn't working when it comes to government assistance,
and I think they are right. I would ask my colleagues if they think
they are right. I really think so. So what does that mean? That means
we should be having hearings and doing work to fix it, which we are not
doing.
The challenge of our time is the unsustainable debt course this
country is on. The challenge of our time is for us to demonstrate that
we made the changes necessary to place this economy on a sound footing.
I believe the great minds of our time are not as smart as they think
they are. In 2001 Chairman Greenspan of the Fed came before the Budget
Committee and talked about what we were going to do when the entire
debt of the United States was paid down, and he worried we wouldn't
know what to do with the money. Of course, we were in a recession
within a few months, and now we see demographically that we are on an
unsustainable debt course. The new Fed Chairman, Mr. Bernanke, as the
Wall Street Journal documented, at the time was promoting Mr. Greenspan
to spend more money and keep losing money before the housing crisis--
just exactly the wrong advice. He didn't see it coming. So we are not
so smart around here.
I am worried about the future. What do I think responsible government
policymakers should do? They should provide a good, solid framework for
the vibrant, free market economy in this country to flourish. We can't
be the kind of off and on again faucet for money and taxes and spending
and not spending and bouncing around here trying to pass laws every few
months to meet what is perceived as the financial goal of somebody on
Wall Street at that moment. We are not able to do that.
What we should do is lay out a strong, clear policy, adhere to it,
and let the businesspeople risk their money with some ability to
ascertain what those risks are, not expecting the government to come in
and alter the situation and the rules of the game a few months down the
road. That is what we should do--create a sound framework. We are not
doing that. I am concerned about it.
Finally, this budget increases spending. It increases spending very
dramatically at a time when we don't need to be increasing spending at
this rate. We are increasing spending above the rate we are currently
set to operate by--the Budget Control Act line--
[[Page S2238]]
which allows for increasing spending every year. But this budget spends
more than that, and it raises $1 trillion in taxes, at least, and it
expends all of those new taxes, eats that up with new spending. If it
called for us to stay on the current baseline of spending, growth that
is going up, and we raised $1 trillion in taxes, we would have $1
trillion in reduced deficit over the next 10 years. But it spends more
money, and it eats up the new taxes with new spending. It really does.
This is a failed plan that has been produced by the majority party in
the Senate. When people heard this--this is what is being said to the
American people, and we all know it: The Democratic leadership is
saying, we have a budget that is balanced. What does that mean? It
means we are going to pay down the debt, but it is not all going to be
cutting spending. We are going to pay down the debt by raising taxes
and cutting spending--raise taxes $1 trillion, cut spending $1
trillion, so we have a $2 trillion reduction in the deficit. Doesn't
that sound good? That is the kind of thing the American people would
like to hear. It is not enough. We could do more, and we don't have to
do a lot more, and we will have a balanced budget.
But it doesn't do that, I say to my colleagues. It doesn't. It raises
taxes $1 trillion, but it raises spending $1 trillion. It doesn't cut
spending by $1 trillion, it raises spending. Therefore, we have no
deficit reduction at all, but we have a new $1 trillion tax.
The government is saying to the American people: We need more money.
We don't have any way to cut any spending, and if anybody proposes
there are abuses in the food stamp program or there are abuses in other
programs out there or that we are wasting money on energy loans by the
billions--Solyndra and A123s and those kinds of companies--they are
saying all of that, but we can't save any money. There is no money to
be saved. You just send us more money, and then we will pass it around,
and this will stimulate the economy.
I will conclude. I see we have some colleagues who are here. I would
just say this: The debt we have today I have become absolutely
convinced is too high. The gross debt of the United States is 104
percent of our economy. It is above our GDP, which is almost $17
trillion--that debt is almost $17 trillion now.
What we have seen from the Rogoff and Reinhart study and from recent
reports by the International Monetary Fund and a report by the European
Central Bank and a report by the Bank for International Settlements--
they all say that when debt is as high as it is today in the United
States, that begins to pull down growth.
So my colleagues claim they have a budget that will help create jobs.
I would say with all respect that we have a disagreement. Democrats
believe they can tax more and spend more and borrow more and that will
somehow create growth and prosperity. I believe we have had 4 years of
that experiment, which I fundamentally doubted and opposed from the
beginning, and it hasn't worked. We can't take a bucket of water from
one end of the pool and pour it in the other and gain from it,
especially when the bucket is going to leak--a good bit of it--in the
process.
So what I would say is that the debt now is so high--according to all
of those reports, the debt of the United States is in the zone that
they craft, that they have analyzed--when debt gets into that zone, we
lose growth. All of those reports--Rogoff and Reinhart, IMF, European
Central Bank, the Bank of International Settlements--say we are in that
zone.
So if we want to have growth, we are going to have to make our
government leaner. We are going to have to begin to get our budget
under control and balanced. And if we balance it by allowing growth to
occur at 3.4 percent, without having to cut over 10 years--but if we
allow our growth to increase at 3.4 percent instead of 5.4 percent, the
budget balances. So we don't have to slash and burn, but we do have to
get off the course we are on. It isn't easy, but that is what we are
paid to do--to be responsible.
So if we get off that course and begin to see our debt-to-GDP go
down, which a balanced budget--even over a 10-year, responsible
period--would do, then we will be able to actually honestly say we have
strengthened America, we have put us on a sound path, and we have
allowed the economy to grow again.
There is no doubt in my mind, I say to my colleagues--and I doubt in
theirs--that if the world were to see that the United States was on a
path to a balanced budget, wow, they would say: Really? This debt
spiral the United States and all of these big, fat Western nations have
been on--maybe others can do this too. Maybe this is the place to
invest our money.
I believe it would help growth, help investment, help put the country
on a sound path. I am disappointed that this budget doesn't do it.
I respect my colleagues. We had a great time in the committee. We
have had a good time on the floor. Senator Murray is a good chair. But
I guess the left of the Democratic caucus has produced a budget that
won't work. It does not meet the challenge of our time. It is deeply
disappointing. I guess there is still some chance something might
happen in conference. But from the looks of this budget, the chances
are not very great, I have to say.
Mr. President, I thank the Chair for this opportunity and yield the
floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes off the resolution to my
friend and colleague, Senator Mikulski, the chair of the Appropriations
Committee.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Coons.
I probably will not take 10 minutes, but what I will speak about is
really compelling.
Amendment No. 431
Later on during the vote-arama we will be considering my amendment
that will create a reserve fund that should we pass the Paycheck
Fairness Act, it will in no way negate the spending within our budget.
It is essentially the functional equivalent of a sense-of-the-Senate
resolution that the Senate should pass the Paycheck Fairness Act.
We talk a lot about growing the economy. The economy will grow when
people work. The people who are entering the workforce who have been
one of the driving forces for the last 30 years are women. Although we
are in the workforce full force, we are still not being paid equal pay
for equal work. It is outrageous. If you want to grow the economy, pass
paycheck fairness so we are not harassed for simply trying to find out
what our pay is and how we can get equal pay for the same job.
Women across America are worried about staying in the middle class if
they are already there or getting to the middle class if they are not
there. Nearly 50 years after passage of the Equal Pay Act, women still
get paid less than men.
This budget is a reflection of our values and priorities, and
eliminating the wage gap should be one. For years I and other
colleagues have fought for paycheck fairness. Under that act, no longer
would employers be able to retaliate against workers for sharing
information about wages. Right now, if you ask someone what they get
paid, you can get fired. This bill follows on from the famous Lilly
Ledbetter Act. Lilly herself was humiliated and harassed because she
tried to find out what she was making.
No longer will women be able to seek only backpay when they are
discriminated against. Under this bill they could also seek punitive
damages. No longer would employers be able to use almost any reason for
paying a woman less: Oh, the men do harder jobs. Oh, they have a better
education than you. In fact, the reverse is happening. Women entering
the workforce are often better educated, with more academic and trade
certifications than men who are doing it. Women are also doing hard and
dangerous jobs. We can look at what they do in the military. We can
look at them as firefighters, police officers, and prison guards.
Under the legislation I am proposing, no longer will women be on
their own in fighting for equal pay for equal work. In this country we
say: If you work hard and play by the rules, you will get ahead. We
work hard every day, but we find that the rules are different for women
than for men. Actually, the rules in many workplaces are rigged against
us.
So I would hope that we would adopt my amendment today that would
allow
[[Page S2239]]
us to be able to go forward later on in the year and pass paycheck
fairness. It is important to the women in the workplace, and it is
important to our economy.
Much is being said about being progrowth. Who is not progrowth? Of
course we want to grow our economy. If we look at the tax structure, I
believe we should reward--right now, the tax structure is tilted and
the tax breaks that we give are to reward people who make money off of
money, not people who make money off of products or the sweat of their
own brow. So I think we need to take a look at the Tax Code.
My State is an entrepreneurial-driven State. We are an innovation
economy in biotech, cyber tech, space tech. At the same time, we have
people who work hard every single day in agriculture, in poultry, in
mining, in trying to earn a living by very hard work. I believe we
should have a Tax Code that rewards it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, how many minutes are remaining on our side?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 48\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. COONS. Thank you, Mr. President.
We have heard a great deal about balance in the debates on the Senate
floor. As we move toward voting on a budget resolution, I just want to
remind all of us in this Chamber today to keep in mind that a balanced
path forward has broad support across all of America. Folks are looking
for us to take a path toward steady and responsible deficit reduction,
investing in growing our economy, investing in helping our private
sector grow good jobs, while still honoring the pledges we have made to
America's veterans, to our seniors, to those who rely on some of our
most important and most treasured Federal programs--Medicare, Medicaid,
and Social Security.
There is a sharp contrast--and that contrast will be clear and
clearer as this day goes on--between the values embedded in the Ryan
budget, passed by the House, and the budget led ably by Chairman Murray
and the Senate Democrats in the Budget Committee that will be taken up
later today. We will be considering dozens, perhaps hundreds, of
amendments that will touch on a very wide range of issues--from
paycheck fairness and gender equity, as referenced by Senator Mikulski
just a few moments ago, to issues very widely ranging--ones that I have
helped champion on the Budget Committee that would increase investment
in manufacturing, making sure that our manufacturing sector is more
competitive; ones that allow us to strengthen our R&D sector,
strengthen our education sector; ones that ensure we preserve and
protect these valued Medicare and Medicaid programs that I referenced.
More than anything, at the end of the day I think the challenge to
all of us is to help the American people understand the fundamental
difference in values reflected in these two different budgets.
I know I will be joined in just a few minutes by colleagues who are
coming to speak to that point, to help lay out for the American people
the fundamental difference between these two budgets. But if I might,
sort of at the highest level for a moment, I want to remind folks who
might be watching, folks in the Chamber, that a budget resolution is
quite different from the budgets that, Mr. President, you might have
been used to as a Governor, that others of us were used to from the
private sector or from State or county or city governments.
A budget resolution does not have every single item to be spent by
this government in great detail. As State budgets are submitted to
general assemblies or legislatures, they typically have exactly how the
State will spend its funds in the year ahead in enormous detail. This
budget resolution sets a framework. It sets sort of top-level spending
targets and then directs the committees of jurisdiction to achieve
either changes to the Tax Code in the Finance Committee or changes to
vital programs in other committees, whether Defense or HELP or others.
So when we talk often about the values embedded in a budget
resolution, that is, in part, because a budget resolution is just the
beginning of a regular order, healthy budget process. It then has to be
complemented with authorization bills and with appropriations bills.
But if you compare the budget resolution that has already been
adopted in the House, and that was rejected by a vote on the floor last
night, with the budget resolution that has come out of the Senate
Budget Committee, I think you see a few simple, stark differences. Both
budget resolutions raise a significant amount of revenue through tax
reform by closing so-called tax loopholes or cutting spending through
the Tax Code. This is spending that is not reviewed every year. This is
spending that often has been stuck into the Tax Code through the
efforts of the wealthy and well-connected powerful interests in our
country, that does not get reviewed every year. It is time for us to
look seriously at our Tax Code to make it leaner, easier to understand,
easier to enforce, more efficient, and to make our country more
competitive.
But a core question we have to address is, To what end do we put the
revenue raised through changes to our Tax Code? In the House budget
resolution, they raise, if I remember, roughly $5.7 trillion over the
10-year budget period--all of which is dedicated to reducing the tax
rates on the wealthiest Americans and on the most profitable
corporations, reducing rates on corporations and individuals.
The much smaller amount raised in our budget plan--$975 billion over
10 years, through cutting spending through the Tax Code--is dedicated
to deficit reduction.
The balanced path we have talked about--that balances reduction in
the deficit through new revenue raised by reforms to the Tax Code with
comparable spending reductions across all areas of our budget--is the
sort of balanced plan that was on the ballot, that was a critical part
of the 2012 election process, and that I frankly think the American
people have broadly embraced.
We have put forward a budget that meets the values agenda that our
Democratic Budget Committee stands behind: to invest in critical areas
of our economy, whether infrastructure, education, or R&D; to help lift
the private sector and help grow jobs again; to keep our most vital
commitments to seniors and to veterans and to those most at risk in our
society, while still making responsible, steady progress toward
reducing our crippling deficit and debt. We get the deficit down to
less than 3 percent of GDP. At the end of the 10-year period, we
stabilize our publicly held debt at 70 percent of GDP. These are the
targets broadly agreed on by every major bipartisan group that has
looked at the challenges facing the United States, our economy, and our
budget.
I will remind you that the Bowles-Simpson Commission--a bipartisan
commission--came up with a rough target of $4 trillion in savings over
a decade. This plan, this budget resolution, would achieve--in fact,
would exceed--that target in a way that has balance and, I believe, is
responsible.
I would be happy to talk further then, if I might, Mr. President,
about some of the other issues contained both within our budget
resolution and, in contrast, within the budget resolution coming over
from the House.
As a number of my colleagues have spoken about movingly on the Senate
floor in recent days, one of the most important differences is in the
future of the fundamental entitlement programs that are a part of the
progressive legacy of FDR and LBJ and that were put in place with both
Republicans and Democrats over many years, strengthening and sustaining
them. We see a fundamental difference in direction between what has
happened in the House and what we have proposed in the Senate.
To put it simply, in the House they would change Medicare from a
Federal guarantee, from a program that provides health care to millions
of Americans, to a voucher program, one where what the Federal
Government provides is not a guarantee but premium support, a voucher,
something that would shift costs onto seniors, onto States, and onto
communities. In Medicaid, in my view, even worse--because it supports
the most vulnerable in our country--they would turn it into a block
grant. This would shift more than $800 billion onto the balance sheets
of States.
[[Page S2240]]
To talk further about these important differences and the values
between the House and the Senate budgets, and to talk about its impact
on the future of the United States, I yield 7 minutes to my colleague
from the State of Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Coons.
The Senate budget resolution that we have worked so hard on would,
first, replace the harmful budget sequester, the effects of which are
only beginning to be felt in our communities--with balanced deficit
reduction. Second, it would invest in our crumbling roads, bridges, and
water infrastructure. Our engineers give our infrastructure a D-plus.
Clearly, we need to make that investment, and it would support
continued job creation and economic growth.
Despite this sensible, balanced approach, not a single Republican
supported this budget in committee. Republicans prefer to raid the
programs that the middle class depends on, while protecting the rich
and the well-connected.
A CBS News poll conducted last September shows that 78 percent of
Americans favor continuing the current guarantee of Medicare coverage
for seniors--78 percent. But the Republican budget would gut Medicare,
turning it into a voucher program for those 55 and under--basically
putting Medicare into a death spiral. And it would end the Medicare
guarantee that has been the pillar of American retirement for half a
century.
More than 3 million seniors right now save an average of $700 a year
on prescriptions because we closed the dread doughnut hole. Well, the
Republican budget throws them right back in the doughnut hole, forcing
today's seniors to pay an additional $700 a year, on average, out of
pocket.
Sixty million Americans got to college and were able to seize their
dreams because of Pell grants. The Republican plan cuts Pell grants,
dropping an estimated million students in this vital program. This Ryan
Republican plan to turn Medicare into a voucher program is so extreme
and so radical that even Republicans are speaking out against it.
Congressman David McKinley voted against the Ryan budget. He said,
``My home State of West Virginia has the highest percentage of Medicare
beneficiaries in the country, and I cannot support a plan that the
Congressional Budget Office has determined would nearly double out-of-
pocket healthcare costs for future retirees.''
Of course, former Speaker Newt Gingrich described this plan as
``right-wing social engineering.'' This Republican budget makes
enormous mystery cuts in the budget. Chairman Ryan claims he can cut
$900 billion of appropriated domestic spending over the next 10 years.
That means border security, that means the FBI, that means medical
research, that means student financial aid, that means the grants that
support our efforts to combat violence against women.
Under the extreme radical Republican budget, domestic discretionary
spending will fall to its lowest level as a share of GDP since we
started keeping track in 1962. There were not even Pell grants in 1962.
There was not even Medicare in 1962. Their future is our distant past.
Chairman Ryan would push $810 billion onto our States to shift costs
to the States for Medicaid, and find another mystery $962 billion in
unspecified entitlement grants. He boasts that the Republican budget
repeals ObamaCare but he puts all of the savings from ObamaCare in the
budget.
He cannot have it both ways. It is not even an honest budget. It is
politically, mathematically, and logically unrealistic. It is not a
balanced budget so much as magical thinking. Even if the unrealistic
program cuts in the Republican budget could be made, the plan ignores
the economic damage that would result.
We have had the austerity experience. We have had the austerity
experience in Europe. The evidence is in. Deep austerity cuts in Spain,
Greece and Portugal caused persistent double-digit unemployment and
negative growth rates. We may be impatient with our unemployment rate,
we may be impatient with our low positive growth rate, but the
countries that tried what the Republicans want to do have double-digit,
26-percent unemployment rates. Their economic growth is negative. Their
economies are shrinking.
The Wall Street Journal just reported that industrial production in
the UK after its austerity plans has fallen to its lowest level in 22
years and the country is looking at a third recession. The Republicans
who want to emulate European austerity should consider what Jeremy
Warner said in the conservative Daily Telegraph.
This is a truly desperate state of affairs. . . . We seem
to have the worst of all possible worlds, with nil growth,
some very obvious cuts in the quantity and quality of public
services, but pretty much zero progress in getting on top of
the country's debts.
That should be a warning. Not only is the Ryan Republican budget's
magical thinking unrealistic, it is unfair. It achieves 100 percent of
its deficit reduction by cutting government programs that benefit lower
and middle-income Americans, while getting nothing--not one dime--from
wealthy Americans or corporations. In fact, it would cut the high-end
tax rate for corporations and wealthy individuals. It adds more tax
breaks for the rich and well-connected, and goes after the lower and
middle-class families.
The Republican budget cuts total education and workforce training,
for instance, by an estimated 47 percent. It cuts $135 billion out of
the food stamp program, which helps feed the poorest Americans. At the
same time, if you are making over $1 million, it offers you an average
tax cut of $330,000.
For the kind of money the Ryan Republican budget wants to give to the
rich and the well-connected, they have to come after the middle class.
Chairman Ryan's tax cut would require $5.5 trillion in new revenue. To
cover that pricetag, President Clinton revealed the hard truth. I will
quote President Bill Clinton:
. . . they'll have to eliminate so many deductions, like
the ones for home mortgages and charitable giving, that
middle-class families will see their tax bills go up.
That is the promise of the Ryan Republican budget--middle-class
families will see their tax bills go up. We do not. We take 7 percent
out of that, which means we can focus on the corporate tax spending, we
can focus on the high-end deductions, on the carried interest
exception, so we do not have to go after the middle-class tax cuts.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Let me close by reading one thing. We have just
welcomed a new Pope. The Conference of Catholic Bishops had this to say
about the Ryan budget last year:
Congress faces a difficult task to balance needs and
resources and allocate burdens and sacrifices. Just
solutions, however, must require shared sacrifice by all,
including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary
military and other spending, and fairly addressing the long-
term costs of health insurance and retirement programs. The
House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral
criteria.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield up to 10 minutes
to Senator Cruz of Texas.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend from Rhode Island
for his stirring remarks and, indeed, his powerful arguments against
this Nation going down the road of Greece and Spain and much of Europe.
Those were indeed compelling statistics of 27-percent unemployment in
Greece, and negative nearly 7-percent growth in Greece. I found myself
moved looking at those statistics that all of us should act, and act
with leadership, to prevent going down that road, to stop the out-of-
control spending, the out-of-control debt that put Greece and Spain in
those circumstances.
We are right now in a situation where our Nation faces debt larger
than our entire economy, greater than 100 percent of our entire
economy. That is where the United States is right now. I would suggest
the irresponsible policies of this Congress and this administration are
why we are seeing stagnant growth. Last quarter, our
[[Page S2241]]
economy grew 0.1 percent. I found the speech of my friend from Rhode
Island quite powerful for arguing why every Member of this body should
vote against the Democratic budget that will be coming up for a vote,
because it is clear that raising taxes $1.5 trillion on top of the $1.7
trillion tax increase that has already been put in place will only
accelerate our path to where Greece and Spain and much of Europe are.
Adopting a budget that never balances in perpetuity, as sadly the
Democratic budget does, will only accelerate our path to where Greece
and Europe are. So I thank my friend for that stirring recitation.
I would note also that tomorrow is an important milestone. Tomorrow
is the 3-year anniversary of the adoption of ObamaCare. As we vote
later today, I will be introducing an amendment to establish a deficit-
neutral reserve fund to provide for the repeal of ObamaCare.
ObamaCare was passed with many promises. Yet the reality is it has
not delivered. When ObamaCare was being proposed, the President told
Americans, the average American family would see our premiums drop by
$2,500. Instead, today, the average American family has seen our
premiums rise by $3,000. That is a $5,500 difference between what was
promised and what has been delivered.
Young people in particular have been hit incredibly hard by
ObamaCare. The actuaries predict that young people trying to climb the
economic ladder could see their premiums rise anywhere between 145
percent and 189 percent.
Seniors also have been hit severely by ObamaCare. As a result of
ObamaCare, some 14 million, nearly 15 million seniors are on Medicare
Advantage. Half of them will lose their Medicare Advantage coverage as
a result of ObamaCare. Seven million seniors will lose Medicare
Advantage. I would note, a very large percentage of those are low-
income seniors, are Hispanic seniors, are African-American seniors.
Every one of us should ask, when confronted with Hispanic seniors in
our State, why is it that we are content to see 7 million seniors lose
their Medicare Advantage program. I would suggest we should not be.
Last Wednesday, all 45 Republicans stood united voting in support of
an amendment I offered to delay funding ObamaCare at least until our
economy gets growing. Our economy is stagnant right now. It is not
growing. Last quarter it was 0.8 percent. Sadly, every Democrat who
voted voted to continue implementing ObamaCare even as the economy is
gasping for breath and to risk very potentially knocking this Nation
into a recession.
I would urge this body to reconsider this decision, when so many
people are hurting, not to put the kind of impact that could send this
country backwards into a recession. ObamaCare itself includes some 20
tax increases, over $1 trillion. Many in this body talk about the
middle class. Many of those tax increases fall directly on the middle
class.
Yesterday, over 70 members of this body voted against the medical
devices tax. I celebrate that. That is a terrific recognition of the
tax burdens of ObamaCare. I hope that amendment is not simply voted on
in an aspirational sense, but that it becomes law and we repeal that
amendment. But I would suggest the medical devices industry, a critical
industry, employs a virtual army of lobbyists. The lesson yesterday
illustrated is if you are wealthy, if you are connected, if you are an
important industry with lobbyists that can get Senators to come to
cocktail parties, you too can see some of the burdens of ObamaCare
perhaps lifted from you.
But as we voted for that--I happily voted to lift that tax--it struck
me, what about the millions of small businesses that do not have
lobbyists in Washington, that do not have the ability to corral
Senators and say: It is so important that this burden not fall on me.
We respond, quite rightly, to the pleas from one power industry and yet
we ignore the pleas from the mom-and-pop shops, from the millions who
are struggling.
I will note, if you look at the Hispanic community, there are 2.3
million Hispanic small business owners in this country. Roughly one in
eight Hispanic households is a small business owner. But you know what.
They do not have lobbyists here who capture the attention of some 70
Senators. Instead, they face the costs and the burdens from ObamaCare.
I want to read to this body a couple of recent press stories
illustrating that this is not a Republican talking point or a
Democratic talking point. These are the facts. This is what is
happening under ObamaCare. The Associated Press on March 13, 2013, so
just earlier this month, reported--this is the opening line of the
story:
Some Americans could see their insurance bills double next
year as the health care overhaul laws expand coverage to
millions of people.
It goes on to say:
The biggest price hikes are expected to hit a group that
represents a relatively small slice of the insurance
population. That includes some roughly 14 million people who
buy their own insurance as opposed to being covered under
employer-sponsored plans, and to a lesser extent some
employees of smaller companies. Yet again, the impact of
ObamaCare hitting small businesses, hitting the struggling
entrepreneurs.
I would note, two-thirds of all new jobs in our economy come from
small businesses. If this body continues to make it harder for small
businesses to survive, we will continue to see 23 million Americans out
of work, because the new jobs are going to come from small businesses,
and we cannot continue to put more and more costs and burdens on them.
The Associated Press continued:
Young people who currently have low-cost coverage may see
some of the biggest hikes.
To all of the college kids right now who stood for ``hope and
change,'' to all of the young people who are coming out of school
struggling to find jobs and are not able to find jobs right now, I
would point out that what the Associated Press reported is that alone,
the ObamaCare impact could cause the premium for a 24-year-old who pays
$2,400 annually to jump $1,800. As their resumes go up, as they see
additional dollars taken out of their pockets, as they are struggling
to climb the economic ladder, I hope the young people realize the cause
for those impacts.
Just this week, the Washington Post, hardly a bastion for
conservative thought, had a major story headlined ``Health-care law
uncertainty grips Old Town Alexandria cafe--and other small
businesses.'' It explained there is a cafe in Old Town Alexandria which
employs 45 people. The owner says:
There is tremendous confusion and fear among many of my
competitors and other business owners in my network,
particularly about what you have to cover and how you have to
report.
This comment was by Hugh Joyce, owner of James River Air Conditioning
in Richmond. Continuing:
In speaking to them, I am convinced that the primary reason
we aren't seeing a robust economic recovery is the
uncertainty and costs associated with this health-care law.
This is from a small business owner saying why don't we see growth,
why don't we see the economy blooming? Because ObamaCare stays in force
and it is crippling jobs.
The Washington Post continues:
One in eight small-business owners who responded to a
survey by the National Federation of Independent Business
said their insurance providers had notified them that their
plans would be terminated. A study released last week by
Adecco, a human resources consulting firm, showed that nearly
a third of employers said they stopped hiring of cut their
workforce because of the law.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used his 10
minutes.
Mr. CRUZ. I urge ObamaCare be repealed.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. COONS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise to offer support for an amendment
I will be offering, No. 198, which establishes a deficit-neutral
reserve fund to protect the benefits of disabled veterans and their
survivors, which may or may not include CPI.
This amendment is supported by the American Legion, which is the
largest veterans organization in our country, AARP, the Veterans of
Foreign Wars, AFL-CIO, Disabled American Veterans, National Committee
to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, Gold Star Wives, and Alliance
for Retired Americans. This amendment is supported by every veterans
organization, every major
[[Page S2242]]
senior organization, 12 million workers in the AFL-CIO, every
disability organization, and the National Organization for Women.
Why are they all supporting this amendment? They understand at a time
when millions and millions of veterans are struggling to keep their
heads above water economically, when we have millions of seniors today
who are having a difficult time purchasing the prescription drug they
need, food they need, and the ability to heat their homes, it is cruel
and immoral to turn our backs on veterans and seniors to make
disastrous cuts for the benefits of disabled veterans and for seniors.
Under the chained CPI, a disabled veteran who started receiving
disability benefits at age 30 would have their benefits cut by more
than $1,400 at age 25, $2,300 at age 55, and $3,200 at age 65.
Memorial Day is coming. I know many of my colleagues around the
country will give speeches to veterans and tell veterans how much they
support and respect the sacrifices they have made. It is time to go
beyond fine rhetoric and fine speeches if we are serious about
protecting the needs of veterans. Now is the time to stand tall. They
have protected us. Now our job is to protect them. It is wrong to
balance the budget on the backs of disabled veterans, pure and simple.
What the chained CPI would do to seniors on Social Security is
equally bad. In my State we have many seniors--and I daresay in Maine
as well--who this winter wonder how they will find the money they need
to heat their homes and to purchase the prescription drugs they need.
Many of them are living on $13,000, $14,000 or $15,000 a year on Social
Security benefits. The chained CPI would say to them, if you are 65
today, by the time you are 75, your benefits would be cut by some $650
a year. By the time you are 85, your benefits would be cut by $1,000 a
year.
I will offer another amendment above and beyond the chained CPI,
which makes the point every single year we are losing tens and tens of
billions of dollars. The largest corporations in this country are
putting their money in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda and paying zero--
zero--in Federal income tax. One out of four profitable major
corporations pays nothing in Federal income tax, including some of the
Wall Street firms we bailed out a few years ago.
What this whole debate is about is how do we go forward with deficit
reduction in a way which is fair, a way which is moral, and a way which
calls for good economic policy. I would argue when some of the largest
corporations in America pay zero in Federal income taxes, before we cut
Social Security and benefits for disabled veterans, ask those people to
start paying their fair share of taxes.
We are in a horrendous recession. Real unemployment is over 14
percent, counting those who have given up looking for work and are
working part-time. Median family income since 1999 has gone down by
$5,000.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SANDERS. Let us not balance the budget on the backs of the most
vulnerable people in our country.
I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Whitehouse to my amendment No.
198.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. COONS. If I might, I simply wanted to reassure those who might be
watching in the Chamber the Democratic budget and resolution which is
pending on the floor reflects some of our most fundamental values and
makes responsible progress toward reducing our deficit. We have already
done more than $2.4 trillion toward deficit reduction since the time
the Bowles-Simpson Commission suggested an overall target in reduction
of $4 trillion in Federal spending. With this additional $1.85
trillion, we will get to about $4.25 trillion. We are making
responsible progress.
As my colleague from Vermont and many others have come to the floor
and spoken about, we need to do this in a way which still keeps our
commitments to America's seniors, America's veterans, and the most low-
income and vulnerable in our communities. We need to do it in a way
which both stabilizes our deficit and debt, makes critical investments
in growing our economy, and preserves the core of the programs on which
Americans rely.
This is not just about numbers, it is also about values. It is also
about priorities.
If I might, before I yield to the full committee chair, I wish to say
I am grateful to Chairman Murray for everything she has done to bring
us to this point. In the 3 years in which I have served in the Senate
as a member of the Budget Committee, we have not had a budget
resolution on this floor.
The very difficult and very long process we are about to go through
may be a reminder of how challenging legislative compromise can be. It
is my hope we may engage in a thorough and vigorous debate and yet by
the end of this legislative day we will have a budget out of the
Senate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. As we consider the budget which is before us today, I
would call my colleagues' attention to the fact that the Democratic
budget, the Murray budget, was voted down in the House of
Representatives 2 days ago by 107 votes. One-fifth of the Democrats,
one out of five, 20 percent, voted against this budget. No Republicans
voted for it.
This may be because, as Politico said, ``to win over her caucus,
Murray begins from the left of Obama himself.'' With regard to
independent evaluations of the budget, the United States USA Today
editorial on March 15 said this:
The plan produced by the Senate Budget Committee Chair,
Patty Murray, D-Wash, is a disappointing document. It is a
namby-pamby plan that underwhelms at every turn.
The Murray budget neither balances the budget nor reigns in
entitlements.
It would help the Nation's Democrats if they were to embrace the goal
of a Ryan budget.
This is the view of USA Today, the largest print in the country.
The Washington Post said on March 15: ``This document, gives voters
no reason to believe that Democrats have a viable plan for--or even a
responsible public assessment of--the country's long-term fiscal
predicament.''
The Wall Street Journal, Investment Business Daily, The Hill, all of
these have comments in somewhat the same vein.
What is our problem? Our problem is spending.
People say: Sessions, this is just what Republicans say, and we say
it is not taxing the rich enough.
There is a fundamental issue about spending. I dealt with and asked
questions of Mr. Elmendorf, our CBO Director, on this very subject. It
went to this point: Colleagues, we need to understand it. The American
people need to understand it. Taxes, whatever rate they are, tend to
grow with the economy. If the economy is going up 2 percent, more
people make a little more money and taxes tend to go up 2 percent.
If the economy is growing at 2 percent and your spending is going up
5.4 percent, then you have a problem. You could raise taxes.
I asked Mr. Elmendorf about this. Even though we had a trillion-
dollar deficit last year, a 1,000-plus billion-dollar deficit last
year--unbelievable debt--almost 35 percent of the money we spent last
year was borrowed. We will pay interest on that for decades to come.
There is no plan to pay it down in any significant way.
I asked Mr. Elmendorf, if we raise taxes, instead of $650 billion as
we did in January, if we raised them enough to balance the budget,
would we stay in balance.
He acknowledged, if the economy continues to grow at 2 percent and
growth of spending is at 5 percent, we will immediately be back into a
problem area.
In one sense, this is the very definition of unsustainability. This
is the very definition of the problem we have that spending is growing
faster than the economy. It cannot maintain itself at that rate.
We can spend, and we can say we have a balanced plan, a balanced
program, a balanced approach, as my colleagues have done. They know
this budget never balances, not in 1 year, not in 10 years, not in 50
years. It will become worse in the second 10 years. It absolutely will
be worse.
[[Page S2243]]
This is the path which, as Senator Cruz just indicated, Greece,
Spain, and Italy have followed. This is why they are in trouble.
My colleagues say the economy isn't growing well, and it is not. We
had virtually zero growth last quarter, zero. We are supposed to be
moving out of the recession. As I pointed out last night, the CBO, for
the last several years, has been predicting 4 percent growth but not
this year. After missing about 2 percentage points for the last several
years, they are predicting low growth this year.
What do our colleagues say? They say they have a balanced approach.
They keep stating this.
I grew up in the country, where I went to a great little school.
There were 30 in my senior class. I am proud of my classmates. My
classmate is now president of the University of Alabama--out of our
little class.
I know what a balanced approach means. It means nothing. A balanced
approach is an unaccountable statement. It provides no ability for the
American people to ascertain whether we are doing anything they promise
because they don't promise anything. We promised a balanced approach.
What does that mean?
Does it mean we raise taxes and cut spending by the same amount, $1
trillion each or does it mean we raise taxes by $1 trillion and raise
spending by $1 trillion? They want us to believe they raise taxes by $1
trillion, they cut spending $1 trillion, and reduce the deficit $2
trillion. That is what they are suggesting to the American people. They
are using the word ``balance'' and they hope people will hear it and
think this means we have a balanced budget. They know they do not have
a balanced budget. They won't tell the American people they do not have
one, they just use the word. But it is not in their document.
Where and when do we hold people accountable in this Senate for an
accurate statement of legislation? It is wrong. We have counted so
far--this is pretty incredible--I think they have used the word
``balance'' 191 times. Does that reflect a guilty conscience or
something, that they want people to think we have a balanced budget? We
think we have a plan to get to a balanced budget. Oh, we have a
balanced approach. But what does that mean? It means zero. The American
people need to know this plan has no vision for America and it
misrepresents what it does.
I know it is hard to write a budget with the Democratic Conference,
which Politico says is being written from the left--by President Obama
himself. I think that is probably accurate. The President's plan is
irresponsible also. He has no real plan to do any of this, and he has
publicly stated he does not think a balanced budget is important.
May I ask the Chair--we are moving along here, and I know there are
other speakers coming, probably on both sides--to clarify our time
situation and what the status is?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama has 17
minutes remaining and the Senator from Washington has 25 minutes 50
seconds remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. All right, fair enough.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am very proud of the balance we have
put forward in our budget that makes sure all Americans in this country
participate in solving the great crisis in front of us in terms of
managing our debt and deficit. We are doing exactly what the American
people have asked us to do--making sure that everyone participates.
To me, as someone who has been involved for a long time in taking
care of my own family and my community, balance is an important word,
and I am very proud of the balance we put into this in terms of the
American public.
Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to speak to amendment No. 202 by
Senator Cruz, which we will be voting on shortly.
The Senator from Texas informed us that the amendment would repeal
the Affordable Care Act. Well, that approach has already been rejected
by the electorate, I would just reference, in the last election. Also,
we have had more than 35 separate votes in the Congress about that and
we have always upheld the Affordable Care Act. But I want to focus
Senators' attention on something that is in the Cruz amendment that
they may not know.
When we passed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of
2010, not only did it contain the health care portion of it, but it
also had a portion in there on education. What we did was to stop that
old system of subsidizing banks for student loans and changed it into a
direct loan program.
That was about a $61 billion transfer from the banks getting these
risk-free government subsidies to basically putting it in so that
students could get more of the money. So under that provision, for
example, $36 billion of those savings went to increasing the Pell
grants. So now we have a higher Pell grant award and it is indexed to
the rising cost of living.
The Cruz amendment--maybe the Senator didn't understand it when he
drafted it--in the drafting of it, does away with that. So if my
colleagues vote for the Cruz amendment, they are, in fact, voting to
cut Pell grants. Go back and tell your colleges and universities that.
You may not know that, but that is what is in that Cruz amendment.
Also, $2.55 billion went to investments in historically Black
colleges and universities serving minority students. That would be cut
out with the Cruz amendment. Another $2 billion went to community
colleges, and that would be cut out by the Cruz amendment.
So it is not just the Affordable Care Act, folks, that is being cut
or done away with by the Cruz amendment but all of the things we did to
bolster education for minority students and for disadvantaged students,
and in raising the Pell grants. I would ask my colleagues to talk to
their private colleges, talk to their universities in their States and
see what they think about this. See what they think about cutting down
on the Pell grants. That would be the exact result of passing the Cruz
amendment.
There is one other thing we did in that portion of the reconciliation
bill. We also put in place a more generous income-based repayment
system so that students who graduate from college can base their
repayment on a smaller portion of their discretionary income. We capped
it. We capped the student loan repayment to 10 percent of discretionary
income so that when students get out and get a job, they only have to
pay a maximum of 10 percent of their discretionary income to repay
their student loans. That would be done away with in the Cruz
amendment. I wanted to point that out. Maybe the Senator didn't realize
it when he drafted the amendment, but that is the way it is drafted and
that is the way the vote will occur. So if my colleagues think they are
just voting to do away with the Affordable Care Act, look again at the
amendment. It is not just that, it is education funding also. So I
wanted to point that out.
We are going to hear a lot about a lot of bad amendments coming up
today, but this is truly a very bad amendment. Maybe it should have
been drafted differently to accomplish what the Senator from Texas
wanted. If that was a clean vote on doing away with the Affordable Care
Act, fine, if he wants to do that, but the way it is drafted it cuts
Pell grants, assistance for community colleges, and all the things we
did to help students get a higher education in this country. I wanted
to let Senators know that.
If I have at least 30 seconds or 60 seconds left, Mr. President.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am happy to yield 3 additional minutes
to the Senator from Iowa.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I invite all Senators, before we start
voting today, to read the Washington Post this morning, the front-page
story: ``On Montana Reservation, Cuts Hit Hard.'' It talks about the
Fort Peck reservation and what is going to happen there to these
students and these families on this reservation. Please read it.
Please.
How can we be so cruel? How can we be so heartless? How can we be so
immune from understanding the impact
[[Page S2244]]
of the sequester and what is happening to poor kids? This is one
classic example.
As one teacher there said: You know, if you have a lot and you cut 5
percent, that is not much. But when you don't have anything, cutting 5
percent really hurts.
The article talks about how much they are going to lose in their Head
Start Program, how many students are going to lose because they do not
have support systems on the reservation. It tears your heart out to
read this.
I think about the kind of votes we are going to be having today and
the impact of those votes on these kids and these families on this
reservation. They have no place else to turn. They have no place else
to turn. It is not as though they have property taxes on the
reservation. They do not have that. They do not have businesses there.
They do not have anything. But you know what I would like most of all
for colleagues to know? One person was quoted as saying: This is not
something we are giving our Native Americans, this is something we owe
them. This is something we owe them. Read your history--all the land we
took from them. Helping them on reservations is not a gift. We owe them
this. And now we are pulling the rug out from underneath them.
Read about this young girl whose mother committed suicide and her
father is in a drug treatment program in Minnesota. She is 15 years old
and she is trying to make it, yet we are telling her--basically, with
our votes here and with this sequester--we don't care. I ask people to
read that before we start voting today and let your conscience be your
guide.
With that, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Iowa for
his long-time passion for young people in this country. As chair of the
Education and Health Committee, he has committed his time to making
sure those who are least among us have opportunity in this country.
That is so important. He has spoken eloquently against the Cruz
amendment, reminding all of us that amendment isn't just about
repealing health care but actually taking away the ability for students
to be able to go to college on Pell grants and student loans.
I would not be standing in front of us today if our country hadn't
invested in me way back to give me the ability to go to college on
student loans and Pell grants. So I want to thank him, on behalf of a
very grateful country, for his long-time work on this. And as we all
know, the Senator will be retiring. We will miss his voice, but his
passion will always remain here.
With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. SESSIONS. I do have some remarks, and we will be having some
speakers, who I think are on the way.
Mrs. MURRAY. I withhold my request.
I thank the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Well, the Ryan budget is not going to get rid of Pell
grants. Is that the level of debate we have degenerated to here? The
Ryan budget says we are not going to try to balance the budget too
quickly. We are going to do it over 10 years. We will reach a balance.
We have calculated--and it is not disputed--that you can increase
spending every year 3.4 percent and the budget will balance. You don't
have to cut spending. When they talk about cuts, they are talking about
reducing the projected rate of growth, and that is why we are going
broke. That is why this country is losing its moorings. We have defined
cutting spending as reducing the rate of growth.
You cannot sustain 5-percent growth--5.4-percent growth--when your
economy is growing at 2 percent. And the experts tell us we are at a
new normal and we are not going to see 5-percent growth in the future--
not likely. We might have a year or two of it. Bill Gross and his group
at PIMCO, the great bond company, coined the phrase ``the new normal,''
and the new normal is that a mature economy such as ours, with an aging
population, is not going to sustain some of the 9- and 10-percent
growth rates that new and developing nations that are down here can
achieve. I think that is probably something we have to accommodate, but
we need to have policies that create as much growth as possible. That
is absolutely true.
We had no growth last quarter--zero. The Congressional Budget Office
has been predicting 3- and 4-percent growth the last 3 years. It is not
there. It is not happening. The reason it is not happening is we have
too much debt. The studies of the European Central Bank, the
International Monetary Fund, the Bank of International Settlements, and
the magnificent ``This Time It's Different'' by Rogoff and Reinhart
demonstrate that statistically, empirically, when nations have this
high a debt--we are at 104 percent of GDP, and Rogoff and Reinhart used
the gross debt of America, which is almost $17 trillion now, comparing
the gross debt to the size of our economy--that the debt we are
carrying is larger than our economy and we have to pay interest on
that.
There are a lot of other ramifications and instabilities and concerns
that ripple through businesses and foreign investors who are going to
create jobs in America, but all sorts of people lose confidence in the
country when the debt reaches that high. They say, from their studies
of over 200 years of every country that has gone into fiscal crisis,
that the debt began to pull them down. They conclude--these Harvard
professors--that we could lose 1 to 2 percent of growth.
We are not growing. This is the slowest recovery from a recession
since World War II, and I don't think this debt has been recognized in
and of itself as a detriment to the economy. But what do our colleagues
say the answer is? Tax more on the economy and borrow more. Don't
reduce our debt. Get the sugar high now, as Mr. Gross at PIMCO said.
All this borrowing and spending creates a sugar high and you have a
hangover later.
This is so simple. You can't create something from nothing. You know,
Julie Andrews had that great, great song in the ``Sound of Music,''
``Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could.''
I met a man in Evergreen, AL, in a townhall meeting, who said: My
daddy always said that you cannot borrow your way out of debt.
We need to listen to that kind of logic. I don't know who these
people are who say that Paul Krugman said we can borrow, borrow,
borrow. The other day, he said he didn't care--even if the Defense
Department had a wasteful program. He said that we should not cut those
programs. How ridiculous is that? I think that kind of thinking is the
drive behind this budget, that we have to keep spending even if we keep
running up the debt and somehow that is going to make America better
and create economic growth.
I am worried about our working people. They are not doing well. Wages
have not gone up in a decade. They are slipping below inflation. It is
an absolute fact that has happened. The smart people in high-tech
companies are doing well. A lot of them are making money. There are
certain sectors of the economy that are doing well, but the economy
itself is not moving, and I believe the net reason is revealed in the
Rogoff-Reinhart analysis, which says that higher debt pulls down
growth. So we have to do what families do and States have done and
cities have done, and that is to tighten our belts a little bit.
We are proud of the food stamp program, also known as the SNAP
program, but we find that it has all kinds of fraud and abuse in it,
and it needs to be tightened up. I reject the idea that it is bad for
the economy or will hurt people who are legitimately in need of food.
We have not done anything like that since the 1996 welfare reform. We
need to be doing that throughout the government.
One of the ways to create economic growth is to make American
Government more productive and lean. Wouldn't that help? Let's ask this
question: Is Mr. Krugman right? Should the government just spend
regardless of whether the program is any good? Shouldn't we say to
ourselves: Isn't it clear without any real dispute that if our
government spent its money on things that are productive for America,
this would make America stronger? We have to eliminate every single
wasteful program. We don't have a single dollar to waste.
[[Page S2245]]
Our colleagues here are saying to the American people that there is
nothing wrong. Our government is fine. We cannot cut any program. If we
do, we will deny kids the right to go to college.
There is no reason Pell grants have to be salvaged, but maybe they
need to be constricted a little bit. Maybe there are some abuses in
those programs.
The growth of spending can increase every year at 3.4 percent. We are
not required to damage, savage, or devastate the American economy to
get the budget balanced. I appreciate the opportunity to share these
remarks. I really believe the budget process is a bit messy and
frustrating, but it is a good one. It has allowed us all to talk
honestly about the great choices we face.
I am pleased to see Senator Thune, a supporter of the leadership on
the Republican side, an outstanding Senator and longtime member of the
Budget Committee who has been engaged in the financial issues of our
time for quite a number of years.
I yield to Senator Thune at this time.
Mr. THUNE. If I might, I thank the distinguished ranking member of
the Budget Committee for yielding, and I will pose a question to the
Senator, if I might.
I heard Senator Sessions say earlier and put up a chart which
suggested that the term ``balanced'' had been used 191 times by the
other side in the course of this debate. Is that correct?
Mr. SESSIONS. That is correct. We probably missed a few.
Mr. THUNE. That may be an incomplete count, but nevertheless the
Senator and his staff counted 191 times where the word ``balanced'' has
been used. As the Senator from Alabama very fittingly pointed out,
there is nothing balanced about this budget. In fact, this budget
doesn't balance in 10 years; it doesn't ever balance.
The other thing I would suggest to my colleague from Alabama is that
in the course of the debate, it has become clear to me--and I think
clear to anybody who has been observing this--that the so-called
balanced approach they advocate is anything but balanced.
We have a $1.5 trillion tax increase. We have a spending increase
that is at 62 percent over the course of the next decade--a net
spending increase notwithstanding their assertions that somehow this is
a reduction in spending. The whole idea that this is ``a balanced
approach'' strikes me as a big charade. I think that is what this
entire budget is. That is why all the editorial pages across the
country, including those from newspapers that are not considered the
least bit conservative--many of us in the Chamber who are on this side
of the aisle expect most of the newspapers around the country and their
editorial pages to attack Republicans and Republican budgets--have
absolutely eviscerated in their editorial comments the budget that has
been put forth by the Senate Democrats. I think it is simply because it
is anything but balanced.
When they used the word ``balanced'' 191 times on the floor of the
Senate with regard to this debate, if we think about the ``balanced
approach'' they talk about--even when we were dealing with the fiscal
cliff, they talked about a balanced approach, but there was no balance
there. It was all tax increases. There was a $620 billion tax increase.
Over the course of the President's first term, we got a $1 trillion tax
increase with ObamaCare. If we add those together with some other tax
increases that have been added on, we are at $1.7 trillion in new
taxes--or new revenues, as they say.
We want balance. Well, we have $1.7 trillion in new revenue already,
and then they are talking about another $1.5 trillion in taxes. Really?
Where is the balance in that? This is all about raising taxes and
growing government at the expense of the economy.
I say to my colleague from Alabama, we are going to vote on an
amendment pretty soon by the Senator from New Hampshire, Ms. Ayotte,
that raises a point of order against any tax increase that would occur
until the unemployment rates gets back down to 5.5 percent, which is
what the President and White House said in 2009 would be the
unemployment rate by now without the stimulus. It is hard to imagine
that after spending $1 trillion that was borrowed from our children and
grandchildren to ``stimulate the economy'' and still having an
unemployment rate that hovers around 8 percent, they would be talking
about yet more taxes when we know that raising taxes does nothing but
hurt the economy and hurt job growth.
If the real goal is to get deficits and debt under control--my
colleague from Alabama shares my view--the best way to do that is to
expand the economy. We need to have people working again, investing,
and paying taxes. We don't need less revenue, we need more revenue in
order to have a growing economy. That is what we should have before us.
This budget does the opposite. It adds $7.3 trillion to the Federal
debt and raises $1.5 trillion in new taxes on top of the $1.7 trillion
tax increases we have already seen in the last 4 years under this
administration. This is a completely wrongheaded approach, which is why
it is not just the Republicans in this Chamber who are saying that, it
is the so-called independent folks out there in the media who say it on
their editorial pages. They are calling it what it is. It is a charade.
There is nothing about this exercise we are going through here on the
Senate floor this week that will solve the Nation's fiscal problems or
get people back to work or get this economy growing again. I say that
in terms of a budget. The budget is supposed to confront harsh
realities, and it is supposed to set a vision and blueprint and pathway
for the future.
If this is their pathway--ignoring the problems and sweeping them
under the carpet--as far as the long-term structural challenges we face
with regard to Social Security and Medicare, this does nothing to
protect those programs. It does nothing. There is no reform in here.
There is not anything in here that prolongs the programs that people
rely on today that are headed toward bankruptcy. At the end of this
decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, that is going to
represent 91 percent of all Federal spending. Think about that--91
percent of all Federal spending will be composed of mandatory programs.
Only 9 percent of the entire budget will be left over to pay interest
on the debt, national security, and all the other discretionary things
the government funds.
This budget does nothing to address the long-term structural fiscal
imbalances that face this country. Yet it relies on the same old tried-
and-failed policy: Well, let's just raise taxes a little more. It will
be a tax increase on the rich because Lord knows we are the defenders
of the middle class.
Let me tell the middle class in this country, they cannot raise taxes
enough on the rich to do all the things they want to do in the form of
growing government and increasing spending. This is going to hit and
penetrate middle-income Americans. Middle-class families are going to
get hit with higher taxes because the appetite to spend on the other
side is endless. It just goes on and on and on, and we are not doing
anything to address that.
We have a spending problem in this country, not a revenue problem or
a tax problem. It isn't that we spend too little or that we tax too
little, it is that we spend too much, and that is what we need to
address in this budget. That is where this budget falls terribly short.
It is an incredible disappointment to finally--after 4 years--have a
budget on the floor of the Senate that is inadequate to the future of
America and relies on the same old failed policy that raises taxes and
hurts economic growth and hurts job creation.
We are still hovering at 8 percent unemployment. In the last 4 years,
we have added $6 trillion to the Federal debt. We have a sluggish
economy that is growing at 1.5 to 2 percent, and for the 4-year average
it has been less than 4 percent. The 60-year historical average is 3.3
percent economic growth. If we got back to the normal economic growth
pattern average over the last 60 years, these fiscal challenges we face
would be so much smaller by comparison simply because a growing economy
helps address all of these problems we are talking about today.
Unfortunately, the budget we have before us doesn't focus on growing
the economy; rather, it focuses on growing the government, and that is
where it falls so miserably short.
It is really unfortunate that is the vote we are going to have today.
Many of the amendments we are going to vote on are an attempt to
improve it. I
[[Page S2246]]
hope that the Ayotte amendment will pass and that the tax increases
included in this budget--that the point of order will be approved and
will deny any tax increase until we get the unemployment rate back down
to 5.5 percent. That is where it should be. If we have a growing
economy, it would be closer to that number.
I support the good efforts of my colleague from Alabama. He has been
here on the floor for many, many hours over the last couple of days
doing yeoman's work by pointing out the shortcomings in this budget
that we are considering before the Senate. The Senator from Alabama has
laid out a very different vision for how we can solve these problems.
It is really ironic. I am sure this is-- The ACTING PRESIDENT pro
tempore. The minority time has expired.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I yield back our time so our colleagues
have an opportunity to use the term ``balanced'' a few more times
before this debate concludes.
I yield the floor.
Children's Budget
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized to engage in a
colloquy with my good friend from Washington, the chairman of the
Budget Committee, Senator Murray.
I want to commend the chairman's tireless efforts on this budget
resolution. She has done the yeomen's work in crafting a document that
reflects the values of our caucus in a balanced and pragmatic way. This
stands in sharp contrast to the polarizing and ideologically driven
budget our friends in the House passed earlier this week. As you know I
have introduced legislation in the last three Congresses to create what
I call the ``children's budget.'' This bill would require that the
executive branch agencies include in their annual budget request to
Congress a detailed analysis on children's programs. This analysis
would include a breakdown of the appropriations, spending levels, and
obligational authority and outlays for each program specifically
targeted towards children or that serve children as a major component
of their mission. Importantly, this would include an analysis not only
of the fiscal year for which the budget request is being made, but also
the previous and current fiscal years, to provide the Budget Committees
and the Appropriations Committees with a comprehensive look at how
funding is affecting the youngest Americans.
I have filed an amendment to this concurrent resolution that seeks to
address this very issue by encouraging the Appropriations Committees to
request the analysis of children's programs contingent on the agencies'
funding. However, I understand through conversations with the Senate
Parliamentarian and others that indicate such an amendment might not
comport with the strict requirements and procedures of a budget
resolution. Is this the chairman's understanding as well?
Mrs. MURRAY. I want to thank my friend from New Jersey on his
previous work to highlight how our budget impacts children and on his
efforts to do so again today. I agree with him that it is important
that we have a full accounting of how the Federal Government serves
children throughout our Nation. However, my friend is correct, and due
to the strict procedural guidelines of the budget resolution an
amendment that is primarily focused on executive branch agencies falls
outside the scope of a concurrent resolution such as the one we are
debating today. However, I want to assure my friend that I will work
closely with him to find a path forward on the children's budget and
achieve our shared goal of ensuring that the government is doing its
best to efficiently and effectively serve our Nation's children.
Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today to seek support for an
amendment to the budget resolution that would discourage aerial
surveillance of farms by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Last year, we learned that EPA had been conducting aerial flyovers of
livestock operations in Nebraska, Iowa, and other states. Needless to
say, farmers and ranchers were not excited about EPA flying over their
operations and taking pictures of their farms and homes, which are
often the same thing. I tried to get straight answers from EPA about
what they were doing, but they were never willing to be forthcoming
about this program.
In an age when satellite imagery allows us to see the cars parked in
our driveways, one might be tempted to ask, what's the big deal? Well,
the problem is EPA's recent track record on agriculture and what they
may do with this information. In spite of several high profile outreach
events to farmers, I continually hear about EPA's dismissive attitude
towards the people who work hard every day to put food on the plates of
millions of people.
Some members of this Administration and the media have mocked us farm
state Senators for ``crying over spilled milk'' and fretting about
``phantom dust rules.'' But we were not using these fears to whip up
farmers into an anti-EPA frenzy. Yes these rules were far-fetched, but
what had farmers justifiably worried was that EPA was actually
considering them.
It took months and several votes before EPA backed off on its attempt
to regulate milk spills like oil spills. It's the same story on farm
dust. Harvesting crops and driving down country roads is dusty work,
especially when we have persistent drought like much of the country is
in now.
But EPA still took months to decide that it would not regulate dust.
Internal policy documents at EPA recommended that particulate matter
standards be revised to include coarse particulate matter, also known
as dust. We should have had a final answer from EPA right away that
they would not regulate dust, but it took the threat of legislation to
force their hand.
And that's just the low-hanging fruit. I've heard many stories of
overly aggressive enforcement by EPA where they don't even need new
regulations. Regulated entities can find themselves slapped with
multiple fines with a time-consuming appeal process, in spite of their
best efforts to comply with the numerous regulations we place on them.
The last EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, said that her biggest
regret was her poor relationship with rural America. Well, that was
certainly frustrating to me as well. But she found an odd way of
expressing that regret. In the waning days of her tenure, she released
private information on thousands of farms to several environmentalist
groups.
It's no secret that environmental groups based in New York,
Philadelphia, and San Francisco don't always get along with farmers and
ranchers in states like Nebraska. These groups do not regulate
pollution. Congress has not told EPA to release information to them.
Their only interest in agriculture is in radically reinventing crop
and livestock production based on idealistic notions and not on the
reality of what it takes to feed the world. Why EPA decided it was
prudent to release farmers' and ranchers' personal information to these
groups is beyond me.
Is it really any wonder why farmers and ranchers don't believe EPA
supports agriculture? They don't trust EPA . . . and they sure don't
want them doing low-altitude surveillance flights over their private
property.
These concerns are bipartisan--last year we voted on an amendment to
stop this surveillance and it received fifty-six votes from members of
both parties. Yet, EPA has not been forthcoming about this program and
has never been willing to answer basic questions about the number of
flights they conduct.
In fact, we never received any information from EPA headquarters--
only from a regional office--despite multiple requests. The public
deserves open and honest information about the agency's use of aerial
surveillance across the country.
So, until EPA takes a more common-sense, transparent approach, we
need to stop the EPA's aerial surveillance of our agricultural
operations that has raised significant privacy concerns. This amendment
does that, yet it does not hinder the use of traditional on-site
inspections to ensure our waterways are clean.
I ask my Colleagues to support this amendment.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire, Ms.
Ayotte, has filed Senate amendment No. 161, which reinforces the
current requirement for the Department of Defense to be fully
financially auditable by the year 2017. I fully support the
[[Page S2247]]
amendment and have joined as a co-sponsor, as auditability is an
important step to managing a budget, especially one in the hundreds of
billions of dollars.
I wish to clarify, however, that the amendment should not be seen as
superseding existing requirements for agencies within the Intelligence
Community, including those in the Department of Defense, to be fully
auditable by 2016. The Select Committee on Intelligence, which I chair,
has been pushing the intelligence community for years to improve its
auditability, and I am pleased to say that recently there has been
significant progress in this area. We will continue to conduct
oversight and ensure that agencies have the tools and resources they
need to be fully auditable by 2016, notwithstanding the 2017 date for
auditability by the rest of the Defense Department.
The Intelligence Committee staff has confirmed with Senator Ayotte's
office that this is the Senator's understanding and intent with the
amendment as well.
Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment No. 136,
which creates a prohibition on funding for the Medium Extended Air
Defense System, MEADS.
This amendment is consistent with the House Appropriations, House
Armed Services, and Senate Armed Services Committee positions to stop
wasting taxpayer dollars on this bloated, inefficient program the
Department of Defense doesn't even intend to buy.
In February 2010, the Department of Defense stated in a memo, which
is available online, that the program has ``encountered significant
schedule and cost overruns since its inception in the 1990s.''
I want to stress that we have been investing in this system since the
1990s and it hasn't delivered. Billions and billions of dollars have
been wasted.
As far as I can tell, more than two decades later, all we have bought
with those billions is full page ads in newspapers that Senators and
staff read asking us to give more money to the program.
It's time we stopped wasting valuable dollars on programs which do
nothing for Americans, nothing for the warfighter and nothing to
promote our national security.
This is simple really. The amendment places a prohibition on further
funds for the program.
So I ask my colleagues, do you want to eliminate wasteful spending or
not?
Do you want to support warfighter needs or Pentagon pork?
Do you really want to keep paying China for our debt because the
Pentagon won't stop sinking money in a program that has no value to our
troops when they are facing real threats overseas?
Working with my colleague, Senator Kelly Ayotte, we made a law in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 prohibiting
funds from being spent on the program.
It's imperative we send a message to the Pentagon we won't tolerate
more requests for fancy pictures in Capitol Hill newspapers. Our
military needs equipment to help them defeat the enemy and equipment to
protect them. Not pictures and power point slides two decades later.
I want to commend Senator Ayotte's efforts on the floor the last
couple of weeks to stop wasteful spending on this ``missile to
nowhere''--as she calls it.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the
amendment.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I want to commend the majority for
finally allowing us to have this debate. This is the first time since I
was elected to the Senate that we will have the opportunity to vote on
a Senate budget resolution. The budget they produced is far from what
our country needs, but the fact that we are having this debate today is
a very positive step in the right direction.
Passing a budget is the basic principle of a government. For too long
now, Washington has been operating without one. The American people
don't have this luxury. Arkansans ask me, almost daily, how we can
spend money we don't have because they can't. They are forced to live
within their means while Washington isn't. So I am pleased to see we
are putting an end to this unacceptable trend.
Unfortunately, this budget plan falls far short of what we need to
get our fiscal house in order and get our economy back on track.
At a time when we need to put Americans back to work, the majority
has offered a budget that makes jobs disappear. At a time when we need
to cut spending, the majority's proposal increases spending by 62
percent over the next decade. At a time when we need comprehensive
reform to ease the tax burden hard-working Americans face, the majority
raises taxes another $1.5 trillion. And at a time when we need to be
paying down the national debt, the majority's budget adds another 7.3
trillion to it.
I can tell you what the people of Arkansas think about this budget.
Our State is required to balance its budget. Every year, the
legislators who serve in Little Rock have to make the difficult
decisions that come with that obligation. They make it work. Washington
can too.
We need to stop looking to the Federal Government to solve all our
problems. The majority's budget proposal not only perpetuates the myth
that big government is the answer, but it doubles down on it. It is
time to empower the American people by passing a budget that is a
blueprint for economic growth and prosperity, rather than bureaucratic
growth and massive debt.
Focusing on a progrowth budget is the only way we will speed up the
slowest economic recovery since World War II. We aren't going to get
there by continuing to do the status quo. It hasn't worked.
I don't say all of this to cast doubt on anyone's intentions. I
believe everyone in this Chamber is working for what they believe is in
the best interest of the American people. We all want to save future
generations from the burden of debt; create an environment where the
economy can grow; protect our entitlement programs for future
generations; and create a fair tax system that allows every American to
keep more of his or her hard-earned money.
These are all admirable goals. I believe they are goals every one of
my colleagues would like to accomplish. And the good news is that they
are achievable.
If we balance the budget now, we save future generations from the
burden of debt.
If we pursue policies that focus on growing the private sector
economy, we can create rising wages and better jobs.
If we address the looming crisis with our entitlement programs, we
can protect Social Security and Medicare for our children and
grandchildren.
If we enact comprehensive tax reform, we can ensure that every
American keeps more of his or her hard-earned money and help small
businesses grow.
It all starts with a responsible budget. While I am pleased we are
going to have a vote on a Senate-created budget, it fails on too many
levels to warrant passage. I urge my colleagues to reject the
majority's budget and focus our efforts on one that will help us
accomplish our mutual goals.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, a federal budget outlines our priorities
as a Nation. On both sides of the aisle, we should be able to agree: We
need to be wise about our Federal investments. We should be investing
in what works--in what gives us the biggest bang for our buck.
For decades, study after study has shown what parents already know--
that quality early education is foundational for success in school and
life. Quality early education can help kids enter kindergarten ready to
learn and avoid falling behind. Later in life, kids with quality early
learning are more likely to avoid crime or teen pregnancy. They
graduate high school and college, avoid poverty, earn more income, and
pay more taxes. That is more revenue for our long-term fiscal picture.
We want to cut unnecessary public spending? Kids with preschool are
less likely to need public services--from assistance for needy families
. . . to prisons.
For a generation, long-term studies have found that investing $1 in
quality early learning brings a return on investment of between $2 and
$17 after a generation. In Hawaii, a study for Good Beginnings Alliance
found we would get $4.20 for every dollar invested. Nobel prize winning
economist Jim Heckman did the math over a full lifetime. He estimates
an average 7 to 10
[[Page S2248]]
percent return on investment per year. In the private sector, business
leaders would do anything for a return like that.
On Wall Street, you can't get a long-term return like that in the
stock market. So it makes sense that business and financial leaders
support quality early learning, from the Hawaii Business Roundtable to
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, to leading CEOs, who know that
to train tomorrow's workers we must start early.
Law enforcement officials know that quality early learning helps
prevent kids from falling behind, dropping out of high school, or
getting involved in crime. Military generals and admirals have stressed
the importance of quality early education as a national security issue.
Today 75 percent of Americans age 17 to 24 are ineligible for military
service due to poor education, physical unfitness or involvement with
crime. Quality early learning helps kids get on the right path--before
they fall behind. Parents know the high cost of childcare is difficult
to afford. But parents want more than just safety and supervision for
their children. Parents want their children to be prepared
academically, socially, and emotionally for success in school and in
life.
Teachers and school administrators know firsthand that their students
who come to kindergarten with quality preschool are more likely to
succeed. We have special education professionals and advocates for
students with disabilities. They know quality early learning can
identify disabilities early and bring intervention to get kids on track
with their peers. That can save billions of dollars in more expensive
special education services down the line.
In our States, Governors from both red States and blue States know
this is important. In Hawaii we have Governor Abercrombie. In
Massachussetts we have Deval Patrick. But also in Louisiana, Governor
Bobby Jindal is pushing for quality early education. In Georgia,
Govemor Nathan Deal is pushing for quality early education. In Alabama,
Governor Bob Bentley is pushing for quality early education. Oklahoma
is a bright red State and they have been doing quality early education
for years.
In February, President Obama called for new support for quality early
learning. This is the first time we have ever seen this in a State of
the Union Address. States are asking their leaders in Congress to act.
Today's Senate budget has a deficit-neutral reserve fund for early
childhood education.
Here is what that means. It means let's find a way to pass
legislation in this Congress. One of the best investments we can make
long-term that does NOT hurt our deficit in the next 10 years. Let's
invest in what works: high-quality pre-K for low-income children; high-
quality childcare for working families; and high-quality home visiting
programs serving low-income mothers-to-be and low-income families.
This helps get poor children the health and social services they need
before it is too late.
Patty Murray has been working to strengthen quality early education
for a long time. She was a mom in tennis shoes. She was a preschool
teacher. In the 1980s, she organized 13,000 parents to save a
Washington State preschool program. I thank Patty for her work on this
issue in the budget. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
work with us on early childhood education in this budget and in this
Congress. It is one of the best things we can do for our long-term
economic health and for our children.
amendment no. 430
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for years many of the largest U.S.
multinational corporations have been exploiting offshore tax haven
loopholes in the U.S. Tax Code to avoid paying billions in U.S.
corporate income tax.
According to a recent Bloomberg report analyzing publicly available
U.S. corporate financial data, ``Eighty-three U.S. companies have
stockpiled $1.43 trillion in untaxed profits in foreign countries.''
According to the same report, ``THE six biggest U.S. drug-makers
avoided paying $7.05 billion in U.S. taxes last year by shifting their
profits overseas,'' nearly doubling ``the amount they saved using the
same strategy 10 years earlier.''
It is time for Congress to close the special interest loopholes that
allow sophisticated multinational corporations to defer U.S. income tax
through various foreign tax sheltering techniques and offshore tax
havens. Senator Levin's amendment No. 430 supports legislation to end
the abuse of offshore tax shelters. I am cosponsoring this amendment to
begin the process of closing the egregious loopholes.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I support budgets that make tough but
necessary spending reductions, save our safety net programs, and
preserve our commitment to protecting Americans and our interests at
home and abroad.
Facing our current debt disaster, there should be no sacred cows in
the Federal budget. If there is waste, it should be eliminated. If
government dependency is depressing individual initiative, we must
reform those programs. Where important and valid programs are destined
for bankruptcy, we must save them.
Senator Paul deserves lots of praise for taking our debt problem
seriously and coming up with a plan to solve it. While there are many
objectives I support in his budget--including the repeal of ObamaCare
and Dodd-Frank, allowing the Keystone Pipeline to move forward, and
bringing our regulations under control through the REINS Act--I could
not support it tonight.
One of the most solemn promises I made to Floridians was to work to
save Social Security without implementing personal accounts, which
would actually make it harder to get the programs finances in order.
This budget plan calls for Social Security personal accounts, something
I do not support.
On national security issues, we also can't walk away from our
commitments abroad, which this budget would do by drastically reducing
the size and scope of the U.S. military by ending agreements with
foreign partners, closing many overseas installations, and bringing
troops home from Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Military reductions
would also result from a policy of attrition, a concerning factor
because it means we would not be not be replacing the officer corps
that leads our brave men and women.
Whereas the current fiscal year 13 budget for the Defense Department
is $614 billion, this budget would be $546 billion, with $554 billion
in fiscal year 14--figures that would further strain readiness and
impair force projection.
Especially during this dangerous time when our enemies would be
emboldened to see us abandon our allies around the world, I cannot
support a budget that would make the world less safe place because the
U.S. defense capabilities and our ability to influence events around
the world are diminished.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the Senate will vote this evening on an
amendment offered by Senator Durbin to establish a deficit-neutral
reserve fund supporting legislation that would allow States to enforce
State and local use sales tax laws. I will vote in support of this
amendment because I believe it is important to levy sales taxes fairly
and consistently and because States, especially those currently facing
budgetary challenges, need to have the tools necessary to collect
revenues that are lawfully due. With that said, my support for this
amendment should not be mistaken as support for any specific
legislative proposal, including the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013,
S. 336. I look forward to working with Senators Durbin and Enzi, the
leaders of this effort, in the months ahead to craft a legislative
proposal that meets these goals without unduly burdening small
businesses or States, such as New York, that already have a system for
collecting sales taxes from online retailers.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as we consider the budget resolution,
laying out a blueprint for how we invest in our Nation's priorities, I
urge my colleagues to support my amendment creating a deficit-neutral
reserve fund to allow for the growth of the National Institutes of
Health, NIH.
We all have benefited from medical innovations and cures supported by
the NIH. If you have ever faced the diagnosis of an illness in your
family and turned to the doctor to ask: ``Is there a cure? Is there a
treatment?'' then you understand the importance of NIH research for
your family. Great medical care is only as good as the science behind
it. Drugs and devices work only as well as our understanding of the
medical condition we are treating. NIH
[[Page S2249]]
support has established the U.S. as a global leader in medical
innovations that save lives, and we are on the verge of so many life-
changing discoveries.
We all remember the 1980s as the AIDS epidemic gripped our country
and the world with a disease that was at that time a death sentence.
But now thanks to drugs created with NIH support, people with HIV can
live a long, productive life into old age. Ironically, the same week
that sequestration took effect, a groundbreaking medical discovery
supported by NIH was made in AIDS research. A 2-year old baby in
Mississippi born with HIV may be the first child to be functionally
cured of the disease after receiving a cocktail of drugs. This study
was supported by the NIH, and NIH played a key role in the development
of the drugs used to treat the toddler.
Our country is rich with promising research just like this and rich
with bright minds, curious scientists, and innovative labs engaged in
work that will lead to a cure for AIDS and treatments for diseases like
cancer and Alzheimer's. But cuts to NIH could curb the promise of these
medical discoveries.
The medical advancements for which we owe our thanks to NIH are many.
Thanks to NIH-supported research, the likelihood that a child with
leukemia will survive for 5 years is now 90 percent. And 152 new FDA-
approved drugs and vaccines have been discovered with NIH support over
the last 40 years. Just 2 weeks ago, I talked with a researcher at the
University of Illinois Chicago who credited NIH-supported research that
created a blockbuster new drug to treat HIV.
NIH-led research developed beta blockers, a commonly used drug to
treat high blood pressure. And thanks to these drugs, fewer people are
hospitalized for cardiovascular disease, saving lives and also saving
costs to Medicare and the Federal Government of $6,000 per patient.
Investments from NIH in the Human Genome Project opened the door to
countless medical discoveries and cures and generated $796 billion in
economic output--a return on investment of $141 for every $1. A
promising NIH-supported project at the University of Pittsburg School
of Medicine is working to allow people with paralysis to move a
mechanical arm with their minds. Imagine how this innovation could
improve the lives of people paralyzed from a stroke and servicemembers
with spinal injuries.
I would like to share the experience of Stevie Conti, a 25-year-old
woman from Deerfield, IL, who has cystic fibrosis, a rare disease that
impacts about 30,000 people in the U.S. Stevie loves cooking and
hanging out with friends. Her twin sister says she is the last to
complain about anything, including her health. Thanks to investments
from the NIH, tremendous scientific breakthroughs in genetic mapping
and drugs are improving the lives of people with cystic fibrosis. A
little over a year ago, FDA approved a groundbreaking new drug, called
Kalydeco, which is the first drug to treat the genetic cause of cystic
fibrosis in some people.
Since Stevie started taking Kalydeco her health has improved by leaps
and bounds, and she is able to do simple things that many of us take
for granted. She has gained 10 pounds and can run a mile without
coughing or feeling short of breath. Stevie has landed her dream job
and is able to work 40 hours a week without feeling tired and still has
enough energy to hang out with friends after work. Stevie says this
drug has changed her life. NIH-supported research and scientists are
helping people, like Stevie, live healthier, more productive lives.
Right now, when so much good research is showing us the way forward, we
should be doubling down on biomedical research and infrastructure.
Due to several years of flat funding and cuts, the current NIH budget
is insufficient to fund all of the critical research that needs to be
done. Due to cuts to NIH funding and the failure to keep up with rising
research costs, the number of research grants funded by NIH has
declined every year since 2004. In 2012, NIH funded 3,100 fewer grants
than in 2004. Cutting back on biomedical research is a shortsighted act
that undermines everything we are trying to do for this country.
Medical research saves lives, keeps America's place as a leader in
science and medicine, and generates economic growth. Every State and
the District of Columbia receive NIH funding. These awards go to
universities, businesses, and research centers--engines of growth for
local economies.
Not only is NIH dealing with years of insufficient funding, on March
1 sequestration went into effect imposing mindless, across-the-board
cuts for critical, federally supported programs like defense,
education, aviation safety, and scientific research. This is a
manufactured crisis that never should have happened. We need to reduce
our deficit in a thoughtful and sensitive way, but sequestration is a
hatchet approach that cuts from vital programs that protect our Nation
and economic growth. A $1.6 billion cut to the NIH, due to
sequestration, will cause 20,000 jobs to be lost. A cut of this
magnitude will have a ripple effect that will hurt every State in our
Union.
Last year, Illinois received $746 million in NIH funding.
Sequestration would cause Illinois to lose $38 million. That translates
to 700 fewer jobs, less innovation, and a slowdown of economic growth
in my State. Our country is just starting to recover from a recession.
We cannot afford a mindless cut that will lay off hard-working people
and stall economic growth.
Every $1 in NIH funding stimulates $2.21 in business activity that
develops around research, such as biotech companies that provide
supplies, food services and restaurants, building construction, and
hiring support staff. As research projects slow and then stop, the
companies that provide equipment and supplies and the construction
projects to expand research facilities also slow and then stop. Some
U.S.-based companies that provide lab supplies to researchers expect
that a cut to NIH will cause a drop in sales and slow down production
lines forcing companies to close sites and lay off workers.
Dr. Francis Collins, the Director of the NIH, says there is no
question that sequestration will slow the development of an influenza
vaccine and our progress with cancer research.
Eli Zerhouni, the head of NIH under President George W. Bush, says:
We are going to maim our innovation capabilities if you do
these abrupt deep cuts at NIH. It will impact science for
generations to come.
Insufficient funding and cuts to NIH will force the agency to not
award some grants. And it may need to reduce awards that have already
been announced. Research and clinical trials that have already started
are less likely to be given funding to continue, so promising projects
will be terminated, suspended or forced to lay off workers.
I would like to share the story of Dr. Teresa Woodruff, a researcher
and professor at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine.
Dr. Woodruff is leading one of the first major studies on the impact of
superfund environmental toxins on reproductive health. Her work could
help us understand the health risks of certain chemicals and how
pollutants enter the human body. The Monday after sequestration took
effect, Dr. Woodruff was delighted to learn that the NIH had awarded
funding for her research, but disappointed to learn that--due to
sequestration--the grant was cut by more than half.
Dr. Woodruff is thankful for the NIH funding, but this cut means she
will have to drop key parts of her research, like studying the impact
of toxins on men and children and how pollutants end up in the food we
eat. Because of the drastic cut in funding, Dr. Woodruff will not hire
new people and will have fewer training slots to teach the next
generation of scientists. Dr. Woodruff's experience is being played out
across the country as promising researchers are forced to stall
clinical trials and lay off support staff.
The percent of NIH grants being awarded since the 1960s has dropped
significantly. Currently, less than one in every five grants to the NIH
is awarded funding. The primary reason for this decline is insufficient
funding. Less funding will result in fewer grants being awarded, and
the group of researchers most impacted by this cut is young
researchers. Once we add the $1.6 billion cut due to sequestration, we
risk losing a new generation of scientists in our Nation.
Less funding means fewer academic grants to educate young scientists.
[[Page S2250]]
And more competition for grants makes it difficult for young scientists
to win funding and dissuades new scientists from pursuing careers in
research. When and if NIH funding eventually increases, projects will
struggle to find and train talented scientists who will make tomorrow's
discoveries.
For over a century, NIH-supported scientists have led the way for
important breakthroughs to improve health and save lives through
discoveries--discoveries such as development of the MRI, extending the
life expectancy of people with cystic fibrosis, revolutionizing our
thinking about cancer, and creating vaccines.
Two weeks ago, I received a letter from a man named Andrew Young from
Vernon Hills, IL. His 16-year-old sister Emily has a rare disease
called Friedreich's Ataxia, a rare disease that makes it hard to
perform basic motor functions like walk, write, and speak. Most young
people with FA need to use a cane or wheelchair by their teens. Emily's
world was turned upside down in 2008 when she was diagnosed with FA,
but she refuses to let it define her. She wants to go to college and
practice medicine and hopes for a cure one day.
Now is not the time to disinvest in NIH and close the door to finding
cures for people like Emily. Disinvestment in NIH would be a
shortsighted act that risks forfeiting the U.S.'s position as a leader
in biomedical research and reaping the economic and biomedical rewards
of scientific research. These cuts don't make sense for--patients,
local economies, or our Nation.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to ensure our
country creates and benefits from the life-changing medical discoveries
supported by the National Institutes of Health.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of
organizations that support my amendment.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Organization That Support the Durbin-Moran NIH Amendment
Research!America
American Lung Association
American Heart Association
United for Medical Research
FASEB (Federation of American Societies for Experimental
Biology)
American Society of Transplantation (AST)
The Endocrine Society
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Inc.
Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC)
American Association for Cancer Research
Association of Minority Health Professions Schools
Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America
Digestive Disease National Coalition
Dystonia Medical Research Foundation
GBS/CIDP Foundation International
International Foundation for Functional Gastrointestinal
Disorders
Interstitial Cystitis Association
Joint Advocacy Coalition
National Alopecia Areata Foundation
National Kidney Foundation
National Marfan Foundation
NephCure Foundation
Pulmonary Hypertension Association
Scleroderma Foundation
Sleep Research Society
US Hereditary Angioedema Association.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority has 17 minutes.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New
Hampshire and 7 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, the chairman of the Budget Committee has
done an excellent job. While I appreciate the comments of my colleague
from South Dakota, I actually think that in order to deal with the
budget challenges facing the country, we have to look at both revenues
and spending.
One of the areas of spending that have been the most problematic has
been health care costs. It has been one of the fastest growing costs
for the Federal Government, and what we have to do is look at how we
can lower the health care costs.
The amendment I proposed that we are going to vote on this morning,
amendment No. 438, is one that actually reduces health care costs.
In the 3 years since the Affordable Care Act was passed, women's
access to affordable health care has improved. Women now have access to
a wide range of preventive services, such as well-women appointments,
screenings for cancer, diabetes, HIV, and counseling for domestic
violence. All women now have access to contraceptive coverage for free
through their insurance plans. Ninety-nine percent of women report that
they have used birth control at some point in their lives, and access
to birth control is directly linked to the decline in maternal and
infant mortality. I think that is a really important message we need to
get across to people. There is a direct connection between access to
birth control and maternal and infant mortality. Access to birth
control can also reduce the risk of ovarian cancer. It is linked to
overall good health outcomes.
Sadly, the United States has one of the highest rates of unintended
pregnancies in the industrialized world, and preventing unintended
pregnancies just makes fiscal sense. Studies have found that medical
services to women who experience unintended pregnancies and to infants
who are born as a result of such pregnancies can cost taxpayers up to
$12 billion a year.
My State of New Hampshire has one of the lowest teen birth rates in
the country. As Governor, I was proud to sign a law that required
health care plans to cover contraception. It was a law that passed with
overwhelming bipartisan support in our legislature. The fact is that
accessible family planning matters, and it can make a difference.
Despite the research which shows that investments in women's health
make sense, we continue to see efforts to deprive women from receiving
the most basic of care.
The amendment I am going to be offering this morning will protect
women's access to primary and preventive health care, to family
planning, and to birth control. At the most basic level, this amendment
ensures that a woman's family planning decisions are ones she makes
with her doctor and her family, and that they are not dictated by
government or by her employer.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Thank you. So I hope my colleagues will support the
amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota has requested
10 minutes, and I yield to him 10 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the budget we are
proposing. It has three basic guiding principles: First, we must
protect our fragile economic recovery by creating jobs and investing in
economic growth.
I remember when we did this during the Clinton administration.
President Clinton proposed as a deficit reduction package raising
income taxes on those who earned above $250,000 at 39.6 percent. Every
Republican voted against it, and many of them went on record saying it
was going to cause a recession. Some Members of this body voted against
it saying it was going to cause a recession and it would be Clinton's
recession. So 22.7 million jobs later there was no deficit. We had a
surplus.
This idea we hear from the other side that every time we raise taxes
we hurt the economy just defies history. All we have to do is look at
recent history, and especially now, at a time when there is a growing
disparity in income in our country.
What we are trying to do is to promote growth. We promote growth by
investing in that which creates growth. We know what they are. One is
education. We are going to cut Pell grants? When my wife was 18 months
old her father died in a car accident. He was a decorated World War II
vet, leaving her mom widowed at age 29, with 5 kids, four girls and a
boy. The boy, my brother-in-law, went into the Coast Guard and he did
20 years in the Coast Guard and he still works for the Coast Guard. He
is an electrical engineer in the Coast Guard. He is the second most
important man in my son's life. My son was able to get a master's
degree in mechanical engineering from MIT.
My three sisters-in-law and Franni went to college on Pell grants and
scholarships. At that time the full Pell grant paid for 85 percent of a
public
[[Page S2251]]
college education. Now it pays for less than 35 percent. The Presiding
Officer knows, because my mother-in-law ended up going to the
University of Maine. But the Presiding Officer knows that today, kids
who go to the University of Maine have debt. All of us know our kids,
our students have debt. In Minnesota the average debt is $29,000.
My wife's family lived on Social Security survivor benefits. My
mother-in-law went to college on the GI bill. She got a loan on the GI
bill. She became a teacher, teaching title I kids--because of Social
Security, because of the GI bill. My wife's family was able to just
barely get by. They barely made it. Sometimes there wasn't enough food
on the table. Sometimes they turned the phone off, but they made it.
We have people now--they all made it into the middle class. The
ladder was there. We are trying to preserve that. They tell us to pull
ourselves up by our boot straps in this country. Sometimes people just
need the boots first. The government gave my wife's family the boots,
and they are all productive members of our society because of programs.
We had a hearing in the HELP Committee, and we had a witness whom the
Republicans called, and he testified about what creates the middle
class. They called a witness who was from the American Enterprise
Institute. They are good people at the American Enterprise Institute.
The witness's testimony ended with the idea that government can create
jobs is a myth. So when it got to my turn to question him, I said: Have
you heard of the Erie Canal? He had. The Erie Canal opened the Midwest
to Europe. It made shipping our timber and our agricultural goods 97
percent more efficient. I asked him if he had heard of the Interstate
Highway System. He had. I asked him if he understood that we were on C-
SPAN, as we are right now, the Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network.
I asked him if he knew who put up the first satellites; it was the
Defense Department.
I noted that he had gone to the University of California at San
Diego. I asked him if any of his professors had helped him at all. He
said they had. He got his doctorate at UCLA. I asked him if he had
heard of the Internet. He had.
By the end of my questioning, he said: To say that the government
can't create jobs would be absurd. It started with the idea that
government can create jobs is a myth, and he ended his testimony with
saying: To say the government can't create jobs would be absurd. There
was a 180-degree difference except he added absurdity. So he injected
it. That is what I used to do. I used to identify absurdity.
There is absurd stuff going on and being said here. We are hearing
things cited that have been disproved so many times.
The budget we are proposing today is based on three guiding
principles. First, we must protect our fragile economic recovery by
creating jobs and investing in economic growth. Second, we must tackle
our deficits in a responsible way. And finally, we need to honor the
promises we have made to our seniors, our veterans, and our middle
class families. This budget does all of those things--and in doing so,
it reflects our values and our priorities. In contrast, the budget
being debated in the House provides massive tax breaks for the wealthy
and big corporations, while slashing critical investments that will
endanger our economic recovery.
Everyone agrees we shouldn't saddle our children and grandchildren
with insurmountable debt--addressing our debt is a responsibility we
take very seriously. But at the same time, if we fail to make the
necessary investments in economic growth, public health improvements,
quality education, rural development, and clean energy, our children
and grandchildren will inherit an equally unacceptable burden.
Drastic cuts to infrastructure, innovation, and education are penny
wise and pound foolish. Even if we save a little on paper upfront, the
realistic long-term effects are costly and devastating. That is why our
budget includes a $100 billion infrastructure recovery plan that will
get workers back on the job, repairing our crumbling schools and
bridges, and building up our technology infrastructure, so schools and
small businesses, even in rural Minnesota, can stay competitive.
It also lays the groundwork to pass a comprehensive 5-year Farm Bill
that will provide certainty and support for Minnesota's farmers. This
budget plan protects Head Start, early childhood education, and Pell
grants--which make a quality education possible for all students,
regardless of background, and will prepare our children for the 21st
century workforce.
This budget demonstrates our commitment to responsible deficit
reduction. Since the Simpson-Bowles proposal, Congress has reduced the
deficit by $2.4 trillion--$1.8 trillion coming from spending cuts, and
$600 billion from allowing tax rates for the wealthiest to return to
prior levels. This budget builds on that deficit reduction with an
additional $1.85 trillion. That is a total of $4.25 trillion in deficit
reduction--which exceeds the goal set out in Simpson-Bowles.
This budget shares other principles of Simpson-Bowles--that deficit
reduction should be achieved through a mix of spending cuts and new
revenues, and that deficit reduction should not be done on the backs of
the most vulnerable.
At one point in time, there was enthusiasm among some of my Senate
colleagues from the other side of the aisle for Simpson-Bowles. One
such Senator said, ``Say yes to Simpson-Bowles . . . I'm willing to say
yes to Simpson-Bowles.'' Another said, ``Everybody knows what the
solution is, and that's Simpson-Bowles . . . I mean, everybody knows
that that's the template for what we need to do.'' Another called the
plan ``a good starting point and should be seriously considered by
Congress.'' Our budget exceeds the deficit reduction goal in Simpson-
Bowles, and follows the same general principles--yet my colleagues on
the other side have not yet come around to supporting it.
Finally, in addition to growing our economy and responsibly
addressing the deficit, our budget honors the promises we have made to
our seniors, our veterans, and our most vulnerable. This is in sharp
contrast to the budget being considered in the House.
My colleagues and I pay into Medicare every month, and so we are
entitled to Medicare benefits when we reach age 65. The fact that we
are entitled to these benefits is not a bad thing. In fact, it is a
very important thing for millions of American seniors. In 1965, we
created Medicare and Medicaid so seniors could count on having access
to medical care in their retirement. As a nation, we promised our
parents and grandparents they could count on Medicare and Medicaid as a
safety net in their golden years. And the Senate Democratic budget
protects that safety net.
However, the House Republican budget would undermine the very
foundation of the promise, and end Medicare as we know it. Their budget
would replace Medicare's guarantee of health coverage with a voucher,
and would raise the Medicare eligibility age. In my home State of
Minnesota, this proposal would shift costs to more than 800,000 seniors
when they can least afford to bear that burden. It would end the
guarantee of health coverage that Medicare has made for decades. In
fact, it would end Medicare as we know it.
The House Republican budget would also turn Medicaid into a block
grant. Now, a lot of people think Medicare will provide long-term care
services for seniors since Medicare is thought of as the health care
program for seniors. But it is actually Medicaid that provides those
long-term services and supports. Medicare does not cover those.
So when the House Republicans talk about turning Medicaid into a
block grant, what they are actually talking about is ending the
guarantee that seniors can get the care they need when they need it
most. In my home State of Minnesota, that means the nearly 100,000
seniors who depend on Medicaid would no longer be able to count on
getting the care they need. Our Senate budget protects the Medicaid
program so seniors can access that care when they need it.
I also want to talk for a moment about the SNAP program, or food
stamps. The House Republican budget would cut the SNAP program by $135
billion. This could mean that as many as 13 million people would be cut
from the program. More than a quarter of these people would be low-
income seniors and people with disabilities. That
[[Page S2252]]
is as many as 3 million seniors who would no longer have the assistance
they need to buy food. Fortunately, the Senate budget protects the SNAP
program so that seniors can continue to buy food.
This budget also keeps our Nation's promise to our veterans. We just
marked the 10-year anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq War. We
have responsibly brought that war to an end. We remain in Afghanistan,
where we have been for well over a decade, though we are also bringing
our participation in that war to a responsible end. Well over 2 million
Americans have deployed during those wars as part of our all-volunteer
force.
The budget funds veterans programs so that veterans can get the
education they need, the jobs they are seeking, the homes every
American should be able to depend on, and access to the health care
they have earned and deserve.
I am proud of our budget, and of the values it reflects. It reflects
a commitment to the success of future generations, and to the middle
class. It puts the interests of regular people above those of our most
profitable corporations. It tackles our budget deficits in a way that
will promote growth and prosperity.
I have also filed several amendments that reflect priorities for
Minnesota--in particular, the expansion of rural broadband, the
promotion of college affordability, encouraging public-private
partnerships in workforce training efforts, expanding access to skills
courses for the unemployed, and promoting clean energy on tribal lands.
I thank Chairman Murray for her leadership during this process, and
look forward to carrying out this budget's priorities alongside her in
the coming years.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from
Minnesota, as we prepare to go through a series of votes, for reminding
us that a budget is not just numbers on a piece of paper. It really is
a statement of our values and what we care about and how we are going
to invest in our country so we have strong jobs in the future and a
strong economy. We really base this budget on those principles, and the
Senator from Minnesota reminded us all of that so well today, and I
thank him for his statement.
We are within a minute of beginning the vote, so I would remind my
colleagues we have a busy day ahead of us. We on our side are very
proud of the budget we have put forward that focuses on jobs and the
economy, in this fragile time getting people back to work, getting them
the resources they need to have a strong future, whether it is
education or infrastructure or the research and development that
creates the kind of jobs that the Senator from Minnesota has focused
on. We on this side do deeply understand the need to manage our debt
and deficit responsibly. It is why we have put forward a credible
approach, a balanced approach, that makes sure we are cutting, in many
programs the Presiding Officer and I care deeply about, but
understanding this is the time we are in, where we have to relook at
these programs and manage them effectively, and we have done that in
our budget. There are many tough choices we have in front of us, but
the tough choices we have put forward in this budget reflect the
balance the American people have asked us to make in our budget
approach.
I look forward to having it passed sometime, I am sure, in the wee
hours of the morning. This budget moves us toward a place where we can
work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle and both sides of this
city to come together in a way that gets us back on a path so we are
not managing this country from crisis to crisis, but are working
effectively together to move forward in this country.
So with that, Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.
Amendment No. 431
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will be 2 minutes equally divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 431,
offered by the Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Mikulski, the first
amendment she has offered is a very important one.
We all know pay discrimination in the workplace is very real. We know
women are nearly half of our workforce, but they still only earn about
77 percent of what men earn, and women of color are much worse off.
African-American women make 70 cents on the dollar. Hispanic women make
only 60 cents on the dollar. We want to make sure all of our families
are strong and stable in the future, and pay discrimination is
something that is holding women and families and communities back.
So a ``no'' vote on this means you are actually OK with women earning
less pay than men--women not being able to contribute to their families
in a strong way so their children can be taken care of and they can pay
their mortgage or their rent and put food on the table.
A ``yes'' vote on this amendment means you acknowledge this as a
problem and agree that women must receive equal pay for equal work.
I want to thank the Senator from Maryland for her long-time advocacy
on behalf of women in many ways, but particularly on making sure they
have equal pay.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we would urge our colleagues to support
the Mikulski amendment. It sets the goal of equal pay for equal work.
Fortunately, it does not specify any coercive method by government to
compel that outcome. We think it is a worthwhile aspiration. As a
father of two daughters, I certainly hope their work is rewarded by
equal pay to that of their counterparts who are young men.
I urge all of our colleagues to support the Mikulski amendment, with
that understanding that we are talking about the marketplace setting
that outcome rather than coercive policies from the government.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a request for the yeas and
nays?
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would suggest we take this amendment
by voice vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, on our side I believe we are happy to
have a voice vote on this amendment. And I urge a strong yes. It sets a
great tone, by the way, for the rest of the day.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
The amendment (No. 431) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 158
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There will now be 2 minutes equally
divided on the Ayotte amendment.
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Ayotte
amendment No. 158. We should not be increasing taxes now at the expense
of jobs, so my amendment would simply bring a budget point of order to
prohibit tax increases while unemployment is above 5.5 percent.
The President said if we passed his stimulus package--his team said
we would be at 5.1-percent unemployment now. I have heard from so many
businesses, with the $1.7 trillion in tax increases that have already
been brought by the President and the Democrats here, jobs are hurting.
Now is not the time to raise taxes. Our small businesses are being
killed by this.
Mr. President, 23 million Americans are out of work. So many are
struggling, with the unemployment rate at over 7 percent. That is why I
have offered this amendment.
I urge my colleagues, let's not increase taxes at the expense of
jobs. So please support my amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as I have said many times, this budget
asks the wealthiest Americans and our biggest corporations to pay just
a little bit more, both to get our fiscal house in order and to make
critical investments that will help drive broad-based economic growth.
Economists across the political spectrum will tell you that raising
revenues from those who can afford it most will not hurt our economy.
In fact, our experience during the 1990s proves that fact. In fact,
raising revenues by closing loopholes and cutting inefficient spending
in the Tax Code for the
[[Page S2253]]
wealthiest Americans, as our budget proposes, actually stands to boost
the economy by removing tax breaks that distort the allocation of
capital.
This amendment that is being offered would effectively end the
privileged status of a balanced and fair budget plan, such as this one,
that calls on the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share in order
to address our deficits and get our economy going again.
I strongly encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 50 Leg.]
YEAS--45
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--54
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 158) was rejected.
Amendment No. 202
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will be 2 minutes equally divided prior to a vote on Amendment No. 202,
offered by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cruz.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, tomorrow is the 3-year anniversary of the
passage of ObamaCare. ObamaCare is hurting. It is hurting seniors, it
is hurting Hispanics, it is hurting African Americans, it is hurting
single moms, and it is hurting the economy. It should be repealed.
Yesterday over 70 Members of this body voted to remove one of the
most pernicious taxes in ObamaCare, the tax on medical device
providers. I happily voted for the amendment, but I would point out
this is a wealthy industry which can afford to hire lobbyists.
We should be responsive not only to wealthy corporate lobbyists but
to the people and small businesses that are being hurt by ObamaCare and
to the workers who are being hurt by ObamaCare. We should be responsive
to the American people. For that reason, this amendment would create a
deficit-neutral reserve fund to defund ObamaCare and repeal ObamaCare.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. I yield to the Senator from Iowa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this will be the 36th time we have voted
to repeal the Affordable Care Act. I know the Senators on the other
side want to revote to repeal it. That is fine. I wish to warn you, due
to the way this amendment is drafted, it also repeals what we put in
that bill on education; to wit, we put in money to increase Pell
grants. We put in money to increase funding for Historically Black
Colleges and Universities. We put in money also to help the community
colleges, $2 billion. We also included the more generous income-based
repayment system to ensure people don't need to pay more than 10
percent of their discretionary income to pay back their student loans.
All of that is wiped out in the Senator's amendment.
Again, maybe it is just a drafting error. But I think Senators should
know you are not just voting to get rid of the Affordable Care Act.
That is fine if you want to do that. I don't think Senators on the
other side of the aisle who are here wish to vote to decrease Pell
grants and to decrease funding for universities.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. CRUZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 51 Leg.]
YEAS--45
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--54
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 202) was rejected.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 439
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2
minutes equally divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 439 offered by
the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, we
are going to have a lot of amendments, so if we have a lot of floor
discussion, this is only going to delay it. I would encourage Senators
throughout the day to please take their conversations off the floor
after the votes so Senators who are speaking on the amendments on both
sides of the aisle have the consideration of being heard.
I will take my 1 minute on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senate budget already includes a
deficit-neutral reserve fund for tax relief. This amendment would make
that relief for low- and middle-income Americans explicit, but it would
do it in a way that preserves the health care benefits in the
Affordable Health Care Act.
Unfortunately, the amendment that follows this one will gut the ACA
and leave millions of Americans back in a position where they have to
worry about a preexisting condition or a health illness that could
bankrupt their household. We have to make sure
[[Page S2254]]
taxes do not hit low-and middle-income families, but we should do it in
a responsible way that doesn't take away health care for millions of
Americans.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Budget
Committee member Senator Toomey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I am not rising in opposition to this
amendment because I oppose it. We Republicans don't want to raise taxes
on low- and middle-income families because we don't want to raise taxes
on anybody. But the irony of this is that this budget is an exercise in
raising taxes on middle-income families. It is necessarily the case.
By the way, that is above and beyond the huge tax increases my
colleagues imposed when they voted for ObamaCare--$1.2 trillion of tax
increases, much of which lands squarely on middle-income families.
The fact is the President showed how he wants to raise taxes on the
wealthy, and he has a plan that does that. It raises $600 billion. My
colleagues have reconciliation instructions for $1 trillion. The
difference is going to inevitably come from the middle class. We don't
want that to happen.
I would suggest we will accept this amendment. We could accept it on
a voice vote. But it doesn't change the central fact that the
Democratic budget is all about raising taxes on middle-income families.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we can accept it on a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 52 Leg.]
YEAS--99
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cowan
Crapo
Cruz
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 439) was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 222
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2
minutes equally divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 222 offered by
the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Crapo.
The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, although it has been a couple of years now
since we passed the health care law, it is becoming evident to all
Americans that there were in fact many new taxes--almost $1 trillion of
new taxes--in the health care law. And despite the President's firm
pledge at that time not to raise taxes by even one dime on middle-
income Americans, I at that time asked the Joint Tax Committee to
evaluate the law and tell us if there were such taxes in the law.
The letter I received back from the Joint Tax Committee indicated
there were at least seven taxes in the health care law that did
squarely hit the middle class--and not just in a small way. It is at
least a quarter trillion dollars of new taxes that the middle class
will pay if we don't fix it. In fact, it is 73 million American
families that will ultimately pay this new tax in the ObamaCare
legislation if we don't reform it.
This is an amendment I brought during the consideration of the health
care law. It was defeated then by a claim that there were no taxes in
the bill. We now know there are taxes in the bill, and this is our
chance, now that these taxes are beginning to be implemented, to remove
them from the law.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is ironic that a number of those taxes
are in the Ryan budget that our colleagues voted for last night. But
let me say this. The ACA is going to extend health care coverage to
nearly 30 million people. They are mostly low- and middle-income people
who don't have access to affordable coverage. The law also fully pays
for the costs of expanding health insurance coverage and does it
without increasing taxes on our middle class.
I believe expanding health care insurance coverage is one of the most
important things we can do for our country and for our economy. The
amendment that is being offered would undermine the effort under way to
bring health insurance to millions of currently uninsured people in a
fiscally responsible fashion.
I urge our colleagues to oppose this amendment and I ask for the yeas
and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 53 Leg.]
YEAS--45
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--54
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 222) was rejected.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay
that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 438
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2
minutes equally divided in the usual form prior to the vote on
amendment No. 438, offered by the Senator from New Hampshire, Mrs.
Shaheen.
[[Page S2255]]
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, amendment No. 438 establishes a deficit-
neutral reserve fund to protect women's access to basic health care,
including family planning and birth control. It ensures that employers
cannot deny coverage for contraceptives.
We have seen that improving access to preventive care, including
contraception, is good health policy, and as a result it means
healthier women, healthier children, and healthier families.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, every Senator supports expanding access
to health care. We may have strong differences on the best way to do
it, but no one should doubt that commitment. However, we must also
ensure that we protect deeply held religious beliefs of our citizens.
In this regard, the Shaheen amendment--and the new health care law--
gets it all wrong. In addition to growing government and slowing the
economy, the law tramples on the rights of individuals.
Later this afternoon, Senator Fischer will offer a side-by-side to
this amendment.
I ask my colleagues to vote no on the Shaheen amendment.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second. There is a sufficient
second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 54 Leg.]
YEAS--56
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--43
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 438) was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are now in a period of 2 hours of
debate equally divided. I understand Senators on that side will begin.
I would like to notify all Senators we are now working through a
process to get the next amendment set in order so that Members will
know. We do have 2 hours of debate, but Members should know that we may
yield back some of that time. So please be ready. I think everybody has
a lot of amendments they want to have brought up, and the sooner we can
get to that the sooner we will.
So, again, we will now move to 2 hours of debate equally divided.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
hours of debate equally divided between the managers or their
designees.
The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the number
of Budget Committee staff for the minority granted access to the floor
at one time be increased by two.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Senator Coburn for
22 minutes. I also have on our schedule of Members, Senator Collins for
10 minutes, Senator Cornyn for 10 minutes, Senator Inhofe for 10
minutes, and Senator Sessions for 8 minutes.
At this time I yield to Senator Coburn for 22 minutes. First, I would
note that Senator Coburn is doing something that every Member of this
body should be inspired by. He is actually working hard every day to
identify the problems we face with duplication and waste in our
government. We do far too little of that, and this budget does
virtually nothing about it. So I would like to thank Senator Coburn for
being unparalleled in his commitment to financial responsibility, and I
yield to the Senator 22 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent to
use oversized charts. I don't actually like to use oversized charts,
but I cannot get all the information I need to present on one regular
chart because I am looking at one subject area.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COBURN. First of all, I wish to thank the chairman of the Budget
Committee for bringing a budget to the floor. It is great that we have
done it.
We know the outcome of this budget vote already. The final budget
vote will not come until sometime in the middle of the night. But in
that budget we are going to spend $47 trillion. There is a dispute
between how we look at it and how our colleagues on the other side look
at it, but there is at least $1 trillion in tax increases.
The new debt over the next 10 years is $7.3 trillion despite $1
trillion in tax hikes. The debt that has been added since the last
budget passed this Senate is $5.5 trillion.
The spending increase above the projected growth over 10 years is
$645 billion. The spending increase in this budget next year above
today's budget level is $162 billion.
The deficit increase next year relative to the fiscal year 2014
projection by CBO is a $95 billion increase in our debt--we are not
going the other way.
The growth rate in the Federal budget over 10 years is going to be 60
percent, and in the mandatory programs it is going to be 80 percent, so
we are going to have the government growing at least 7 percent a year,
continuing to grow at a rate faster than our economy, at a rate faster
than personal income.
The net deficit reduction over that 10 years over what was projected
may be $270 billion. The deficit reduction achieved through spending
cuts will be zero in this budget--zero through spending cuts.
The deficit reduction through elimination of duplication, fraud, and
waste in this budget is zero.
The date this budget balances is never.
I am bringing these charts to the floor because I want the American
people to know how we are not doing our job. We are going to get a vote
on a lot of these things, I have told my colleagues. I haven't been
allowed to offer a lot of these amendments on bills that have come to
the floor, so we are going to vote on them tonight and into the early
hours tomorrow morning. The reason it is important for us to vote on
them is because the American people need to know whether or not we are
going to act on them. Let me start to go through some of the programs
and see if it matches any type of common sense that anybody in America
might have about how we could go about helping American citizens.
[[Page S2256]]
Three years ago we forced the GAO to do a duplication study of the
whole Federal Government. We are going to get that last report about
1\1/2\ weeks from now. They will have looked at the whole Federal
Government. This is just the data based on the first two reports. Let
me just go through it rather quickly so my colleagues can see.
We have 15 unmanned aircraft programs, 5 agencies, $37 billion a
year. Why do we have 15 of them? Does that make sense to anybody?
We have domestic food programs, 18 different programs, 3 different
agencies, and we are spending $62 billion.
We have 21 different homeless programs--21 different homeless
programs. It is great that it is only one through one agency. Why do we
have 21 separate programs? Each one of these programs has a bureaucracy
and office staff and overhead and administration. Why not have one or
two?
Transportation services for transportation-disadvantaged persons: 80
separate, different, distinctly designed programs in 80 different
agencies. Why not in the transportation agency alone? Why not run it
out of the department it should be run through?
Job training and employment, 47 programs for the able-bodied, 9
different agencies, and it is actually $18.9 billion. We have actually
done all the oversight on this. In Oklahoma, we have 17 federally-run
job training programs in a city that has less than 15,000 people and
has 400 people unemployed, 17 separate offices run by the Federal
Government.
Teacher quality, 82 separate teacher training and quality programs,
not run within the Department of Education but run within the
Department of Education and nine other agencies. How does that fit?
When we are in a time when we are trying to make hard decisions to
protect the future of this country and a fiscal balance, why won't we
address this? None of this stuff has been addressed. This has been
known for 2 years. None of it is in the budget. It is not even in the
House budget.
Food safety, 30 different programs, 15 different agencies, $1.6
billion. Do people realize if we buy a cheese pizza at the grocery
store it is controlled by the Department of Agriculture, but if
somebody buys a pepperoni pizza at the grocery store it is controlled
by the FDA? Does that make sense to anybody? Why would we continue to
be stupid? And we are the ones being stupid because we will not address
these issues.
Military and veterans health services, we have four agencies running
that. I would think we would want the VA to run that, not the VA plus
three other agencies.
Economic development, we have 80 programs, 4 different agencies, and
$6.5 billion a year.
U.S.-Mexican border region water needs, all right, we have Arizona on
that border, we have Texas on that border, and we have California on
that border. We have seven different agencies that control that. Why?
Why would we do that?
Financial literacy programs, I would make the point that we are not
very good in financial literacy within the Federal Government because
all one has to do is look at our budget. There are 13 different
agencies, 15 programs, plus the new Financial Consumer Protection Board
is going to create another one--another one. We are spending $30
million a year on that.
Green buildings, 94 different programs, 11 different agencies,
spending $1 billion a year.
Housing assistance, 160 different programs, 20 agencies--20 Federal
Government agencies--spending $170 billion a year the overhead that is
associated with all of this, the duplication that is associated with
it, the complications, the paperwork.
Department of Justice grant programs, 253 of them: They are within
the Department of Justice, but they are run through 10 other Federal
agencies, not the Department of Justice.
Diesel emissions, 14 different programs, 3 different agencies. Why
three? Why do we have to interact with three different agencies to have
our diesel emissions controlled, and why are there 14 different
programs?
Early learning and child care, 50 programs, 9 agencies, $16 billion.
Surface transportation, 55 programs, 5 agencies, $43 billion.
Support for entrepreneurs, 53 programs, 4 different agencies. We have
small business, but guess what. We have one at Agriculture, we have one
at Treasury, we have one somewhere else I can't remember; $2.6 billion.
Science, technology, education and math, we all agree it is
important. The Pentagon has over 100 programs. The Pentagon itself has
over 100 programs. Then we have another 105 or so programs spread
across the rest of the agencies. Thirteen different agencies have a
science, technology, engineering program. Why is that not within the
Department of Education?
As I finish this, I will not go to the next chart just on the basis
of time.
I outlined a whole bunch of different programs, and not one of them
has a metric on it that says we are successful or unsuccessful--not one
of them. So even the agencies that have these multiple programs,
running across multiple agencies, have no endpoint to say: Are you
doing anything?
What we have discovered on job training is we are real good in job
training with Federal programs of employing people in job training. We
are terrible in terms of giving them a life skill that will give them a
lifetime work capability.
Let me take a short time to show some examples. Looking at this
chart, we can see why we have such big charts.
Here are the Federal preschool and daycare programs. So if someone
wants to provide that to somebody, look at the maze of bureaucracy they
have to go through just to qualify.
The pink areas on this chart show the different departments that run
them. The blue areas are the subagencies created out of the green ones.
So we can see, in Federal preschool and daycare, we have the General
Services Administration, that has four programs; we have the Department
of Agriculture, that has this multitude of programs. But even if you
have it at the Department of Agriculture, you cannot do anything
because you have to talk to the Department of Education too, because
they are interrelated in how they are controlled.
Early learning. The Justice Department has a multitude of programs.
The Department of Health and Human Services has a multitude of
programs. We even have a tax expenditure program for childcare and
early learning. The Department of Labor has their own.
We can see what has happened to us is we have not done the oversight,
the work to eliminate the problems that are causing us to spend at
least $200 billion more per year than we need to spend.
Here are the Federal programs for surface transportation and
infrastructure. We can see why this is so big. Here is the Federal
Highway Administration and here are all their subprograms for it. Then
over here is the Office of the Secretary. Then we have the Federal
Railroad Administration; we have the Maritime Administration; we have
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. If you are a State
transportation director, you have to meet the bureaucratic requirements
of every one of these programs.
I talked about science, technology, engineering, and math. Look at
what we have. What we have is a maze where nobody in the government
knows what the other agency is doing. Nobody knows what somebody over
here in the Mickey Leland Energy Fellowship funding is doing compared
with the New Era Rural Technology Competitive Grants Program.
Here is the other thing we have found as we have gone through all
these programs: We have people who apply for a grant and get it from
one of these programs and then turn around and go over and apply for
the same grant from another program.
It is easy to see, when we continue to see multiple programs--here,
even to get efficient in our Federal fleet, we have 5 different
programs, 20 different agencies, just to try to get fuel efficiency
within the Federal Government. We started out with electronic health
records systems for veterans and the military. We have 10 different
programs within that--not 1 program, not 2, but 10.
Just one other. Here is a chart with green buildings. We listed that:
a multitude of agencies, a multitude of programs. Every department in
the Federal Government has a green building
[[Page S2257]]
initiative separate and apart from a central area where it ought to be
and probably associated with the National Institute of Standards and
Technology. That ought to be who is running it, but it is not.
We have all these things. All these require rules for you to comply
with if you are going to get a building permit or you are going to have
any Federal contracts. It makes no sense.
I will end.
Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. COBURN. Nobody in their right mind will agree that what we are
doing is smart, efficient, effective, and associated with common sense.
But yet when it comes to doing the hard work of oversight and
eliminating these duplications, nobody in the Senate wants to do the
hard work of eliminating them. A conservative estimate is that we send
out $670 billion worth of grants a year. A conservative estimate is
that $200 billion of that is totally wasted, and we are sitting here
squabbling about raising taxes. This budget raises $1 trillion over 10
years. If we would do our hard work in terms of
Mr. President, there is so much distraction in the Senate I cannot
talk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. COBURN. If we would simply do our job, we would not have to have
tax increases, we would not have to have spending cuts that will gut
our military, although I can show a lot of waste in the military too,
to the tune of $50 billion a year. But if we would just do our job and
actually look in detail--the way GAO has recommended and the way
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has oversighted through the
years, thanks to the leadership of Lieberman, Collins, Carper, and
those who preceded them--what we will see is we have all this research,
we have all this knowledge, we have all this stuff we know we can do,
but we have no leadership in the Senate to get it done, and we bring a
budget forward that perpetuates everything I just showed.
There is no mandate for every committee to eliminate total
duplication in this budget. There is no mandate in this budget to
consolidate like programs and eliminate cross-agency interference and
duplication. There is no mandate in this budget that every grant
program ought to have a metric on it to see if it actually accomplishes
something. There is no metric in this budget to give the agencies the
power and the resources to actually administer the grants effectively
so we know what they are doing--none of that. This is all ignored.
As long as we say the only problem is saving Medicare and saving
Social Security and saving the Defense Department, we are going to
continue to waste $200 billion a year. I do not know what it is. I do
not know if it is that I am not an effective communicator or if people
have other priorities. But our grandchildren are totally dependent upon
us eliminating so much stupidity. Yet nobody--the Appropriations
Committees do not want to. Most of the authorizing committees do not
want to. They will not do the hard work of eliminating the duplication.
I did not show the housing. I showed the total amount we spend. Do
you realize we had paid a housing administrator in Oklahoma for 2 years
in a town that had no homes. Picher, OK--we cleaned it out because of
lead contamination. But we kept paying the housing administrator for
Picher for 2 years--until I found it. I said: Why are we paying this
guy? There are no homes.
Those little things, multiplied by a billion times throughout
government programs, happen every day, and then we tell Americans we
are going to raise your taxes because we will not do the hard work of
oversight. We deny our oath when we do that, but we also deny the best
tendencies and the tradition of this country. We can do a whole lot
more with a whole lot less money if we would take care of this problem.
But leadership is lacking on doing it.
As long as we have our eye on the ball of saving Medicare and saving
Social Security and do not have our eye on the ball of the things that
are spending money that we are getting no value for--or very limited
value--we are going to continue to be in trouble financially as a
country, even if we do save Medicare and Social Security.
Every dollar the American taxpayer pays into this country should be
precious to us. Our foreign aid budget, we never talk about it. Our
foreign policy has not been reauthorized for years. There has not been
a full-time inspector general in the State Department in 6 years. We
have seven open spots for inspectors general to actually look at this
stuff and to advise us and advise the agencies.
We are failing to do our job. My only wish for my colleagues is to
get informed, and if they are on a committee, they do not have to solve
it the way I solve it, but just solve it. It makes no sense to continue
to duplicate things.
As a matter of fact, in job training, here is what GAO said: Of the
47 job training programs for nondisabled people--we have another 53 for
the disabled--of the 47 all but 3 do exactly the same thing.
Either GAO is lying or they are not. If they are not lying, why
wouldn't we, in the next 2 months in this place, fix those programs to
make them where they are actually giving real skills, for a real
livelihood, to people who need real job training. There is no effort at
all to do that.
The House just passed a bill, and it barely passed because every one
of these squares that we show on any one of these charts has a
constituency. In other words, they are dependent on money coming from
the Federal Government. So even though it is not efficient and not
effective, our colleagues do not want to irritate anybody getting that
money because we are more interested in getting reelected than fixing
the long-term problems of our country.
All you have to do is go to our Web site, coburn.senate.gov, and you
will need a strong anti-emetic for the rest of the week if you read the
waste and fraud and abuse and thievery that is going on with Federal
Government programs. This budget does not address any of that waste.
Do you realize $200 billion out of $670 billion is $2 trillion over
the next 10 years. If we just fixed that, it would help pull us out of
the big hole. That is $2 trillion that has a very low economic
multiplier in our economy versus $2 trillion that might have a bit.
I will end on this last point: Last year we gave out $4 billion to
foreign countries that own more than $100 billion of our debt. Ask the
typical American--we are borrowing money from China, and we are giving
them foreign aid. They own $850 billion of our debt. Why would we do
that? We are in debt, we are scrambling, we are borrowing $40 million a
minute, and we are taking the money we are borrowing from China and
turning around and giving it back to them in foreign aid. Why would we
do that? It just shows how out of control all the processes are in
Washington because we fail to be informed and hold the administration--
whether it is a Bush administration or an Obama administration, all of
them are guilty. The reason they are guilty is because we are not
raising the question.
I will tell my colleagues, they are going to get a vote on a lot of
this stuff. A lot of my amendments have bipartisan support. But we are
going to vote. They get to vote on whether they think we ought to
eliminate duplication. They are going to have 17 separate votes on
that. I am going to try to wind those into two votes. Vote against
fixing it and then go home and tell Americans you want to raise their
taxes $1 trillion, and you do not want to eliminate the stupidity going
on in Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. COBURN. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to just take one moment before I
yield time to the Senator from Delaware.
(Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be no expressions from the gallery.
Mr. WARNER. I commend my friend, the Senator from Oklahoma, who has
made this a passion. I would acknowledge this is a challenge that
transfers between administrations.
When I was Governor of Virginia, under the previous administration,
we
[[Page S2258]]
tried to consolidate workforce training programs. We still had those 47
programs and were not able at the State level to consolidate into a
more meaningful approach.
I recall when I first came to this body, I thought let's at least
find the low-hanging fruit, and we found those programs that both the
Bush administration and the Obama administration had agreed were
duplicative and unnecessary--16 programs, $1 billion; but a billion
here and a billion there and you are talking about real money.
I am happy to report 11 of those 16 programs have been eliminated.
But the fact that there are those that both administrations agreed upon
that have not been eliminated means there is more work to be done. I
would simply point out to my friend from Oklahoma there has been
legislation that he and the ranking member, the Senator from Delaware,
who has also worked hard on these issues, supported 2 years back called
the GPRMA bill, the Government Performance Results Modernization Act.
In that bill for the first time ever, starting this year, there is a
requirement that each agency of the Federal Government identify not
only those programs that are the most successful, but those programs
that are the least successful.
So regardless of which administration, Republican or Democratic,
there will at least be some--beyond just OMB putting forward
information that says where the actual agencies themselves think they
are not getting good value for the dollar.
Mr. COBURN. Would the Senator, through the Chair, take a question?
Does the Senator know the number of agencies in the Federal Government
that actually know how many programs they have in their agency?
Mr. WARNER. I know the answer to this because we have talked about
this in the past. We do not have a complete list of all of the various
programs.
Mr. COBURN. There is one agency in the Federal Government that knows
all its programs. Only one. The Department of Education. They actually
publish it every year. They actually have done a great job. I
compliment them. Not one other Federal agency actually knows all of the
programs that run under their auspices.
Mr. WARNER. I turn now to my good friend, the Senator from Delaware.
This has been an extraordinary passion of his. I know as chairman of
the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, along with the
ranking member from Oklahoma, this will be an area of great interest
and focus.
With that, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. It is ironic; this reminds me of our church. Every now
and then our minister is going full steam and preaching to our
congregation. He says: I know I am preaching to the choir, but even
choirs need to be preached to.
In this case, the folks, ironically, on the floor--Senator Warner,
Senator Collins, Senator Sessions, and I think myself and Dr. Coburn--
there are probably no Democrats and Republicans more committed to
figuring out how do we get better results for less money in everything
we do. So even the choir needs to be preached to. We just had a pretty
good sermon.
I have a couple of posters here I want to share. I think they might
be of some interest and value in this discussion. I like to think of
spending, as we are trying to rein it in and get it under control, in
three elements. One of those is entitlement spending, which now is over
50 percent of what we spend in the Federal Government. It is growing.
We have something called discretionary spending, which includes
defense, and the domestic programs which are not entitlements, not
Medicare, not Medicaid, not Social Security. Then you have got interest
on the debt. That is pretty much it. That is pretty much it. If you
look at, again, entitlement spending, Medicare, Medicaid, Social
Security and other things that we are entitled to, it is over 50
percent and growing.
As it turns out, the part of our budget that is being squeezed is the
discretionary spending. So about half of that is nondefense
discretionary spending. That includes everything from transportation to
agriculture, to housing, education, to homeland security, and a whole
lot of other things as well. Then there is defense.
If you take a look at this chart, we find that this gray line here is
actually nondefense discretionary spending. We start out in 1971. It is
about 4 percent of spending as a percentage of GDP. Today it is about 4
percent as well. The budget that I believe we received from the House
of Representatives actually--where they actually drop their spending is
in that money. That includes workforce development, it includes
education, it includes infrastructure--roads, highways, bridges, rail,
ports, all of the above. It includes investing in R&D, research and
development, through the National Science Foundation, National
Institutes of Health, and creates among other things goods and services
and products that we can sell all over the country and all over the
world.
Under the House-passed budget, that money, instead of spending about
19 percent of our budget for nondefense discretionary spending, I think
we would end up down around 4 percent for all nondefense discretionary
spending--4 percent of our budget. That is not consistent with the
priorities of many of us, including those on this side of aisle,
include our own congressional delegation.
Here we have health care. This is good. Health care as a percentage
of GDP. I mentioned Medicare as a percentage of our entitlements,
including Medicare as a percentage of our budget, now is up over 50
percent and climbing. If you look at health care as a percentage of GDP
in this country, we are the green line. What we see from 1961 down to
about 2010, the green line keeps going up and up and up.
Today, health care as a percentage of GDP in this country is about
17, almost 18 percent. I think the next closest country is France. We
are way ahead of anybody else. We are almost twice as high as the
Japanese, for example. We spend about 17, 18 percent of GDP. They spend
about 8 percent. They cover everybody. They get better results.
When you have health care, the big part of Medicaid spending,
Medicare spending, in fact all of it, is growing as though it is toxic.
Entitlement spending continues to grow. We have got to do something
about that. The discretionary spending part of our budget has actually
been going down over 40 years by a significant amount of money. Today
it is less than one-third of our total spending, if you combine defense
and nondefense nondiscretionary spending.
So what do we do about it? What we try to do about it in our side in
the budget, created with a lot of input from Senator Warner, a lot of
input from Senator Sanders on our side, great leadership by Senator
Patty Murray, who is the chair of the committee--they have come up with
a budget that is before us today that says: All right, we know we
cannot continue to spend as we are doing. We have got to rein in the
spending, not only on the entitlement side but also on the
discretionary spending side. We need to raise some revenues.
They go back to take a page out of the Clinton playbook from, gosh,
12, 13, 14 years ago, when we had a big deficit--not as big as this.
But they adopted a deficit reduction plan engineered by Erskine Bowles,
the Chief of Staff. They did a deficit reduction plan in 1997 with
bipartisan support that said: For every dollar of spending that we cut,
we raise a dollar of revenues.
We ended up with four balanced budgets in a row. The budget that
comes out of the Budget Committee is similar in that it is dollar for
dollar, a dollar of deficit reduction on the revenue side, a dollar on
the spending cuts. But unlike what happened 12 years ago--15 years ago
actually--we do not get to a balanced budget. If there is a fault in
the budget that has come out of the Budget Committee, while it reduces
our publicly held debt as a percentage of GDP from 73 percent, 72
percent down to about 70 percent in 10 years--it stabilizes and starts
to bring it down as a percentage of GDP--we still will have a budget
deficit of over a half a trillion dollars 10 years from now. Is that
good enough? No. We need to do better. In terms of entitlement program
spending, we need to find ways to save more money. We need to do it
without savaging old people and poor people. We need to do it in a way
that preserves these programs for the long haul.
[[Page S2259]]
We were in our caucus. We had some good presentations from a few of
the smartest people, health economists, doctors and so forth, that have
been around. They gave us a whole bunch of good ideas on how to get
better health care results for less money. We need to do that and more.
On the discretionary spending side, Senator Collins, who has
previously chaired the Homeland Security and Government Affairs
Committee--Senator Coburn and I have the privilege of leading it today.
We focus literally every day as an oversight committee, trying to do
oversight of the whole Federal Government, which is a whole lot for one
committee to do. We do it in conjunction with the GAO. We work off
their high-risk list, high-risk ways of saving money. Every few years
they give us these great to-do lists for the Federal Government. We
work on it in our subcommittee. We work on it with GAO. We work with
OMB, Office of Management and Budget, we work with the inspectors
general across the agencies of the Federal Government. We work with
nonprofit groups such as Citizens Against Government Waste.
Our whole idea is to focus on wasteful spending, as we ratchet down
the spending, figuring out where are we going to get good results and
where are we not. In the programs where we get the kind of results we
want, we fund them more or we reduce them less. If we are not getting
the results we need, we close those programs, we reduce those programs.
That is the way it ought to be. That is the way it ought to be. That is
the way we are trying to do it.
Let me see if I have another chart here that might be relevant. When
Bill Clinton was President in the last 4 years of his administration,
they negotiated a deficit reduction deal with the Republican House and
Senate in 1997, dollar for dollar, a dollar of revenue, a dollar of
deficit reduction on the spending side. And for those 4 years we had a
balanced budget, revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product. I
think it was about 19\1/2\ to 20 percent, right around 20 percent of
GDP.
Last year, our revenues as a percentage of GDP were down around 16
percent, I think, between 15 and 16. Even with the fiscal cliff deal
that was adopted earlier, we will be up to about 18 percent of GDP by
the end of the 10-year period.
I would suggest there are three things we need to do here: No. 1, we
can build on a plan that has come out of the Budget Committee. It is a
good start but it is not the finish line. We need to find additional
savings in the entitlement programs that do not savage old people or
poor people and preserve these programs for the long haul.
We need, in addition to that, revenue. We can do that by closing
deductions, loopholes, credits. We can means-test a bunch of stuff. But
we need to come up with the revenue to get closer to 20 percent.
The last thing, really in conjunction with what Senator Coburn was
saying, is we need to look at every nook and cranny of the Federal
Government--every nook and cranny of the Federal Government, from A to
Z, from Agriculture to Transportation and everything in between. We
need to ask this question: How do we get a better result for less money
in everything we do? It is not just the responsibility of our
committee, Homeland Security and Government Affairs, it is not just the
Budget Committee, it is every committee. It is all of us who can win
this together. It is the administration. It is the taxpayers groups. We
are all in this together. If we are going to get to where we want to
be, that is a fiscally sustainable roadmap to the future, it has to be
all hands on deck. It has to be those three things: entitlement reform,
additional reform, and to really squeeze every dime on the spending
side and move from a culture of spendthrift to a culture of thrift.
The budget resolution gets us going in the right direction. We are
going to meet up in the House in a conference committee, their vision,
our vision. That is where the real hard work begins. Out of that I hope
we end up with a real focus on those three things. If we do and we can
work together, and the administration and the President provide the
leadership we need, we will get where we need to go in the future.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to Senator Collins. I
would note that she has been a leader in governmental reform through
the committee that she chaired and has been ranking member on. I would
value her insight at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me thank the ranking member of the
Budget Committee for all of his incredibly hard work on this issue. It
is a hopeful sign that the Senate is finally debating a budget to set
priorities for Federal spending and revenues in the coming year. While
I am disappointed that we failed to perform this fundamental duty for
the past 4 years, and that the budget reported by the Budget Committee
is, unfortunately, a partisan one, I nevertheless welcome this budget
debate.
I wish to describe the amendments I will be offering to the budget
resolution later today. The first of these amendments is No. 144. It
would create a deficit-neutral reserve fund for the purpose of
correcting ObamaCare's definition of what is a full-time employee under
the law. This amendment would allow employees to work more than 30
hours a week without triggering possible penalties on the businesses
that hire them.
ObamaCare requires businesses with 50 or more full-time employees to
provide qualified health insurance to their workers or face onerous
penalties. These penalties begin at $40,000 for businesses with 50
employees, plus $2,000 for each additional ``full-time equivalent''
employee. These penalties are a huge disincentive for any small
business that wishes to grow and add new jobs.
One Maine business I know has 47 employees, and it would like to hire
more but won't because of these onerous penalties. Another employer
told me she is better off financially if she were to cancel the health
insurance she provides to her employees and instead pay the fines. The
fines are cheaper than paying the health insurance premiums for her
employees. What perverse incentives ObamaCare has.
Greatly adding to the problem, ObamaCare defines full-time employees
as averaging just 30 hours of work a week. This definition is
completely out of keeping with standard employment practices in the
United States today. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the
average American works 8.8 hours per day, which equates to 44 hours per
week. GAO, in looking at this issue, uses 40. We pay overtime after 40
hours per week. The number of hours set by ObamaCare as full time is
nearly one-third lower than the actual practice.
By using this unreasonably low threshold of 30 hours per week to
define a full-time employee, ObamaCare artificially drives up the
number of full-time workers employed by a business, exposing the
employer and business to the risks of substantial penalties.
The consequences are some businesses are restricting their employees
to no more than 29 hours per week to ensure their workers are
considered part-time under ObamaCare. If more businesses follow suit,
millions of American workers could find their hours, and thus their
earnings, are cut back at a time when many of them are already
struggling.
My amendment would allow for legislation setting a sensible
definition of a ``full-time'' employee for purposes of ObamaCare
penalties. This will help protect workers who otherwise will find their
hours curtailed and their earnings cut as a result of the requirements
in the ObamaCare law.
I would note this affects a wide range of employees. This is why you
have NAM, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the NEA, the
National Education Association--strange bedfellows indeed--both
supporting my amendment.
The second amendment I am offering is amendment No. 459. It calls for
sensible regulatory reform. Its provisions are based on legislation I
have introduced in the past, the Clearing Unnecessary Regulatory
Burdens Act or the CURB Act. This bill is designed to ease the
regulatory burden on our Nation's job creators and is supported by the
Nation's largest small business advocacy group, the National Federation
of Independent Business.
[[Page S2260]]
My amendment would require Federal agencies to take into account the
impact on small businesses and job growth before imposing new rules and
regulations. It does this in three ways: First, it requires Federal
agencies to analyze the indirect cause of regulations, such as the
impact on job creation, the cost of energy, and consumer prices.
Second, it prohibits Federal agencies from circumventing the public
notice and comment requirements by issuing unofficial rules known as
``guidance documents'' to avoid the review required under Executive
orders. Third, it helps small businesses avoid unnecessary penalties
for first-time, nonharmful paperwork violations.
The third amendment which I will offer is amendment No. 143. It would
simply require the President, Vice President, and Cabinet-level
officials to purchase their health insurance through the exchanges
established by the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare.
ObamaCare requires individuals to purchase qualified health insurance
or face a penalty. Those who cannot obtain coverage through their
workplace or another source are required to purchase insurance through
the exchanges which would be created under this law. ObamaCare
specifically requires most Members of Congress and their staff to
obtain health insurance through exchanges. If the exchanges are good
enough for Members of Congress and their staffs, then surely that same
requirement should apply with respect to the President, Vice President
and Cabinet-level officials. My amendment would extend this requirement
to them.
Finally, I am also pleased to be cosponsoring an amendment with my
colleague Senator Casey of Pennsylvania to prevent government waste in
the Job Corps Program by requiring the long-overdue implementation of
financial management, internal controls, and updated program integrity
protocols at the Employment and Training Administration.
What has happened with the Job Corps Program is an utter disgrace.
This program has significant shortfalls, which are caused entirely by
the inexcusably poor management of this program for 2 years in a row by
the Department of Labor. Job Corps is expected to be in a shortfall
again next year.
The impact has led the administration to suspend new student
enrollment into the Job Corps Program. These programs are critical for
at-risk youth. They provide education, training, and job skills. It is
a disgrace the administration has had such terrible management in
Washington that furloughs are happening and students are being denied
services.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to adopt my
amendments today.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has 47 minutes
remaining, and the Senator from Alabama has 23 minutes remaining.
Mrs. MURRAY. May I ask the Senator from Alabama if the Senator from
Virginia may speak for 10 minutes? I see the Senator has some speakers
on his side?
Mr. SESSIONS. I believe that would be appropriate.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Virginia
for helping to craft this budget and for his intense focus on making
sure we reach a balanced agreement for our Nation's future. This has
been his lifelong passion, and he has done a great job. He is a great
working partner, and I appreciate all of his experience.
I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, let me thank the Chair for her good work
and putting this budget together, which I believe is the first step as
we try to resolve this issue.
The Senator from Washington has mentioned this has become my passion
in this body. I absolutely believe getting our debt and deficit under
control, getting the country's balance sheet right has almost become a
proxy for whether our democratic institutions such as Congress may
actually work in the 21st century. This debate we are going through is
an important step in that direction.
We are about to proceed to the section of debate where a host of
amendments will be put up, debated, and decided. It is my hope sometime
later tonight or early tomorrow morning we will be able to conclude
this process and move on to the next steps.
As I listen to my colleagues, particularly from the other side, I do
wish to make three quick, brief points because there are actually a lot
of agreements between us. I think we all realize that in addition to
trying to get our tax policies and spending policies right--I agree
with the Senator from Oklahoma--there are areas of duplication which
could be improved upon.
I would point out one amendment this Budget Committee put together in
a bipartisan fashion--the majority and minority were working together--
was looking at the area of workforce training programs for further
consolidation. We are able, not just in workforce training but across
government, to find better ways to combine our programs and obtain more
effective use of our tax dollars. I look forward to working with
Members on both sides of the aisle to do that.
I would also say while we have this problem about how we are going to
raise our revenues and how we are going to spend, an important
component of all of this is how we grow our economy. One of the
challenges I find--and the proposal mostly from the House, which
appears to be the proposal endorsed by many of our colleagues on the
other side--I am not sure their budget proposal puts forth a growth
agenda.
At the end of the day, countries, just as private companies--and I
spent 20 years in business, longer than I have in public life--need a
business plan. Any good business plan invests in three things: people,
plant and equipment, and an investment plan to stay ahead of the
competition. Companies do the same thing; namely, invest in education,
infrastructure, and R&D.
Unfortunately, the proposal which has been put out by the other side
of the House would cut our government's investment in domestic
discretionary spending from what is already at a very meager rate,
closer to the Eisenhower administration rates. We currently spend about
16 cents on every Federal tax dollar on all of our domestic
discretionary budgets combined. Over a period of time their plan would
take that 16 cents to less than 5 cents.
I spent 20 years investing in business. I would never invest in a
business which spent less than 5 percent of its revenues on its
workforce, its plant and equipment, staying ahead of the competition.
No country can stay competitive against emerging nations such as China,
India, and Brazil. And Europe, facing financial crises, is trying to
reset itself as well. Any of those nations are spending a larger
percentage of their Federal revenues or their national revenues on
training the workforce, building their roads, airports, broadband, and
ports. They are trying to do research and development, which creates
the intellectual capital which will drive our economy in the 21st
century. Every other nation in the world with which we compete has a
much more aggressive business plan than the business plan that would
have been put forward by the House. Unfortunately, it would be put
forward by many of our colleagues on the other side if they were
allowed to cut domestic discretionary spending at the levels they
propose.
We have often heard a lot of discussion on this floor about revenues.
I don't think anyone on either side wants to be taxed more than is
necessary.
The other side says we have a spending problem but refuses to look at
the other side of the balance sheet. As a business guy, I find that
troubling. I agree there are a number of areas where we need to cut
back spending.
Look at revenues on a historic basis, look at revenues on the basis
of when America had the fastest growth rate in recent time. During the
1990s, with President Clinton, our Nation added jobs at a record level.
Our Nation made innovative grants, innovation and discovery of great
new intellectual property at an unprecedented level. In the 1980s
America was considered to have seen our best days. We came roaring back
in the 1990s.
[[Page S2261]]
I didn't hear many complaints about our Tax Code in the 1990s during
those periods of enormous growth because of those investments and
because of that growth early in the beginning of this century. Around
2003, I think this body, and both parties, were part of it and made a
mistake on assuming that the roaring good times were going to last
forever. We cut $4.5 trillion over a 10-year period out of the revenue
side.
Anybody who runs a business knows you must look at spending and you
must look at revenues. We took $4.5 trillion out of our revenue stream
at the very same time we doubled defense spending and increased
spending on homeland security. We went to war twice entirely on the
credit card. We provided new benefits for our seniors with prescription
drugs, and seniors were going through the normal aging process. Many of
those spending initiatives, again, were supported by both sides. But
when the music stopped, we realized we had a structural budget deficit
that now accounts for $16.5 trillion in debt and it goes up by $3
billion a night. While we have to take steps to rein in spending, we
also have to realize not to grow government but, just to pay our bills,
we have to put some of those revenues back into the revenue stream if
we are ever going to get to some level of balance.
Well, what does this side of aisle propose? Have they said, You know,
we need to go willy-nilly and go out and dramatically increase taxes
even beyond what was proposed in the 1990s? No. Do the folks in this
budget on the Democratic side say we at least ought to put 70 cents of
that $4.5 trillion back into the revenue stream? No. Do we say we ought
to put half of the revenues back into the revenue stream that we took
out? Again, the answer is no. This budget, combined with what we did on
New Year's Eve, puts approximately $1.575 trillion over a 10-year
period back into the revenue stream--literally only one-third of the
revenues that were taken out under the so-called Bush tax cuts back
into the revenue stream.
Yet to hear what folks on the other side say, it sounds as though
this is apocalyptic. Well, I have to tell you, as somebody, again, who
will match my business credentials against anybody in this body, you
have to look at both sides of the balance sheet. We have to find ways
to rein in spending but we also, finally, have to find ways to make
sure we have a revenue stream to allow us to meet our obligations.
A final point I wish to make--because I know my colleague, my good
friend from Oklahoma, wants to rise to speak as well--is that I believe
very strongly we have to get a handle on our entitlement programs.
Medicare and Social Security are the two most successful programs our
government and, for that matter, probably any government around the
world, has ever implemented and we need to make sure the promise of
Medicare and Social Security is going to be here for our kids and our
grandkids.
Around some of those programs some of the basic math has changed.
When I was a young person, there were 16 people working for every 1
person who was on Medicare and Social Security. Today, it is 3. In 15
years, it will only be 2. So we do have to make changes. And this
budget starts us down that path--$275 billion in entitlement changes,
on top of $700 billion in entitlement changes that were part of the
Affordable Care Act.
If we are going to make comparisons, apples to apples--and this gets
a little bit technical, and I will again try to be very brief--I have
not heard a lot of my colleagues acknowledge this. When this debate
around debt and deficit really picked up steam--it started back in 2010
with a lot of very good bipartisan work done by the Simpson-Bowles
Commission that pointed out we were on an unsustainable path and if we
didn't take action we would send our Nation over a fiscal cliff. In the
Simpson-Bowles report, they pointed out we needed to make substantial
changes, for example, in Medicare and Medicaid. Well, they had some
proposed changes that would have amounted to roughly over $400 billion
in savings over a 10-year period.
What is remarkable, and is not mentioned, is that because--whether it
is recession or the Affordable Care Act--the rate of increase of our
health care programs and our entitlement programs over the last 3 years
has dropped dramatically, and independent of the $275 billion of
entitlement savings in this budget, based upon the assumptions that
were made in 2010, based upon the Center for Budget Priorities, in
2020, because of the declining rate of increase of cost, we will have
an additional $500 billion in health care savings that are already
built into this proposal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds, and
I will finish.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. I would simply say that I want to commend this debate we
are having and commend Members on both sides of the aisle. As I said at
the outset, no budget is going to be perfect for every Member, but this
is a credible, important first step in this process, and one of which I
think we can all be proud. I look forward to finishing this debate and
moving on to the next stage to make sure we put this question of our
Nation's balance sheet in order and then move on to the other important
issues our country faces.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague and friend
Senator Inhofe. I think Senator Inhofe was told he had 8 minutes but
this says 5.
Mr. INHOFE. I would respond to my good friend and say I will take the
8.
Mr. SESSIONS. All right. There is 5 minutes, and if the Senator needs
to go over that a little bit, I will understand.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Alabama very much.
We have been very much involved--not just myself but the Senator from
Alabama and others--in this whole sequestration thing. The longer we
have these hearings on this, the more we come to the realization we are
not sure a lot of the things we are doing in these cuts are actually
going to have the effect of cutting. If they did, our concern would be
the fact that defense, which consumes 18 percent of the budget, would
be getting 50 percent of the cuts, and that is over and above what this
President has already done, projecting out in 10 more years at $487
billion in cuts.
This sequestration is projected to be--the way it was drafted in the
Obama sequestration--an additional $\1/2\ trillion. I remember when the
previous Secretary of Defense was there and he used the word
``devastating.'' It was devastating.
One thing that has not been observed is the possibility that some of
the things that are on there and are designed to be done will actually
cost more money. Let me share, if I may, some quotes by some of the
military.
First of all, Department of Defense Comptroller Hale said--and this
is very significant:
We would also be forced to disrupt as many as 2,500
investment programs, driving up costs at the very same time
we are trying to hold them down.
In other words, he says that particular part of this could actually
cost more than the cuts.
General Odierno said this at one of our hearings:
The Army agrees that the hidden costs of sequestration may
actually nullify any savings anticipated to be gained through
sequestration.
There again, it could actually cost us money, not save us money.
Admiral Ferguson said the same thing. I like his statement. He said:
Much like an automobile owner who chooses to skip a series
of oil changes today to realize near-term savings . . .
eventually his decision will result in the need for a costly
engine overhaul later, the downstream cost of cancelled
maintenance . . .
And that is what is going to have to be done under sequestration--
. . . is both reduced operational availability and much
higher depot-level type repairs in the future.
This is something that was understood by the chairman of the Armed
Services Committee and myself when Senator Levin and I jointly signed a
letter to the budget people saying we have a problem; that
sequestration could cost more, and we recommended that in those areas
where it costs more, then we would add $16 million--that would be one-
third--to the OCO account so that could be used in the
[[Page S2262]]
event--only in the event--we find we are spending more money on that.
As I say, I did give a copy of this letter as a reminder to the
chairman of the committee, Senator Levin. So all we are doing is what
we requested be done some time ago. Most likely, it is not going to
cost anything and it is not scored. This is the OCO account, and it is
increasing it $16 million more, to $66 million. It is interesting that
in the budget that came over from the House it was $95 million, so this
is considerably less than that.
I think this is a good thing to do, and I honestly believe it will
enjoy enough support that we will be able to get it with a voice vote.
I can't imagine anyone being against it. Because what we are saying is,
in an area where it is costing more, we will have something to cover
that rather than it coming out of the defense budget.
I will not take a long time on this other one. I don't have the
assurance yet that we are going to have a vote on it, but I think it is
very important. There are a lot of us here, and I daresay a majority of
us in the Senate, who are looking at this United Nations arms trade
treaty and thinking: Why in the world would somebody want to cede to
the United Nations, or to any multinational group, the power to make
determinations as to with whom we trade arms? We may have an ally out
there that maybe the United Nations doesn't agree with and they would
be able to keep us, through a treaty, from trading arms with our
allies--an ally such as Israel, as an example.
So I have an amendment--amendment No. 139--that I will try to get a
vote on because I think we should. This may end up being the only vote
that is addressing this real hot issue of guns right now, and that is
all we have heard about in the last few weeks. I am going to tell you
the actual wording of this so we are not hiding anything.
If you are for gun control, you won't like this. If you are for the
multinationalists being in a position to determine with whom we trade,
you are not going to like this. And to show you what this is, I will
read the new language in the bill. It says:
. . . upholding Second Amendment rights . . . preventing
the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms
Treaty.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. INHOFE. I am going to try hard and encourage our leadership to
allow a vote on this very significant amendment. And I would say, if we
could pull out maybe 3 or 4 amendments of all the 200 or 300
amendments, this would have to be one that most people would consider
to be a very significant amendment.
With that, I would only mention one other thing. I am not going to
bring this up, but I do have an amendment--amendment No. 282. A lot of
people in States such as Alabama and Oklahoma recognize that our banks
were not the problem. We didn't have problems in my State of Oklahoma.
So when we talked about State banks and community banks, we were in a
position to take care of our own needs and we should not be a part of
it. So this amendment--and then I will close--merely says we are going
to come forth with legislation. We are going to draw a distinction, not
just on Dodd-Frank and that type of legislation, but between community
and State banks and Federal banks. The latter is where the problem is,
so let's not try to correct something or fix something that doesn't
need fixing.
Before I yield the floor, let me ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the Record the letter from Senator Carl Levin and myself
dated March 1.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, March 1, 2013.
Hon. Patty Murray,
Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Jeff Sessions,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Patty and Jeff: In accordance with your request, we
are forwarding our recommendations for the FY 2014 budget
resolution. As you know the Department of Defense races an
unprecedented level of fiscal uncertainty. Congress has not
completed action on FY 2013 appropriations, the government is
operating under a continuing appropriations resolution that
expires on March 27, and the FY 2014 budget has been delayed.
Additionally, discretionary accounts face sequestration
starting on March 1. Sequestration is expected to increase
the cost of defense programs, placing additional demands on
the DOD budget in the long run. We urge our colleagues to
support passage of full-year FY 2013 appropriations as well
as legislation that would eliminate sequestration in FY 2013.
Normally, the Committee would use the President's budget
submission as the starting point for developing our
recommendations for the FY 2014 budget resolution. While we
do not have a 2014 request the Committee notes that last
year's budget, submitted to the Congress on February 13,
2012, projected $579.7 billion in discretionary budget
authority for the Department of Defense in FY 2014. This
total included $535.5 billion for the base budget and $44.2
billion for overseas contingency operations. The budget
request also projected $17.2 billion for defense programs in
the Department of Energy in FY 2014. Last year's budget
request, together with the out-year budget projections, was
developed pursuant to a new defense strategy released in
January 2012. We anticipate that meeting our national
security requirements and providing for our men and women in
uniform and their families will require the FY 2014 National
Defense discretionary and mandatory budget projections that
were included in last year's budget submission. We recommend
that the budget resolution for fiscal year 2014 include the
projected amounts of budget authority and the associated
outlays (subject to any technical revisions by the
Congressional Budget Office) for national defense.
If sequestration is implemented over the next seven months,
it will impose significant long-term costs on the Department
of Defense to recover acceptable readiness levels and carry
out the national military strategy. Accordingly, if Congress
is unable to enact legislation avoiding sequestration, we
recommend that the base budget for the Department of Defense
be increased by two to three percent to enable the Department
to address these problems. If such legislation is enacted,
the increase in funding will not be necessary.
The Committee recognizes the requirement pursuant to
section 411 of the fiscal year 2010 budget resolution that
directed Committees to review programs in their jurisdictions
to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse, and to include
recommendations for improving government performance. Last
year, the Committee was responsible for the enactment of the
FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which
reduced the authorization levels for the Department of
Defense and the national security functions of the Department
of Energy by $29 billion when compared with the levels
authorized in FY 2012.
The FY 2013 NDAA included a number of cuts to the
President's budget request. For example, the FY 2013 NDAA:
cut more than $660.0 million from the President's budget for
military construction and family housing projects; prohibited
the obligation or expenditure of FY 2013 funds for the Medium
Extended Air Defense System eliminating a $400.9 million
expenditure; cut $200.0 million from the Commander's
Emergency Response Program; cut $197.0 million from Army and
Marine Corps' ammunition procurement accounts; cut $190.0
million for the Joint Tactical Radio System; cut $175.0
million from excess unobligated balances; and cut $77.1
million from the request for development of the KC-46A
aircraft program.
In addition, the FY 2013 NDAA included a number of
provisions to improve defense contracting and reduce waste in
the operations of the Department of Defense. For example, the
legislation:
Requires the Secretary of Defense to implement a plan to
rebalance and reduce the DOD civilian employee workforce and
service contractor workforce, achieving a savings of 5
percent in each workforce over a 5-year period while
providing the Secretary flexibility to exclude critical
elements of the workforce and to phase in reductions.
Improves the cost-effectiveness of DOD contracting by
strictly limiting the use of cost-type contracts for the
production of major weapon systems; enhancing protections for
contractor employee whistleblowers; restricting the use of
``pass-through'' contracts; and clarifying DOD access to
contractor cost-and price-information.
Strengthens the authority of the senior DOD official
responsible for developmental testing on major defense
acquisition programs.
Restricts the use of ``pass-through'' contracts by
requiring a contracting officer determination to support any
contract on which more than 70 percent of the work will be
performed by subcontractors.
Requires DOD to review its existing profit guidelines and
revise them as necessary to ensure an appropriate link
between contractor profits and contractor performance.
Requires DOD and other agencies to conduct risk assessments
and take steps to mitigate significant risks associated with
contractor performance of critical functions in support of
overseas contingency operations.
Requires DOD and other agencies to establish clear chains
of responsibility for key acquisition functions in support of
overseas contingency operations.
Added funds to support the DOD Corrosion Prevention and
Control program. DOD estimates that corrosion in military
equipment costs the Services over $22.0 billion per year;
[[Page S2263]]
expenditures in this area have yielded an estimated 14:1
return on investment by reducing the bill for repair and
replacement of corroded systems and parts.
Added funds to support the DOD Inspector General (IG), to
enable the IG to continue growth designed to provide more
effective oversight and help identify waste, fraud, and abuse
in DOD programs, especially in the area of procurement. DOD
IG reviews resulted in an estimated $2.6 billion savings in
FY 11--a return on investment of $8.79 for every $1 spent.
The Committee will continue to develop recommendations to
improve the efficient management of taxpayer funds, including
identifying additional savings across the full range of
defense programs.
The Committee notes that last year the Department of
Defense submitted a program that included $487 billion in
budget cuts over ten years. The Secretary of Defense has
testified that the additional cuts required by sequestration
would be devastating to defense programs and would require a
new strategy with an unacceptable degree of risk to our
national security. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
has also stated that the military cannot absorb such cuts
without direct impacts to missions and capabilities. We agree
with these assessments and urge the Budget Committee to
develop a plan that avoids sequestration.
At this time, absent receipt of the FY 2014 budget request,
we believe that the funding levels we are recommending will
allow us to meet our current national security requirements.
We may wish to amend our recommendations after receipt of the
budget request and we look forward to working with you to
create a budget that supports our national security.
Sincerely,
James Inhofe,
Ranking Member.
Carl Levin,
Chairman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I
ask unanimous consent that the time be divided equally between both
sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I allot myself 5 minutes of the time
allotted to Senator Cornyn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the spending
decisions that are crippling the long-term budget outlook and the
futures of our children and grandchildren.
I am one of two accountants serving in the Senate, so the purpose of
the budget resolution makes a lot of sense to me. It is like an
accounting ledger--a blueprint that lays out spending priorities for
the country for the next fiscal year. Back in my accounting days, I
made sure that the ledger balanced. I would look carefully line by line
at what was being spent and where it was being spent. If the ledger
didn't balance, I looked at what could be trimmed from the overall
budget. To do that, I would sit down and prioritize what was needed to
make the business work, and what could be cut with the least impact on
the business or its customers. I would also look at where the business
might be duplicating some of its efforts and what could be cut there.
But that is not what we are doing in this exercise. We are not taking
a serious look at spending and making the necessary and tough choices
about what we can afford.
We aren't even able to vote on spending items that both sides agree
are duplicative or wasteful, as we saw during the weeklong exercise
with the continuing resolution that passed yesterday.
What we should be doing is asking every agency to prioritize what it
does from the best to the worst, and then we would be able to compare
that list to the wasteful and duplicative items that have been
identified, including some by my colleagues, such as Senator Coburn. He
has been tireless in his effort to identify these spending items and
bring them to the attention not only of his fellow Senators but the
American people. Then we should cut what the Federal Government isn't
doing well.
We can also use the principle behind my One Percent Spending
Reduction Act--also known as the penny plan. This is a bill that has a
simple and direct plan to achieve the spending cuts necessary to
balance the budget. It would accomplish the task by cutting a single
penny from every dollar the government spends every year for 3 years
and end with a balanced budget after those 3 years. Taking this
approach, each agency and program within that agency could determine
its priorities and decide where to cut 1 percent of its budget.
Guaranteed, if given the choice, agencies and programs--I hope--would
cut the least important, the least likely to affect staff and overall
operations. In other words, they would cut what they could do without,
and every business and every agency has those things.
The problem is that every program has a constituency. Every program
has folks who are telling me or my colleagues: Yes, we understand the
need to cut spending, but my program is an integral part. So don't cut
me, cut someone else.
At this point we have to step to the plate and say that there are no
easy choices left. If we all feel a little bit of pain now, we can
avoid the pain we will face if we continue to kick the can down the
road when it comes to our long-term budget outlook. We have to get
serious about providing a blueprint for future spending that provides a
path to a balanced budget. We need a blueprint that funds the
government and necessary programs but takes an honest look at where
taxpayer dollars are going and makes changes to spend less and spend
more wisely.
Some of my colleagues across the aisle have talked about providing
for future generations in the budget resolution. With this budget we
are providing for future generations--we are providing them with less
prosperity and fewer opportunities by refusing to make some hard
decisions and saddling them with unpaid trillions of dollars in bills.
I have three children and four grandchildren who live in Wyoming.
Many of my colleagues have children, grandchildren, nieces, and
nephews. It is because of them and families across the country that we
have to make tough choices on our spending priorities, and we have to
make them now. This budget resolution doesn't do that. Instead, it is
another missed opportunity, another ledger that just doesn't balance.
Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum,
and I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. I would recognize Senator Cornyn for up to 6 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, tomorrow marks the third anniversary of
the Affordable Care Act--the law that President Obama said would reduce
health care costs and strengthen our economy without forcing anyone to
lose their existing coverage and without raising taxes on anyone making
less than $200,000. Those were the promises of ObamaCare, but over the
last 3 years we have seen the reality, which is far different.
Reality No. 1: Amid the slowest economic recovery and the longest
period of high unemployment since the Great Depression, ObamaCare
represents a $1 trillion tax increase that will affect all Americans,
not just those making less than $200,000.
Indeed, ObamaCare is a tax increase that will affect everyone, from
young people with health savings accounts, to middle-class workers with
families, to senior citizens on fixed incomes. It is a tax increase
that will punish investment and hinder medical innovation, a tax
increase that is already discouraging job creation and already hurting
the economy.
Reality No. 2: ObamaCare has not solved the problem of rising health
care costs, and in the years ahead it will make the problem much, much
worse.
Remember, during the 2008 campaign, President Obama told us his
health care plan would reduce family premiums by $2,500. Yet the cost
of family
[[Page S2264]]
premiums has increased by nearly $2,400 between 2009 and 2012. And once
the President's health care law is fully implemented, premiums will
soar even higher.
All we need to do is look at the front page of the Wall Street
Journal, which reports:
Health insurers are privately warning brokers that premiums
for many individuals and small businesses could increase
sharply next year because of the health-care overhaul, with
the nation's biggest firm projecting that rates could more
than double for some consumers buying their own health plans.
The truth is that young people will be hit the hardest, people the
age of my daughters--31 and 30 years old. The American Action Forum
recently projected that premium costs for young and healthy Americans
will ``increase by an average of 169 percent.'' Such a dramatic
increase in health care premiums will come at a time when middle-class
workers and families are already struggling to make ends meet. After
all, the median household income in America has fallen more than $2,400
since 2009.
Reality No. 3: Even if you like your existing coverage, you probably
won't be able to keep it.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, 7 million Americans
will lose their health insurance because of ObamaCare. Another study
estimated that 30 percent of employers would drop their employees from
their employer-provided coverage. In short, millions and millions of
Americans who want to keep their existing coverage will be forced to
give it up.
Which brings me to reality number four. For starters, ObamaCare is a
massive job killer. No. 1, it increases a new tax on medical devices
that is already prompting companies to reduce investment in the United
States and lay off workers, including in my home State of Texas.
The Michigan-based company Stryker has recently shut down two of its
facilities and is cutting 5 percent of its workforce; the Indiana-based
Cook Medical has cancelled plans to build five new U.S. manufacturing
facilities; and New York-based Welch Allyn is slashing its workforce by
10 percent.
Texas has more than 66,000 jobs in the medical technology industry,
which ranks as among the top 10 States nationwide. But those jobs are
at risk. According to one study, the medical device tax could destroy
as many as 1,400 jobs in Texas alone, and reduce our economic output by
$252 million. This tax will also hamper innovation and reduce patient
access to advanced medical devices.
Not surprisingly, the medical device tax is now facing strong
bipartisan opposition. In fact, last night 79 Members of this Senate--
Republicans and Democrats alike--voted to repeal it. Seventy-nine out
of one hundred Senators voted to repeal it.
Unfortunately, the medical device tax is not the only job killer in
the President's health care law. But as we consider this litany of
broken promises and as we sort through all of the unintended
consequences of ObamaCare, I can only shake my head in frustration.
Three years ago this Chamber had a unique opportunity to pass
commonsense, market-driven reforms that would have made health
insurance more affordable and health care more accessible, while
safeguarding the doctor-patient relationship and boosting our economy.
I still believe we can achieve those goals. But the President's health
care law--now 3 years after it was passed--remains a huge obstacle
standing in our way.
That is why I supported an amendment to the continuing resolution
that would have defunded ObamaCare and an amendment to the budget that
would have repealed it. Both of these amendments were introduced by my
colleague Senator Cruz. Along with Senator Cruz, I will continue
pushing to replace the President's health care law with more sensible
alternatives.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator Cornyn for his remarks. I think it is a
cautionary tale that when you pass a bill with the very stated idea
from the Democratic leader in the House that ``We will find out what is
in it after we pass it'' then you know we are in trouble.
ObamaCare is a monstrosity of a bill that has 1,700 references that
say we will execute this legislation pursuant to regulations to be
issued by some nameless, faceless government operative somewhere. It
will bind and affect the very health care of millions of Americans. I
have become more and more convinced it will not work.
The budget that has been presented to us today fails to meet the
challenge of our time. It does not alter, confront, or reform and put
on a safe path our important Social Security and Medicare Programs,
both of which are heading to deficit and disaster. They need to be
fixed now. The sooner we fix them, the better off we will all be. And
it can be done. It just requires some willingness to stand up and be
counted and do the right thing.
There is no reform of the wasteful government duplicative spending
that goes on. Senator Coburn just went through a whole litany of
duplicative programs: 47 job-training programs, many education
programs, huge duplication in highway programs throughout different
agencies and departments of the government. We know those exist, and
nothing has been done about it. It does not alter the debt course we
are on and, in fact, keeps it at the same rate.
It says we are going to raise $1 trillion in taxes and we are going
to cut spending $1 trillion, and this is the balanced approach. We have
been told that over and over: This is a balanced approach.
But that is not what the budget does. It does indeed raise taxes--at
least $1 trillion actually--and it increases spending. So the net
result of this budget over 10 years is to have no effect on the deficit
even though it raises taxes $1 trillion. A balanced approach, in the
terms of my Democratic colleagues, is to raise taxes $1 trillion and
raise spending $1 trillion. This is irresponsible.
I am baffled by the willingness of my colleagues to proceed in that
fashion, representing the budget to be something it is not. I think
they have a guilty conscience, perhaps. We have been trying to keep up
with how many times they have used the word ``balanced.'' How many
times in the last 2 days have the Democratic speakers all across the
board--who have their poll-tested language used the word ``balanced,''
when in fact they have an unbalanced budget that does not change the
debt course and leaves us on a financial path that the CBO Director
said is unsustainable. But you know the American people want a balanced
budget, so you say: We have got a balanced approach, a balanced plan, a
balanced priority, and you use that word over and over, with the idea
that it sinks into somebody's mind and they begin to believe that you
have a balanced budget. I can hear an ad agency explaining how this
works.
But we don't have a balanced budget. It never balances. It has no
goal of balancing. It is no closer to balancing than the current
baseline and current law we are spending on.
So we have calculated--and the numbers have gone up every hour--201
references on the floor of the Senate to ``balanced.'' It just now
begins to highlight the fact of how unbalanced this is, how unbalanced
this budget is, how it does not do what we need it to do.
Back when I opposed the nomination of Jack Lew, who was Chief of
Staff and OMB Director, to be Secretary of the Treasury, we talked
about his first budget. It was the same way. They decided in early
2011, after the 2010 shellacking, to produce a budget that did not come
close to balance. They had a little problem because the American people
had just whacked the big spenders in the 2000 election. So what did
they decide to do? They just said it would balance. They said we are
only spending money we have. We have a budget that does not add to the
debt. We have a budget that begins to pay down the debt. All three of
those things were utterly false. The lowest single deficit, in his own
numbers he submitted to us, was $600 billion. That was the least that
he had in his entire 10-year budget of what the deficit would be that
year--$600 billion deficit. Yet he said we have a budget that pays down
the debt, we have a budget that only spends money we have, and a budget
you can be proud of.
That is what we have here. I hate to say it. My colleagues have
produced a budget that utterly fails to alter the
[[Page S2265]]
debt course we are on. It raises taxes, but it does not use the taxes
to reduce the deficit. It uses the taxes to fund new spending. It truly
does.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. HEITKAMP). The time of the Senator has
expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. That is the concern we have today. We will head now
into the votes. I thank Senator Murray for allowing us to have free
ability to speak and debate. We do not agree on these issues, but we
will head into an afternoon that hopefully will allow our Members a
full opportunity to get a vote on amendments, if they believe strongly
in them. We hope we do not have needless amendments, that Members are
looking and understand the needs of our time.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 minutes.
Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the only time left in debate right now
is Democratic time. But in a spirit of bipartisanship, I yield 5
minutes of our Democratic time to the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. HELLER. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Washington for
providing time. I rise to discuss three of my amendments that I filed
to the budget, amendment Nos. 293, 476, and 477.
My first amendment deals with an issue that is very important to my
home State of Nevada and nearly one dozen Western States where a bird
called the sage grouse is found.
The Department of the Interior has engaged Western States in
developing State-specific Greater Sage-Grouse management plans to
address the threat of an Endangered Species Act listing for the bird.
Nevada is one of several Western States have convened task forces to
develop recommendations for their respective Governors to serve as a
foundation for State-level sage-grouse management.
These State plans are designed to conserve the species and its
habitat while maintaining predictable land use policies as well as the
ability to foster a healthy economy and preserve the Western way of
life.
These goals can only be achieved if the States, Federal Government,
and other concerned stakeholders use this opportunity to forge a
partnership under the ESA.
My amendment simply reaffirms the importance of this partnership. It
ensures that States can continue to be drivers in ways to find a
balance between economic development and reasonable protections for
wildlife.
My two other amendments, Heller Nos. 476 and 477, deal with another
issue important to Nevada, namely, veterans. My first amendment is a
straight forward amendment that says that the Department of Veterans'
Affairs needs to ensure that they meet the needs of a growing veterans
population, female veterans.
As the dynamics of our Armed Forces are changing so, too, are our
veterans.
This measure simply calls on the VA to take into account the
population of female veterans when planning, leasing or building
infrastructures that will house veterans.
Ensuring that our female veterans have a lock on their door or a
separate wing in the VA facility or separate restroom ensures a level
of safety and privacy that should be provided without question.
Last Congress I introduced legislation that focused specifically on
meeting the needs of female homeless veterans. My amendment builds upon
this legislation to ensure that it includes all VA facilities.
Another important component of our growing homeless veterans
population are their dependents. My other amendment, Heller No. 477
simply ensures that dependents of homeless veterans who are receiving
services at a VA-funded shelter are eligible for services as well.
In Las Vegas last year, there were more than 1,300 homeless veterans
roaming the streets. Some of these individuals have their children with
them.
Right now if a homeless veteran brings their child to a VA facility
for the night, that facility is not authorized by Congress to provide
services to the child.
My amendment ensures that children of homeless veterans--veterans who
bravely fought to preserve our freedoms--are not turned away from
receiving services if they are with their parent at a VA facility.
I urge my colleagues to support these amendments.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, we have about 12 minutes remaining. I
ask unanimous consent to give 2 minutes of my time to my colleague for
his closing remarks, and I will take the last 10 minutes.
I want all of my colleagues to know that we will start votes right
after we are finished with our closing remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank Senator Murray. She has been a
great person to work with. She is firm, clear, and tough, and has moved
us forward. I always felt that when she made a decision, it was
justified. She kept us under control and let us fuss and complain a
bit. The content of the plan that the majority has moved forward I
think explains why they have had difficulty revealing it from the
beginning. It is because it is not the kind of budget that can be
defended effectively. Honest people can disagree on policy, but there
can be no disagreement, I believe, on the need to change our Nation's
debt course. A singular truth that no one can escape is that the House
budget changes our debt course while the Senate budget does not.
The Senate budget increases taxes, increases spending, and during
that 10-year period another $7.3 trillion will be added to the debt.
There will be no real deficit reduction, and it never balances.
Republicans have given opportunity after opportunity, through votes, to
produce a balanced budget, but that has been rejected.
The massive debt we racked up to finance our wasteful government is
pulling down economic growth today. This is so important for us to
understand. Gross debt--over 90 percent of GDP--weakens growth; not
tomorrow, it is weakening growth today. In other words, continuing to
borrow to bail out the government, and keep checks flowing, creates
debt that pulls down wages, jobs, and job creation. It is time to stop
shielding the government bureaucracy, which is hurting people today.
There is nothing virtuous about defending a broken welfare state that
is trapping millions in poverty. Every time our colleagues raise taxes
instead of reforming the government, they are enriching that
bureaucracy at the expense of the people. When they demand more money,
they are saying that reform is not important, just send us more money;
we are not at fault.
I will conclude and say, we have to move away from a budget and a
plan that enriches the bureaucracy at the expense of the American
people.
I thank Senator Murray for her courtesy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I want to thank all of my colleagues in
the Senate--and in particular, my ranking member Jeff Sessions--for
their valuable contributions to the debate we have had over the last
few days and weeks. While there are clear areas of disagreement about
how to restore our Nation's fiscal health, this is an important
conversation, and one we can build on.
We all like the word ``balanced.'' As chair of the Senate Budget
Committee, a critical part of my role is making sure the voices of the
American people
[[Page S2266]]
are heard in the budget process. I believe that budgets are about far
more than numbers on a page. They are about the values and priorities
of the American people. In their daily lives, families across our
country will feel the impact of the plan we lay out in a budget, and
they deserve a seat at the table. That is why at one of my first
hearings as chairman, we invited inspiring Americans to speak about how
the Federal budget impacts their day-to-day lives and the opportunities
they have had to reach their own goals.
A young woman from New Hampshire named Katyanne Zink attended my
hearing. She grew up in a low-income neighborhood in New Hampshire. Her
parents didn't go to college themselves, but they desperately wanted
the best for their children. Thanks to a great public school teacher
who encouraged her to aim high, and with the help of Pell grants and
student loans, Katyanne was able to go to college. She is now giving
back to her community as an urgent care nurse. Tara Marks of Pittsburgh
also spoke at our hearing. Tara never expected to find herself in
poverty, but when she was suddenly hit by hard times, she temporarily
depended on food stamps to feed herself and her young son. Tara firmly
believes that without help when she needed it the most, she would not
have been able to get back on her feet.
We heard from Patrick Murray, who is an Operation Iraqi Freedom
veteran. Patrick explained that after suffering severe injuries while
serving his country, Federal support helped him live independently so
he could focus on finishing his degree.
The stories that Katyanne, Tara, and Patrick shared are just a few of
the millions we must keep at the forefront of this discussion because
the interest of hard-working Americans must come first in our
decisionmaking. I am proud that the Senate budget my colleagues and I
put forward does exactly that. The first priority of our Senate budget
is creating jobs and economic growth from the middle out, not from the
top down.
With an unemployment rate that remains stubbornly high and a middle
class that has seen their wages stagnate for far too long, we cannot
afford any threats to our fragile recovery. That is exactly why our
budget responsibly replaces the harmful and arbitrary cuts from
sequestration. It removes the unnecessary burden on our economy that
would lower employment by almost 750,000 jobs this year alone.
Following the advice of experts across the political spectrum, the
Senate budget invests in education and job creation targeted through
infrastructure and training initiatives while putting in place a
responsible plan for deficit reduction over the long term. To secure
strong economic growth in the future, our budget invests in our
greatest resource, the American people, by strongly supporting high-
quality education from preschool through college and career training.
As my colleague Senator Warner said so eloquently here earlier on the
floor, we have to stay ahead of our competition. Our budget supports
Federal R&D, which will help us make sure that growing industries and
the jobs which come with them take root in the United States, not in
China or India.
This budget also recognizes that getting our debt and deficit under
control is crucial to our Nation's economic strength in the coming
years. Our Senate budget puts forward serious, responsible deficit
reduction that reflects the recommendations of bipartisan experts and
the values and priorities of the American people.
Back in 2010, the Simpson-Bowles Fiscal Commission recommended
finding about $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. This has
become, as we all know, the benchmark for other serious bipartisan
proposals. Building on the $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction put in
place over the last 2 years, our Senate budget pushes us past that $4
trillion benchmark with $1.85 trillion in deficit reduction that is
evenly divided between responsible spending cuts and new revenue from
the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.
This budget cuts spending responsibly by $975 billion, and we make
some pretty tough choices to get there. By taking the balanced approach
the American people have consistently called for, our Senate budget
matches those responsible spending cuts with $975 billion in new
revenue, which is raised by closing loopholes and cutting unfair
spending in the Tax Code for those who need it the least. This should
not be controversial. There is bipartisan support for reducing the
deficit by making the Tax Code more fair and more efficient.
If our Senate budget is enacted, the total deficit reduction since
the Simpson-Bowles report will consist of 64 percent spending cuts, 14
percent tax rate increases on the rich, and 22 percent new revenue by
closing loopholes and cutting wasteful spending in the Tax Code for the
wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations. We will have put our
debt and deficit on a downward, sustainable path. This is a responsible
approach. It is a balanced and fair approach. It is one that is
endorsed by bipartisan groups and experts, and it is one supported by
the vast majority of American people.
The Senate budget takes the position that the solution to our fiscal
challenges will not be found in deep cuts to programs vulnerable
families depend on. It maintains crucial services that mothers such as
Tara and millions of other families struck by hard times have used as a
way to make ends meet while they recover. The Senate budget preserves
and protects Medicare for seniors today and into the future.
As Senator Stabenow explained on the floor so well yesterday,
Medicare is vital to the health and well-being of more than 50 million
seniors and Americans with disabilities. Upholding our commitment to
seniors and helping struggling Americans get back on their feet is not
just good for our economy, it is the right thing to do.
I realize there are serious differences between the parties, and in
the last few years it has been especially polarized here in Congress.
But the House has now passed its budget resolution. We will be working
here in the Senate to pass ours sometime late this evening. We have
presented very different visions for how our country should work and
who it should work for, but I am hopeful that we can bridge this
divide.
As we look ahead now, I urge my colleagues to think of the millions
of Americans such as Katyanne, Tara, and Patrick. I urge them to think
of the millions of middle-class families across the country who are
looking to all of us to get this right; families who want us to invest
in them and their communities; who want us to focus on the economy and
on opportunity and the future; who are not looking for a handout, just
a hand up when they need it; a government that works for them during
the good times and the bad; and who desperately want us to break
through this gridlock and end the dysfunction that is hurting our
economy and costing them jobs. They are what this debate is about. They
are who sent us all here to represent them.
The Senate budget works for families. It is a balanced and
responsible plan that will tackle our economic and fiscal challenges in
a way that puts the middle class and broad-based economic growth first.
When this comes up for a final vote tonight, I am going to be proud
to vote for it, and I hope all of my colleagues will do the same.
When this passes the Senate, by the way, the work is far from
complete. I will be working with Chairman Ryan in the House and anyone
else who is interested in coming together to make some compromises, and
to get to a balanced and bipartisan deal that the American people
expect and deserve. It is not going to be easy, but I am hopeful it can
be done. I know the families who sent us here expect nothing less.
I wish to thank Senator Sessions again for working with me on this.
We have different views on many issues, but I am proud of the work we
did together to make sure we had a robust and fair debate in the
committee and here on the Senate floor. I also wish to thank all of his
staff who have worked so hard, all of our staff who are continuing to
work--all of them--very hard behind the scenes to pull this together. I
wish to thank all of my colleagues again on the Budget Committee for
contributing their ideas and their thoughts and their values to this
resolution. I believe we have a very strong budget here. I am proud to
vote for it, and I am very glad to have worked with so many people to
get us to this point and, hopefully, in not too many hours we will pass
the budget in
[[Page S2267]]
the Senate and can go to work for the American people.
Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor, and I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Alabama has asked for 2 minutes and I
would be happy to oblige him as we are trying to work out an agreement
to get going on votes. I yield him 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. How much time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
Mr. SHELBY. I will try to be careful and quick. I wish to thank the
distinguished Senator from Washington for yielding the time.
I rise today to once again express my concerns about the fiscal
problems facing our Nation. Thus far this year I have held public
meetings in 61 of my State's 67 counties. Without exception, my State's
top concern is our Nation's unsustainable debt and its effect on job
creation and economic growth.
Alabamians know the Federal debt currently stands at nearly $17
trillion. Yet they see that the Democratic budget before us does not
balance--not in 10 years, perhaps not ever. They know the Federal debt
has increased by $6 trillion under President Obama. Yet they see that
the Democratic budget proposes to pile on $7 trillion more.
My constituents know that excessive taxes are choking job creation in
this country. Yet they see that the Democratic budget costs $1.2
trillion of new job-killing taxes. They know the stimulus package was
an abject failure.
My constituents understand that the more we borrow, the more we must
pay back in interest. Yet they see that under the Democratic budget, we
will pay more in interest on the debt--$791 billion--than we will spend
on national defense. They know that fiscal reform without entitlement
reform is meaningless. Yet they hear no mention of entitlements in the
Democratic budget.
It has been 1,423 days since the Senate passed a budget. My
constituents waited that long for this. There is little wonder that
trepidation over our Nation's future is so prevalent. No dominant power
in world history has remained strong with a weak economy--not the
Persians, not the Greeks, not the Romans, not the British, not anyone.
Under the Democratic budget, our Nation would learn that lesson the
hard way.
Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank all of our Members for their
patience. I think we have an agreement put together, and we will be
able to get going, so I would ask for everybody's attention.
I ask unanimous consent that the next amendments in order to be
called up after the disposition of the Republican side-by-side
amendments to Shaheen No. 438 be the following: Menendez No. 651,
Coburn No. 409, Whitehouse No. 652, Blunt No. 261, Boxer No. 622,
Hoeven No. 494, Durbin No. 578, Murray No. 653, and Collins No. 144;
and that the only second-degree amendments in order prior to the votes
in relation to the amendments listed above be the following amendments
to the Durbin amendment No. 578: Enzi No. 656, Ayotte No. 657, and
Baucus No. 658, to be offered in that order en bloc; that
notwithstanding all time having expired on the resolution, there will
be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote, with the exception of
the vote prior to the Enzi second-degree amendment No. 656 to Durbin
No. 578, where there will be 40 minutes--10 minutes each for Senators
Durbin, Enzi, Ayotte, and Baucus, or their designees; that the order of
votes with respect to the second-degree amendments to Durbin No. 578 be
the following: Enzi, Ayotte, and Baucus; that upon disposition of the
Collins amendment No. 144, the majority have the next amendment in
order; finally, that all after the first vote will be 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, we are now going to be starting a
series of votes. I would ask Members to stay in the Chamber. We are
going to be very strict on the time in making sure we move through
these.
Again, I would ask all Senators to please respect those Senators who
are speaking so that they can be heard, keep the conversations in the
cloakroom, and be ready to vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Amendment No. 239
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I would call up amendment No.
239.
Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Colorado.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Udall], for himself and Mr.
Barrasso, and Mr. Wyden proposes an amendment numbered 239.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that
the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide additional suppression resources to the Forest
Service and the Department of the Interior for the protection of
communities, homes, water supplies, utility infrastructure, and natural
resources from catastrophic wildfires)
On page 20, line 19, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
On page 20, line 20, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
On page 46, line 11, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
On page 46, line 12, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, wildfires threaten
communities all across my part of the country, the West, but I daresay
all around our great country. That is why I am proud to partner with my
colleagues, Senators Barrasso, Wyden, Bennet, Merkley, and others from
the West, to introduce what is a commonsense, bipartisan, and deficit-
neutral amendment to the 2014 budget.
We need to reduce the Federal budget deficit. We all agree that is
important. But if we don't invest in firefighting efforts and
mitigation, that will levy an unacceptably steep and entirely avoidable
cost upon Colorado and the entire country. So my amendment would allow
for an increase of $100 million in funding available for wildfire
suppression.
I yield time to my friend and colleague and cosponsor Senator
Barrasso to speak on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I am pleased to cosponsor Udall
amendment No. 239. Communities in Wyoming and other Western States
continue to be threatened by wildfires stemming from excessive fuel
loads in our national forests, continued drought, and excess beetle-
killed timber. I speak in favor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I suggest we do this by voice vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, our side is amenable. If both Senators
agree, we will do this by voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 239) was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
[[Page S2268]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Amendment No. 630
Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk, No.
630, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mrs. Fischer], for herself Mr.
Cruz, Mr. Enzi and Mr. Johanns, proposes an amendment
numbered 630.
Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to protect
women's access to health care, including primary and preventive care,
in a manner consistent with protecting rights of conscience)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR DEFICIT RESERVE
RELATING TO WOMEN'S HEALTH CARE.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports
related to women's access to health care, which may include
the protection of basic primary and preventive health care,
in a manner consistent with the First Amendment to the
Constitution, sections 506 and 507 of Division F of Public
Law 112-74, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993,
the protection of religious beliefs and moral convictions and
without raising new revenue, by the amounts provided in such
legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise today to offer a side-by-side
amendment to Senator Shaheen's amendment No. 438.
My amendment defends the rights of employers opposed to subsidizing
certain health care services because of conscience objections or
religious beliefs.
We have all heard from employers, hospitals, and physicians who have
told us about their concerns about inadequate exemptions for those with
religious objections to certain types of health care services. In my
home State, the Nebraska Medical Association passed a resolution in
2012 calling for increased protection of conscience rights for licensed
physicians. I am pleased that this amendment does just that.
The amendment does not add a dime to the deficit, it protects the
quality of women's health care, and it defends the conscience rights
and religious principles of employers and physicians. I strongly
encourage my colleagues to support this important amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, this amendment would allow any employer
or insurance company to refuse to cover any health care services for
women based on their own religious beliefs and moral convictions that
have nothing to do with the health needs of those denied coverage.
The compromise put forward by President Obama ensures that religious
liberty is respected while ensuring that women can get access to the
health care they need. Last year, Judge Carol Jackson, who was
appointed by President George H.W. Bush, ruled in support of this
compromise, saying that Federal religious freedom law is ``a shield,
not a sword . . . it is not a means to force one's religious practices
upon others.''
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaine). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 55, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 55 Leg.]
YEAS--44
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--55
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 630) was rejected.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, for the information of all the
Senators, that vote went a little bit over. We will not let votes go
over. Anyone who is not in the Chamber is going to miss a vote. We have
to be able to do this in order to move expeditiously. I want to let all
Senators know they leave at their own peril.
With that, I am going to turn to Senator Menendez so he may offer his
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Amendment No. 651
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 651.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], for himself,
Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. Warren, and Mr. Cowan, proposes an
amendment numbered 651.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To call for a comprehensive approach for wage index reform)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO MAKE COMPREHENSIVE
IMPROVEMENTS TO MEDICARE HOSPITAL WAGE-RELATED
PAYMENTS.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports that would adjust Medicare
payments for hospitals, which may include adjustments to
reflect area differences in wage levels, by the amounts
provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided
that such legislation would not increase the deficit over
either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through
2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through
2023.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, this is a side-by-side to Senator
Coburn's amendment, and while I stand in strong opposition to the
underlying amendment of Senator Coburn, I do recognize the need for a
comprehensive examination to the current Medicare wage index system.
HHS and MedPAC and others have issued detailed reports highlighting
that very fact, showing that the current system is full of special add-
ons, reclassifications, and other provisions that distort the overall
system.
In essence, that amendment would create such harm in so many
hospitals across this Nation from Alaska to New Hampshire, to Nevada,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Rhode Island, just
[[Page S2269]]
to mention a few. Our effort is to look at this comprehensively. We
need to look at the entire Medicare hospital wage index system. We
should not pick out one small provision that does so much harm to so
many hospitals across the country instead of addressing the system as a
whole.
I am joined in this with Senator Warren, Senator Cowan, and Senator
Lautenberg, among others, and I urge my colleagues to support the side-
by-side amendment so we can address this in a comprehensive and
responsible way.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. My colleagues might want to hear the other side of the
story. My amendment reverses $4.6 billion that was taken from rural
hospitals all across this country and given to two States. Every
Member's rural hospitals lose money based on the earmark placed in the
Affordable Care Act. All this does is reverse that.
There is nothing in the amendment by the Senator from New Jersey
about wage neutrality, which is the whole problem in the first place.
The cosponsors, I am sure, of the two States have markedly benefited at
the expense of every other rural hospital across this country.
A vote for the Menendez amendment keeps us in line to continue to
take $4.6 billion over the next 10 years out of rural hospitals. If
Senators vote for my amendment, we go back to a fair distribution for
the rural hospital payments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 56 Leg.]
YEAS--49
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--50
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Warner
Wicker
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 651) was rejected.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Amendment No. 409
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, there are no tricks in this. All we are
trying to do is reverse what was done inappropriately.
There is no question we need to do some adjustment on wages. That is
for another time when we actually try to save Medicare.
This amendment requires all States but two over 10 years to increase
the payments to rural hospitals back to what they would have been had
the amendment by Senator Kerry in the Affordable Care Act not been
there. So that is the whole purpose, to bring us back to where we were.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator offer the amendment?
Mr. COBURN. I ask to call up amendment No. 409.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], for himself and
Mrs. McCaskill, and Ms. Baldwin, proposes an amendment
numbered 409.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to sunset the
provision of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that increases
payments to hospitals in a few States by reducing payments to the
majority of States through the Medicare hospital wage index)
At the appropriate place, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO REQUIRE STATE-WIDE
BUDGET NEUTRALITY IN THE CALCULATION OF THE
MEDICARE HOSPITAL WAGE INDEX FLOOR.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports that would adjust Medicare
outlays, by the amounts provided in such legislation for
those purposes, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit over either the period of the total of
fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of
fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, if there is no opposition, nobody on my
side wishes to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition.
First, there was an error made in the number for the Whitehouse
amendment for this sequence of votes. I ask unanimous consent that the
Whitehouse amendment No. 646 be put on the list instead of Whitehouse
No. 652.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the amendment the Senator has offered
would reverse a provision in the Affordable Care Act which required
that Medicare's area wage index changes be spread budget neutrally
throughout the entire Nation.
I, as do many, recognize that Medicare's area wage index
reimbursement system does require a thorough review and revision. But
the amendment in front of us now singles out one provision that
negatively affects some areas while ignoring the larger payment reform.
I believe Congress should have a larger discussion on area wage index
reform within the committees of jurisdiction, and I urge my colleagues
to oppose this amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 31, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 57 Leg.]
YEAS--68
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Begich
Bennet
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Donnelly
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Nelson
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Vitter
Warner
Wicker
Wyden
[[Page S2270]]
NAYS--31
Baucus
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Cowan
Durbin
Feinstein
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Menendez
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (NM)
Warren
Whitehouse
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 409) was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are ready to call up the next
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Amendment No. 646
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, may I call up amendment No. 646. I
believe it is the next one in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Whitehouse] proposes an
amendment numbered 646.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
ensuring that all revenue from a fee on carbon pollution is returned to
the American people)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO ENSURING
THAT ALL REVENUE FROM A FEE ON CARBON POLLUTION
IS RETURNED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports
relating to the establishment of a fee on carbon pollution,
provided that--
(1) all revenue from such fee is returned to the American
people in the form of Federal deficit reduction, reduced
Federal tax rates, cost savings, or other direct benefits;
and
(2) such legislation would not increase the deficit over
either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through
2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through
2023.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President and colleagues, we have a new Pope,
Pope Francis, who said last week that our relation with God's creation
is not very good right now. God's creation runs by laws--the laws of
nature, the laws of physics, the laws of chemistry--and God gave us the
power of reason to understand those laws. But they are not negotiable.
They are not subject to amendment or repeal. And the arrogance of our
thinking that they are is an offense to His creation.
We can ignore obvious facts, we can ignore the essentially unanimous
science, we can ignore our generals and admirals, we can ignore the
insurance industry's warnings, but we ignore carbon pollution at our
peril, and we have subsidized it long enough. It is past time to wake
up from our sleepwalking. This vote is a test. Whether we pass or fail
is a measure of us.
I urge that we support this amendment that will allow us to put a
price on carbon and protect the American people.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I would have some hesitation anyway about
opposing my good friend from Rhode Island, but to have to oppose the
Pope is really ominous.
I know the Pope also mentioned, more times than he mentioned carbon
tax, helping the poor. This amendment says that if there is a carbon
fee, we will use it to reduce the Federal deficit, to reduce Federal
tax rates, to have other direct benefits.
I would just say, when the poor family cannot pay their utility
bill--the family who is the last family to get the new refrigerator,
the family who is the last family to get the insulated windows, the
family who is the last family to insulate their ceiling--I guess we
tell them there are going to be some Federal tax rates that will be
added for a family who cannot pay their utility bill.
By the way, there are other direct benefits you might be able to use
whenever you do not have heat or you do not have cooling.
This is a tax that slows down our ability to compete. The most
vulnerable among us are the most impacted by this, and I oppose it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 58, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 58 Leg.]
YEAS--41
Baldwin
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cowan
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harkin
Heinrich
Hirono
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Levin
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--58
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Donnelly
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kaine
Kirk
Landrieu
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Warner
Wicker
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 646) was rejected.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and move to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Amendment No. 261
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. I ask
unanimous consent it be called up on behalf of Senator Thune and me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Blunt], for himself and Mr.
Thune, proposes an amendment numbered 261.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To create a point of order against legislation that would
create a Federal tax or fee on carbon emissions)
At the end of subtitle A of title IV, add the following:
SEC. ___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT WOULD
CREATE A TAX OR FEE ON CARBON EMISSIONS.
(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment, or
conference report that--
(1) would result in revenues that would be greater than the
level of revenues set forth for the first fiscal year or the
total of that fiscal year and the ensuing fiscal years under
the concurrent resolution on the budget then in effect for
which allocations are provided under section 302(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and
(2) for any year covered by such resolution, includes a
Federal tax or fee imposed on carbon emissions from any
product or entity that is a direct or indirect source of the
emissions.
(b) Waiver and Appeal.--
(1) Waiver.--Subsection (a) may be waived or suspended in
the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn.
[[Page S2271]]
(2) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a
point of order raised under subsection (a).
Mr. BLUNT. This amendment would protect consumers from energy price
spikes and workers from significant job loss by providing a point of
order against a carbon tax or a fee on carbon emissions.
Energy-intensive jobs are the first to go when you utility prices get
uncompetitive. Your ability to compete in the world marketplace, the
price of American-made goods, what families pay at the pump, what they
pay for heating and cooling, what they pay for every American product
they make would be impacted by a carbon tax.
I urge the support of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, except perhaps in Congress, and in the
boardrooms of ExxonMobil, it is no longer credible to deny what carbon
pollution is doing to our atmosphere and to our oceans. We aid and abet
that harm by subsidizing carbon, distorting the market, by violating
the rule that the cost of a product should be in its price.
Nonrepealable laws of nature, laws of physics, laws of chemistry are at
work. History's judgment will be harsh if we continue to fail in
respecting those laws.
I urge a ``no'' vote and yield back to the Senator from Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending
amendment is not germane to the underlying resolution and therefore
violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I move to waive section 305(b)(2) of the
Congressional Budget Act for consideration of the pending amendment,
No. 261, pursuant to 904(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 59 Leg.]
YEAS--53
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Donnelly
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Landrieu
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--46
Baldwin
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cowan
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Levin
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are
46. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained and amendment No. 261 falls.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S2271, March 22, 2013, the Record reads: . . . amendment
No. 241 falls.
The online Record has been corrected to read: . . . amendment
No. 261 falls.
========================= END NOTE =========================
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider, and I move to lay that motion on
the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 622
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 622.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an
amendment numbered 622.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
protecting the interests of the United States in making a decision
relating to the Keystone XL pipeline)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO PROTECT THE
INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES IN MAKING A
DECISION RELATING TO THE KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for 1 or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports
relating to expeditiously analyzing and making decisions on
the Keystone XL pipeline, which may include whether the
pipeline is in the national interest if it increases oil
prices, harms domestic energy security, including through
exporting energy products, uses materials not manufactured in
the United States, adversely affects individual property
rights, otherwise adversely affects job creation in the
United States, or our national security by the amounts
provided in the legislation for those purposes, provided that
the legislation would not increase the deficit over either
the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or
the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, my amendment simply ensures important
issues will be addressed, such as how much oil will stay here versus
how much will be exported and, therefore, will we suffer from higher
energy prices? How much steel will be made in America? How many private
property rights suits will result from this pipeline? We have had a lot
of them on the southern lake.
How will this affect our national security, the dirty tar sands oil?
Our American national security experts warn us against the instability
worldwide caused by climate disruption.
I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment, regardless of how you feel
about Keystone. These are essential issues which must be addressed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask this amendment be opposed. It is an
effort to prevent construction of the most studied pipeline in the
history of the United States. After four environmental impact
statements, every one of the reports has shown no environmental impact.
Every State on the route has approved this project. The studies which
are asked for in this amendment have been done.
In 2011, the Department of Energy provided a report and said the oil
will be used in this country, and we will need more. In addition, this
would preclude local eminent domain laws which would prevent the
pipeline from being constructed. It also says you can't use any
materials manufactured in Canada for a pipeline which is built half in
Canada and half in the United States.
I urge a ``nay'' vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 33, nays 66, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 60 Leg.]
YEAS--33
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Cantwell
Cardin
[[Page S2272]]
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harkin
Heinrich
Hirono
Leahy
Levin
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Stabenow
Tester
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--66
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Blunt
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cowan
Crapo
Cruz
Donnelly
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 622) was rejected.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay
that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Amendment No. 494
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, this amendment is a bipartisan amendment.
It puts the Senate on record in support of the Keystone Pipeline
project, and that is just appropriate. As I said just a minute ago,
every State has approved the project. The Department of State has done
four environmental impact statements over the last 5 years--four--and
has said there are no significant environmental impacts. So it is time
the Senate stepped up with the American people.
In a recent poll 70 percent of the American public said: Build the
pipeline. Only 17 percent said they opposed it. So it is time for us to
enjoin every single State on the route to say we support this project.
We support this pipeline. After 5 years, let's build it.
This is energy, this is jobs, this is getting our economy going and
growing, and this is making sure we don't have to import oil from the
Middle East. It is not just oil from Canada, it is oil from the great
State of North Dakota and Montana--light, sweet crude we need to get to
our refineries. Please join me in voting yea.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator call up the amendment?
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I call up the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Hoeven], for himself,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Roberts, Ms.
Heitkamp, Mr. Barrasso, Ms. Landrieu, Ms. Murkowski, and Mr.
Begich, proposes amendment numbered 494.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to promote
investment and job growth in United States manufacturing, oil and gas
production, and refining sectors through the construction of the
Keystone XL Pipeline)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE PROMOTION OF
INVESTMENT AND JOB GROWTH IN UNITED STATES
MANUFACTURING, OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION, AND
REFINING SECTORS.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for 1 or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions,
or conference reports that may result in strong growth in
manufacturing, oil and gas production, and refining sectors
of the economy through the approval and construction of the
Keystone XL Pipeline without raising new revenue, by the
amounts provided in the legislation for those purposes,
provided that the legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2023.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. I yield to the Senator from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Well, Mr. President, the handwriting is on the wall. I
see it. But I do believe when my colleague argued against my
amendment--and he was quite successful--it was not an accurate
argument.
The fact is his amendment has already made the decision for us that
everything is hunky-dory with this pipeline. Well, it is not true that
all the work has been done. We don't know how much of the steel will be
American; we don't know how many of the jobs will be American; we don't
know if our national security people think that dirty tar sands is
going to create climate disruption.
Wake up. This is the only place in America where people don't
understand that real climate disruption is very dangerous.
You want to talk about polls? Look at what the people think about
extreme weather. Look at what the people think about too much carbon
pollution. So there will be another day to fight, but I want to say to
my friend--he is a good guy, and we have worked well together on this.
But I hope we will vote no and allow the process to continue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, before we go to this vote, I would just
remind all Senators that at the end of this vote there will be up to 40
minutes of debate before the next amendment. I would ask all Senators
who leave the floor to be back here by 6:30, maybe a little bit before
that. But I would remind all of my colleagues that if you drift back in
for half an hour on the first vote, it will be later and later as we
get through this. So I would really ask everyone who leaves after they
vote to be back here at 6:30 at the latest. We may yield a little bit
back, but please be back by that time.
With that, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Cowan). Are there any other Senators in
the chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 37, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 61 Leg.]
YEAS--62
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Donnelly
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Landrieu
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Nelson
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Warner
Wicker
NAYS--37
Baldwin
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Cowan
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harkin
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Levin
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 494) was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. I yield to the Senator from Illinois.
Amendment No. 578
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, amendment
No. 578. I ask the clerk to please call up the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
[[Page S2273]]
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Durbin], for himself, Mr.
Enzi, Mr. Alexander, Ms. Heitkamp, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Johnson of
South Dakota, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Reed, Ms. Collins, Mr.
Whitehouse, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Cardin, Ms.
Klobuchar, Mr. Franken, Mr. King, Mr. Levin, Mr. Pryor, and
Mr. Udall of Colorado, proposes an amendment numbered 578.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to ensure
marketplace fairness by allowing States to enforce State and local use
tax laws)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO ALLOW STATES TO
ENFORCE STATE AND LOCAL USE TAX LAWS.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports related to allowing States to
enforce State and local use tax laws and collect taxes
already owed under State law on remote sales by the amounts
provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided
that such legislation would not increase the deficit over
either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through
2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through
2023.
Amendment No. 656 to Amendment No. 578
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 656 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi], for himself, Mr.
Durbin, Mr. Alexander, and Ms. Heitkamp, proposes an
amendment numbered 656 to Amendment No. 578.
Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after ``DEFICIT'' on page 1, line 2, and all
that follows, and insert the following:
-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO ALLOW STATES TO ENFORCE STATE AND
LOCAL USE TAX LAWS.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of any committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports related to allowing States to
enforce State and local use taxes already owed under State
law on remote sales by the amounts provided in such
legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding under the unanimous
consent request there was 40 minutes of debate allocated between those
of us in support of the Marketplace Fairness Act and those who are
offering amendments, Senator Ayotte and Senator Baucus; is my
understanding correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DURBIN. Does the Senator mind if I say a word in opening?
The Marketplace Fairness Act is known to every Member of the Senate
because I have spoken to everyone on this side of the aisle, and I
think Senator Enzi and Senator Alexander have spoken to everyone on the
other side of the aisle. First, give credit to the Senator from
Wyoming, Mr. Enzi. He began this effort 14 years ago. He is a small
businessman by profession and when he came to the Senate he saw a
problem that needed to be solved and he has done yeoman's work to reach
this point in the debate.
I salute him for that effort. I thank him for allowing me to join and
bring it to the floor this day. Special thanks to Senator Alexander
from Tennessee, who has been an able partner in allowing us to bring
this matter before the Senate.
This is an issue every American can understand. We now live in the
Internet age. Internet retailers are selling things over the Internet
that we are buying every single day. Estimates are that $150 billion in
sales are made each year over the Internet. That is part of America. It
is part of our economy. But it has created an unfairness which we need
to address with this legislation.
Back home in Massachusetts, in Illinois, in Tennessee, in Florida,
there people with shops and businesses who get up every morning and
open those shops, watch their employees file in and do business
locally. When they make their sales of goods and services, they collect
the sales taxes which each State requires and they collect other taxes
as well. Their taxes sustain businesses, sustain schools and highways
and police protection.
Unfortunately, a Supreme Court decision of almost 20 years ago, the
Quill decision, basically said if we are going to require the Internet
sales to collect sales tax, Congress has to do it. That is why we are
tonight on this Marketplace Fairness Act.
What we are proposing is not a new tax. It is the collection of an
existing tax, a sales tax that is basically owed in all but four States
across the United States.
We believe this is a fair thing to do so those local businesses have
a fighting chance; otherwise, they are competing against retailers who
do not collect sales taxes and have that price advantage over them.
That is not fair to the businesses on Main Street across America. It
isn't fair to our economy. What we are looking for is basic fairness.
At this point, I yield the floor to the Senator from Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Durbin and Senator Enzi
for their hard work. They have taken a problem and simplified it and
solved it, in my opinion. This is an 11-page bill, a rarity. It does
only one thing. It gives States and State legislatures the right to
decide to collect sales and use taxes that are already owed from all
the people who owe it rather than just some of the people who owe it.
I have a very conservative friend over here on the Republican side
who said to me: I hate taxes, but the one thing I hate worse is people
who owe taxes who do not pay them. That is what this is about. But for
me as a former Governor, there is something even more important; that
is, the importance that we respect our constitutional framework, which
says Governors and legislatures should make their own decisions about
their services and their taxes.
That is the spirit of the 10th amendment. That is the spirit of this
country. We don't require States to play Mother May I to the Congress
of the United States. So we say to the Governor of Tennessee and the
legislature of Tennessee: You decide whether you want to allow people
who owe the sales tax not to have to pay it because the sellers do not
collect it.
That is why many Democratic Governors support this. But a growing
number, an honor role of conservative leaders and Governors, support
the Marketplace Fairness Act. Al Cardenas, chairman of the American
Conservative Union, supports it. He says the system we have today is
outdated and unfair. After that, Governor McDonnell of Virginia,
Governor Corbett of Pennsylvania, Governor Haslam of Tennessee, Chris
Christie of New Jersey, Mike Pence of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush,
Haley Barbour, Rick Snyder--they all say: Look, we are Governors of the
States. We should have the responsibility for doing that.
There have been some strange arguments made against this, such as
wait for tax reform. How can you do this in tax reform if it not in the
Tax Code? Have we sunk to a new low where we use the State budgets to
balance our own budget?
No, this is a straightforward issue. Are we going to respect, as we
swore to do when we took an oath to this constitutional framework--are
we going to respect the States, recognize that States have the right to
be right and the States have the right to be wrong; that Illinois is
different than Tennessee and Tennessee is different than Wyoming.
Governors in those States can decide what their tax structure should
be, how they want to direct it, and they should decide, in my opinion,
although we do not have to decide that here, that they would not pick
and choose between sellers, pick and choose
[[Page S2274]]
between taxpayers and businesses. If I walk into the National Boot
Company and try on a boot and buy it, the seller collects the tax,
sales tax. If I order in a catalog the seller does not. The Governor of
Tennessee wants to be able to treat them the same.
I think we should do this. I fly up here every week for an hour. That
hour plane ride doesn't make me any smarter than I was when I left
Nashville. I think our Governor, our Lieutenant Governor, our
legislature--very conservative, very Republican--understand that they
do not like taxes, but they do not like, worse--they do not like,
worse, people who owe taxes but do not pay them, and they want the
right to fix that problem.
I am in strong support and stand with the 15 or so Senators on both
sides of the aisle who endorse the Marketplace Fairness Act. I
congratulate Senator Durbin and Senator Enzi for their hard work.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I will yield a couple minutes to myself.
Different States have different regimes. Some States decide they want
to have income tax. Other States have big property taxes. Other States
say they want to have sales tax but not income tax. There are many
States with no income tax and those States are States some people
gravitate to because they do not want to pay State income taxes.
But I think States should have the right to choose their own taxation
system, and we should not pass legislation which tends to force a
certain State taxation system on the others. That is what this
legislation does. It basically forces all States to have sales taxes,
whether they want one or not. In my State of Montana, sales tax is
anathema. Nobody touches a sales tax.
What this says is: OK. You can have a sales tax, eventually, in my
State, because we don't have a sales tax, and, therefore, businesses in
Montana don't collect sales tax, but they will have to collect tax on
sales for other States. In effect, we are going to be forced to have
one and we don't want one. We are going to fight it fiercely.
Second, basically, the language says, I will read it to you, allowing
States to `` . . . enforce State and local use tax laws and collect
taxes already owed under State law on remote sales by the amounts
provided in such legislation for those purposes. . . . ''
Essentially, it says a person in California can use State law to
enforce and collect--and audit even, probably--a businessperson in
another State. I have never heard of this happening before. Just think
of it. We are asking, and telling, and directing States to force law on
another State, at least on another businessman in another State. I have
never heard of this. This sets a terrible precedent. We don't want to
do this.
Next is the complexity of this thing. The authors of this have been
working on this issue for 12 years, saying they have all these computer
programs that can do it. We have never seen it. There is no indication
that all the bugs, over thousands of jurisdictions in States and
localities and municipalities--just put yourself in the position of a
small businessperson trying to figure out what in the heck is the law
in this jurisdiction. What about that? It is going to be changed this
year or next year, changed in lots of jurisdictions all over the
country. How are we going to deal with it? We are not going to be able
to do it. It is just a maddeningly complex situation.
I have lots of other points I wish to make later, but those are two.
I believe it makes much more sense, with all the complexity in this
thing, for the committee of jurisdiction, the Finance Committee.
I disagree with my good friend from Tennessee. Of course it is a
tax--not a State tax, not a payroll tax, it is a sales tax. It is a
tax. We could easily deal with this in the Finance Committee. That is
our jurisdiction. That is what we are supposed to be doing. Then he can
deal with all these complexities that have not been addressed in this
resolution. There are no protections in this resolution whatsoever.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire to
use in any way she wants.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I stand in opposition to this so-called
Main Street Fairness Act. There is nothing fair about Federal
intervention in the Internet marketplace. We have seen so much
entrepreneurship in the Internet marketplace. Yet what this does is
force the Internet marketplace and online businesses to become tax
collectors.
This act should be called what it is--the Internet tax collection
act. This act essentially forces States to become tax collectors for
9,600 State and local tax jurisdictions across this country. It
tramples on States rights. It tramples on the rights of private
businesses in all States but especially in States such as mine, New
Hampshire. It creates a bureaucratic nightmare for these States that
will have to comply with almost 10,000 tax jurisdictions across this
country. Guess what. They could be subject to nearly 10,000 tax audits
within those jurisdictions. One of the businesses in New Hampshire--and
I see Senator Shaheen is here as well--said that it is a job killer.
Compliance with this act is absolutely terrifying and another blow for
so many small businesses that are using the Internet.
Finally, I say to my conservative friends, there is nothing
conservative about this. It is the long arm of the Federal Government
punishing States such as mine that don't have a sales tax and have made
fiscally responsible choices. It picks winners and losers instead of
letting the marketplace do it.
There are a whole host of conservative groups that have come out
against this act, including the Heritage Foundation and the Campaign
for Liberty. The Americans for Tax Reform has, in fact, said this
legislation can only be viewed as a tax increase. In addition to the
group I just mentioned, the Cato Institute, the National Taxpayers
Union, and The Heartland are against this as well. There is nothing
conservative about this. This tramples on States rights. Think about
it. This act turns online sellers into tax collectors because States
are cash-strapped. It is wrong. I hope my colleagues will vote against
it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I think it is time for those on the other
side to say a word or two.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I appreciate the compliments from the two
people who are from States that don't have the sales tax. We are not on
the bill. This is an amendment to find out if a majority of the Senate
is in favor of making sure we go through with some legislation that
will actually solve the problem that is over 20 years old.
This is a problem the Supreme Court decided on and said Congress was
the one that needed to fix it. They didn't say States should fix it,
they said Congress should fix it. What we have been trying to do is fix
it.
I had a complicated bill before called the streamlined sales tax
bill. It took care of a lot of the problems we are talking about, such
as multijurisdictions, and allows for one check to be dispensed to one
location and then distributed to those who are participating.
Senator Alexander had a better idea, and that is the one which is in
the bill that is before us, and that is one which makes it States
rights. It is where States can decide what they are going to do and how
they are going to do it provided they follow a certain number of rules.
This is not as definitive as that bill yet because that bill would have
to pass through this body as well.
I can assure everyone that no person in a State that doesn't have a
sales tax now would have to pay a sales tax. If there is a business
selling into a State that does have a sales tax, yes, they would have
to collect that sales tax and forward it to that State. If there are
complexities or conflicts with that, those can be worked out as the
legislation goes through too.
Nobody mentioned that there is a $1 million exemption in the bill. So
when we talk about small businesses, if they have less than $1 million
in sales, they don't have to do this. Once they reach $1 million in
sales, they have to do it the next year so it doesn't become a problem
that starts in the middle of the year.
[[Page S2275]]
It also requires that the States provide the information and the
programs for them to do this. So it is a States rights issue, and that
is what the Supreme Court suggested when they suggested we needed to
fix this.
If Senators talk to their small businesses, they will find that they
want it fixed because there is not fair competition anymore. People
will come into a store--I was in the shoe business--and try on shoes.
They get all the help they need, find out what they want, and then just
order it over the Internet. I think it is kind of interesting when they
say: Well, I got free shipping. When someone goes into a store and
tries on shoes, they can get it that day. There is not even a day's
delay; express shipping is not even needed.
I hope we are able to work on the bill and actually complete a bill
and take care of the difference that is taking money away from States.
They are not asking the Federal Government for a single dollar. They
are not asking for the Federal Government to enforce this. They are
asking for the right to have their States rights.
I yield the floor, and I will keep the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana has 7 minutes, the
Senator from New Hampshire has 7 minutes, the Senator from Wyoming has
7 minutes, and the Senator from Illinois has 5 minutes.
Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the
Senator from Oregon. I might say that I yield 1 minute to the other
Senator from Oregon as well. I urge the Senator not to use it all right
now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Durbin-Enzi amendment forgets that we
are in a global economy. This measure does not and cannot reach foreign
retailers. A small business, for example, in Montana is sacked with the
burdens of this bill. It is an administrative nightmare, which Senator
Baucus and Senator Ayotte have outlined. Some businesses are just going
to say: Why not do business in Canada or Mexico or even China. Now, I
know my colleagues who are advocating this don't intend this result,
but their legislation really ought to be called the shop Mexico bill or
the shop Canada bill or the shop China bill. I don't think that makes
any sense.
Chairman Baucus handles these global economic kinds of questions in
the Finance Committee, and that is the place we ought to look at it,
and that is why we ought to reject this amendment today.
I yield the floor and reserve my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, in Oregon we don't like the sales tax,
and that is why we don't have one. It is regressive and more expensive
to collect. What we hate even more is some State telling us what we
have to do. I have heard people on this floor talking about States
rights all the time, and now folks are standing up here and saying: We
want your retailers to collect our tax, and we are not even going to
compensate them for their time or effort. That is virtually a taking.
As my colleague pointed out, this is really about attacking business
in America, small- and medium-sized businesses in America, which will
just end up benefiting our foreign competitors. That is wrong, and we
should oppose this for those multiple reasons.
I yield back time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to my colleague from New
Hampshire, Senator Shaheen.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from
New Hampshire, Senator Ayotte, and the other opponents of this
amendment.
Senator Alexander said that States should be able to decide what to
do about taxes. Well, in New Hampshire we have decided. We don't want a
sales tax. We don't collect one, and we don't ask our small businesses
to collect one. And the fact is that this amendment would harm small,
family-owned retail businesses in New Hampshire.
I talked to a business in Hudson, NH, which is along the border with
Massachusetts. He has six employees, and he is about to reach $1
million in sales. He said that under this legislation, his company
would have to start collecting taxes not just in New Hampshire but for
45 other States. It would put him at such a disadvantage that he could
not continue to grow. Just as Senator Wyden said, what these businesses
are going to do then is go look for someplace else where they don't
have to worry about collecting these taxes over the Internet.
I agree with Senator Alexander. I think we should ensure States
rights and ensure that small businesses are protected, but we don't do
that by passing this amendment.
I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield a couple of minutes to my
colleague from Montana, Senator Tester. I understand Senator Ayotte is
going to yield additional time.
Mr. TESTER. I thank the senior Senator from Montana. I thank the
Senator for allowing me to be a part of this discussion.
This is an incredible overreach. The Senator from Wyoming talked
about the fact that they are not forcing a sales tax on any State, but
that is what this does. This amendment will require our small
businesses to collect taxes from other States. This is an incredible
violation. It changes the entire standard for tax collection. It is not
a road anyone wants to go down. Yet we are going to allow businesses in
Tennessee or Illinois or Wyoming or any other State in the Union that
has a sales tax to walk into my State and tell my small businesses that
they are going to collect taxes for other States. Who is going to pay
for that and who is going to do the audit?
The Senator from New Hampshire said it is a job-killing bill. Well,
it is a job-killing bill, but it is a great job creator in the
bureaucracy. We are going to create bureaucracy in this government for
tax collection like we have never seen before. There will be auditing
like we have never seen before. Who pays for it?
I guarantee it is not fair to force this kind of tax collection for
another State and then tell another State what they have to do to
collect taxes. It makes no sense.
There are State and local taxes. There are all sorts of different
mechanisms here. If there is a State that collects a 5-percent tax and
another one that collects 10 percent, the business that has a 5-percent
sales tax will have to collect another 5 percent and bring it back to
that other State. Does it sound complicated? It is. It is very
complicated.
We do not want to go down this road. This is a bad, bad, bad public
policy. I encourage everyone in this Chamber and everyone who is
watching on C-SPAN to vote this amendment down.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana has 2 minutes, the
Senator from New Hampshire has 5 minutes, the Senator from Wyoming has
7 minutes, and the Senator from Illinois still has 5 minutes.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest their side has more time
remaining, so they should speak next.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thought my colleagues from New Hampshire
and Montana might share with us a little bit about the amendments they
are proposing, but in light of them not doing that, I yield 2 minutes
to the Senator from Illinois.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming. I will
yield my time to the Senator from North Dakota, who was a party to the
Quill decision, which was before the U.S. Supreme Court 20 years ago,
and who has also served as tax commissioner in the State of North
Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I would like to make a couple of points
on foreign corporations. We already collect sales tax and impose use
tax on foreign corporations all the time. In fact, North Dakota does
require probating so long as they have a physical presence in North
Dakota.
[[Page S2276]]
On the issue of New Hampshire and Montana, I will bet I could find
small businesses that are in New Hampshire and in Montana that already
collect sales and use taxes for other States. The only thing that this
does is change the rules regarding what is required on nexus. What is
the single thing that happens that requires a collection
responsibility? For years, not just in the Quill case, but National
Bellas Hess said there has to be a physical presence. The world has
changed since we have physical presence. We now say economic presence
is adequate for equal protection to be satisfied.
What we are asking for is that we look at economic presence the same
way we do across the boundaries and create fairness for mainstream
businesses. What do I mean by that? I mean Main Street businesses that
every day compete against Internet sellers unfairly, Main Street
business that are struggling, Main street businesses that put ads in
fliers for local schools and contribute to their community but yet
cannot survive because they cannot afford a 7-percent or 8-percent or
9-percent disadvantage in the marketplace. It is not fair. It is not
fair to Main Street. We need to recognize the reality. We have heard
about the global economy. My colleague is right, the economy has
changed. How we do business doesn't depend on physical presence
anymore, it is economic presence, and $1 million is a lot of economic
presence in the marketplace.
So I yield the remainder of my time back to the Senator from
Illinois.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, things are getting a little down to the
wire here. How much time is remaining?
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, is there any time remaining of the time
yielded from the Senator from Wyoming?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming has 4 minutes
remaining.
The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Oregon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. I will be very brief. Under this amendment, we could not
touch an online retailer that is wholly overseas shipping into the
United States with UPS. We could not touch them.
What the Senator from North Dakota is talking about is obviously
foreign corporations, people with physical presence. But if you are
wholly overseas, an online Internet retailer shipping into this
country, you get a free ride under this legislation. That is why it is
going to create an incentive to take American jobs from here and locate
overseas where they get a free ride.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Ms. AYOTTE. I yield 3 minutes of my time to the Senator from Florida,
Mr. Rubio.
Mr. RUBIO. This is a very interesting debate. It is a very
interesting topic to talk about. I have talked to a few Members who
have had this debate internally with their staff, and from an
intellectual perspective it is a very interesting issue. But I want
Members to understand what they will have to explain to people in their
States.
If something like this were to happen, there will be businesses in
your State that at the end of the year will have to be audited by or
interact with States across the country, on the other side of the
country; places where they don't know anybody, places where they don't
have a lawyer or a lobbyist or anybody representing them. They will
have to deal with States they have nothing to do with. That is what
Members will have to explain to the businesses in their States.
The businesses in your States are going to have to comply with laws
and courts and regulatory agencies and others they have nothing to do
with, other than the fact that someone who lived there happened to buy
something from them. So try explaining that. It sounds great here, but
try to explain that to a business man or woman in your community or in
your State, and I guarantee you are going to get puzzled looks.
Here is another thing I will tell my colleagues, because I understand
there is an exemption for businesses with $1 million in revenue, but
depending on what you sell, it may or may not be that much. I would say
that over time, that figure is going to be less and less in terms of
who doesn't have to comply.
I dealt with this issue when I was in the State legislature in
Florida, especially the last 2 years when I was the Speaker. I will be
frank. This is about the fact that according to some, there is $23
billion of what they claim is uncollected sales tax receipts across the
country. You don't think that gets their attention? You don't think
that is what this is about? That is what this is about. I am not saying
that on the retail side they are not interested in the way the business
is conducted and what it means in comparison to their competitors, but
I promise my colleagues from the governmental side this is about the
money they think they can get their hands on and what it would mean for
their government and their ability to function.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I will inquire again as to the time
remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana has 1 minute.
Mr. BAUCUS. Does the other side have any time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators from Wyoming and Illinois have 5
minutes each.
The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. We have heard a lot of complaints from primarily the non-
sales-tax States about the amendment we have proposed, but we haven't
heard about the amendments they have proposed. I thought they would use
part of their time to make the case for what they were proposing. I am
still expecting them to do that, and when they do that, then we ought
to have some time for rebuttal. That is why we have saved some of our
time. So I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. In the interest of moving this forward, we have scheduled
a vote on the Ayotte amendment next, after the vote on the Enzi
amendment. I urge everyone who votes for the Enzi-Durbin-Alexander
amendment to oppose the Ayotte amendment because she includes a
provision in that amendment which absolutely destroys the whole effort
here. She requires physical nexus.
As Senator Heitkamp has said, that is what this debate is all about--
whether one has to be physically present in order to have an obligation
to pay sales tax.
So I urge all of my colleagues who support the Marketplace Fairness
Act to oppose the Ayotte amendment. I hope she will explain why she
wants--I think we understand from the arguments why she takes that
position.
May I say one or two things about what has been said? To my friend
from Oregon, Senator Wyden, who talked about the impossibility of
collecting sales tax from foreign entities, that is just not true. The
same collection mechanisms presently available to States to obtain and
enforce judgments against foreign entities would be available to States
with respect to foreign entities failing to comply with the MFA. States
currently have, and would continue to have, access to customs
information on imported goods. Accordingly, States can and do use that
information as a means of encouraging remote sellers to collect sales
tax. States currently have, and would continue to have, the ability to
impose liens on any property owned by remote sellers, even property in
transit. So to argue we can't collect taxes from international entities
is to ignore existing law.
Let me say a word about the small businesses in Montana. After the $1
million exemption, I would ask my Senator friend from Montana if he
knows how many Internet retail sellers would be affected by the
Marketplace Fairness Act in Montana.
Mr. TESTER. Too many.
Mr. DURBIN. There are 3. There are 3 out of 975 Internet retailers
with over $1 million in sales. There are 3 in the State of Montana.
This is an undue burden on the small businesses of Montana?
What I would say to the Senator from Florida and the Senators from
Montana, what we are saying is very basic. You aren't forced to sell in
Illinois. There is no reason you have to sell in Illinois. You choose
to do it. If you choose to do it, all we say is follow our law. Our law
says if you make a sale in our State, there is a sales tax to be paid.
If you don't want to get involved in that, you don't have to sell in
[[Page S2277]]
our State. Keep your marketplace limited to places where you want to do
business. That is your right as a businessman. But if you want to sell
in our States, you have a legal obligation to pay in our States.
If you want to open a business on Michigan Avenue in Chicago, you
know you would have to pay plenty of taxes. Why is it if you want to
sell to the same people living on Michigan Avenue, you have no
obligation to pay a sales tax? That is what this is about.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 3 minutes
remaining.
Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I would say this: I can't imagine that
businesses in New Hampshire or businesses in Wyoming or other
businesses now--if this is passed, not only are they going to have to
collect--all businesses--all 9,600 tax jurisdictions. But, heaven
forbid, they are audited because now they are going to have to get on a
plane, find a lawyer in another State, and deal with some other State's
jurisdiction. That is the nightmare of this. I can't imagine that
people would want to support it.
I also want to mention the privacy implications of this. I know the
Senator from North Dakota mentioned a case she had. I actually had a
case when I was attorney general where New Hampshire refused to collect
tax for Massachusetts. They tried to bring us into court and I won that
case.
Do my colleagues know what one of the big issues was that won it?
Privacy--asking our retailers to ask people who bought things from
them, where are you from, what are you going to use it for, and that is
exactly the problem. There are serious privacy implications with all of
the information that we are going to be gathering with this so-called
making our businesses across the country tax collectors.
Generally, States do collect taxes, but we don't generally ask
private businesses to do the job of the State and become tax
collectors.
My amendment is simple. It respects States rights. If anyone wants to
respect States rights and make sure there is a level playing field for
all States to make their decisions in protecting data as well as to
protect the rights of their States against foreign entities, that is
what the amendment does.
I thank the Chair and I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee and then my
final minute to the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. President. We talked about how
difficult this is. This is a good example of why we need to get this
out of Washington and back in the States. For the last 15 years the
States have been figuring out how to do this. They have it pretty well
worked out, and in just a 20-minute debate we make it sound
complicated.
Here is how hard it is. If I buy some ice cream ingredients from
Williams Sonoma, and they are in another State, I use my credit card, I
put in my ZIP Code, and the software automatically tells Williams
Sonoma what the sales tax is that is owed. They collect it and they
wire it to the State government. That is all that happens.
This debate sounds like it happened in 1890 before the horse and
buggy, before the Internet. I mean, we live in a different world.
Here is what is fair. What is fair is allowing a State--not
Washington--listen to the chairman of the American Conservative Union
Al Cardenas. He says:
When it comes to state sales taxes, it is time to address
the area where federally mandated prejudice is most
egregious--the policy towards Internet sales, the decades-old
inequity between online sales and in-person sales as outdated
and unfair.
If I am trying to run the International Boot Company, I have to pay a
10-percent penalty to somebody who is out of State. If somebody is out
of State and by catalog or by Internet they want to sell to the 6
million people in Tennessee, they don't have to do that. They can sell
in Kentucky, they can sell in Ohio, they can sell everywhere else. But
if they want to sell in our State, they should live by the same rules
Tennesseans do.
We don't believe in picking and choosing winners and losers. We don't
believe in treating one taxpayer this way and another one that way. We
don't want to pick one business this way and another that way, and we
don't like the idea of Washington making us play Mother May I to come
up here and ask permission to decide whether we are going to collect a
sales tax from everybody who already owes it rather than just some
people who owe it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for making that point.
As to this notion that there is something fundamentally unfair that we
would ask an Internet retailer that wants to sell in Illinois that they
collect the same sales tax for that sale as the businesses in Illinois,
for goodness' sake, you are asking for a safe haven, an advantage over
a lot of good small businesses in my home State. As Senator Alexander
said, if you don't want to abide by the laws of Illinois, for goodness'
sake, make your sales elsewhere.
The Marketplace Fairness Act levels the playing field for all
retailers, Internet and direct. It provides software free of charge to
help retailers calculate sales and use taxes.
I heard my friend, the Senator from Montana, talk about how complex
this was, how difficult this was.
I just made a recent purchase on Amazon which endorses the
Marketplace Fairness Act, and I paid sales tax. They didn't ask for any
additional time to calculate it. It assumes I put in my ZIP Code, and
they knew exactly what to collect from me. That is how easy and simple
it is these days.
This bill will also provide liability protection to ensure that if
the software calculates the wrong tax, Internet retailers are held
harmless.
Finally, the bill protects small businesses, as we mentioned earlier,
by exempting small sellers with less than $1 million in annual remote
sales nationwide.
I know as well that there are other elements of this that ought to be
considered, but we ought to consider this: There was a time when we
stayed away from this issue. I remember the Senator from Oregon, Mr.
Wyden, was in on this conversation about the Internet being brandnew,
the baby in the crib, let him get started, let's make sure they are
solid and moving forward. We can't ask them to do certain things.
That day is over: $150 billion in sales. It is in our lives,
everybody's lives. We use the Internet every day. What is wrong with
asking them to pay sales tax for the sales into the States where they
are doing business? Otherwise, look at the disadvantage we create for
businesses.
The State of Oregon, represented in this debate, the State of
Montana, the State of New Hampshire, and one other have decided they
don't want a State sales tax. There is nothing in this bill which will
require the residents of that State to pay one penny in sales tax on
anything they purchase, period. There is no requirement to change that.
I know, as Dale Bumpers used to say, they hate sales tax in your
States like the devil hates holy water, but we are not imposing a sales
tax on you, only if your New Hampshire business wants to sell in
another State. Then, of course, I think they ought to play by the rules
of that State. That is basically what we are asking.
So at this point I ask how much time is remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. DURBIN. I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Ms. AYOTTE. Is there any time remaining on my side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute remains.
Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I wish to say this: The Senator has it all
wrong because when the business from New Hampshire--when the person
from Illinois buys from the business in New Hampshire, it should be up
to Illinois to enforce against their own residents because they are
essentially buying from New Hampshire.
I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Montana.
[[Page S2278]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from
Oregon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Baucus.
Senator Durbin is right. Things have changed. The Internet now is the
shipping lane of the 21st century, and foreign retailers are going to
get an advantage.
Colleagues, if this were enforceable as Senator Durbin and Senator
Enzi are saying, Europe would go out and put it in place tomorrow and
do it to our sellers.
It is not enforceable. It violates the World Trade Organization. It
advantages foreign retailers at our expense. I hope my colleagues will
reject the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon is right. And I
see the Senator from North Dakota shaking her head. With all due
respect, I think she is not correct. This is either enforceable on
foreign countries or it is not. It is impossible to force our laws on
other countries unless other countries consent. Just to say so in a
statute here does not make it true, in a bill does not make it true.
There has to be a treaty, a tax treaty. There has to be some way for
the foreign jurisdiction to agree; otherwise, we cannot possibly
enforce this in other jurisdictions or on the other side, if we do,
then those other countries can come back and do the same thing to the
United States.
Do we want Chinese direct sellers to come back to the United States
or, vice versa, for the Chinese to collect in the United States? The
Senator from New Hampshire had it exactly right: It should be the
purchaser who pays the tax, and that is where it should be enforced,
not the tax collector, the small businessman in another State.
I might sum up by saying, we will take this up in the Finance
Committee and work out all these different kinks and wrinkles on it,
but that is where it should be done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, do I have the last minute remaining?
Let me just say, my friend, Senator Heitkamp from North Dakota, knows
this subject so well. The case you want to read is Buckley v. State of
California as to whether State laws are enforceable against foreign
companies. And they are. That decision has already been reached. This
argument does not hold water.
What does hold water is this: There is no reason why any State
retailer should have an unfair advantage doing business in my State or
any other State. If they want to compete with my businesses that pay
their taxes, as they are supposed to do, let them do business under the
laws of the State of Illinois. If they do not want to play by these
rules, then they do not have to come to Illinois. This is a question of
fairness.
The last point I will make is this: This is voluntary--voluntary--
under the Marketplace Fairness Act. States have to voluntarily decide
that they want to be under this act. If they do not care to be, they do
not have to be. So there is no heavy hand of the Federal Government
here. The States can make this decision. It is up to them. I hope that
all of those who support the Marketplace Fairness Act will support the
Enzi-Durbin amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, my understanding is that all the debate
time on this has expired, all the time has expired.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mrs. MURRAY. And that the Enzi amendment is pending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 75, nays 24, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 62 Leg.]
YEAS--75
Alexander
Baldwin
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cowan
Crapo
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Fischer
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Hoeven
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Moran
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Stabenow
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
NAYS--24
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Coats
Cornyn
Cruz
Flake
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Inhofe
Lee
McConnell
Merkley
Murkowski
Paul
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Shaheen
Tester
Toomey
Vitter
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 656) was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator
Ayotte and Senator Baucus, who are next, are not going to call up their
amendments. The question now is on the Durbin amendment, as amended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the Durbin amendment.
The amendment (No. 578), as amended, was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
Amendment No. 144
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the next amendment that is in order is my
amendment. I would like to yield to Senator Collins to speak on the
amendment following mine, Amendment No. 144.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, my amendment is No. 144. I ask unanimous
consent that it be called up at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins] proposes an amendment
numbered 144.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to restore a
sensible definition of full-time employee for purposes of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO THE
DEFINITION OF FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports related to employer penalties
in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which may
include restoring a sensible definition of ``full-time
employee'', provided that such legislation does not increase
the deficit or revenues over either the period of the total
of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total
of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, my amendment would allow for legislation
[[Page S2279]]
setting a more sensible definition of ``full-time employee'' under the
Affordable Care Act. Under the Affordable Care Act, also known as
ObamaCare, the definition of a full-time employee averages just 30
hours a week. That definition is not found in other areas of the law.
It is creating this perverse incentive where employers are actually
reducing the number of hours their employees work in order to keep
under that 30-hour threshold and thus avoid penalties.
All this amendment does, however, is call for a more sensible
definition of what a full-time employee should entail. I ask unanimous
consent that we voice vote the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I was going to offer amendment No. 653,
but I am not going to call up that amendment.
I would agree with Senator Collins on her amendment and ask for a
voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 144) was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, we
have now gone through all of the amendments from the unanimous consent
agreement. We are within a couple of minutes of having a unanimous
consent request for the next group of amendments. I would ask that all
Senators stay in the Chamber because it will just be a matter of
several minutes and we will ask unanimous consent for the next group of
amendments.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the next
amendments in order to be called up be the following: Begich No. 341,
Alexander No. 51, Merkley No. 398, Rubio No. 292, Hagan No. 278, and
Isakson No. 138; that there be no second-degree amendments prior to the
votes in relation to any of these amendments; that notwithstanding all
time having expired on the resolution, there will be 2 minutes equally
divided prior to each vote; that upon disposition of the Isakson
amendment No. 138, the majority have the next amendment in order;
finally, all these votes be 10-minute votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Reserving the right to object, I think this is a good
list. I look forward to moving on. I will try to work with Senator
Murray and others. Perhaps we may avoid the gaps we have been
experiencing. We have a lot of Senators here, a lot of things to do.
There is an anxiousness we shouldn't be having so much downtime, and we
will be working toward that.
I thank the Chair and would not object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. I would agree with the Senator. We are trying to work
through. Members have a lot of priority amendments. We are trying to
make sure our lists match. Our staffs are working very hard to go back
and forth so everybody has equal time on the amendments which are a
priority to each side. I apologize for taking time to do it. We are
trying to come to an agreement, and sometimes it takes a few minutes.
I yield the floor to the Senator from Alaska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Amendment No. 341
Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 341.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Begich], for himself, Ms.
Cantwell, and Ms. Murkowski, proposes an amendment numbered
341.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the
labeling of genetically engineered fish)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO THE
LABELING OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FISH.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for 1 or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports
relating to the labeling of genetically engineered fish,
without raising new revenue, by the amounts provided in the
legislation for those purposes, provided that the legislation
would not increase the deficit over either the period of the
total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the
total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote on amendment No.
341 offered by the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Begich.
The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, this amendment deals with labeling
genetically engineered fish, the first hybrid animal being proposed for
human consumption. The FDA is reviewing this precedent-setting action
not as a food but as a drug. They haven't studied the long-time health
impacts and I can see why because all of these chemicals are added to
this fake fish.
At a minimum, this fish should be labeled. Consumer Reports indicates
95 percent of the population want products labeled. Last year 1 million
people wrote to the FDA asking for this product to be labeled. Labeling
is done in 60 other countries. Three weeks ago, major retailers, Whole
Foods, Trader Joe's, have assured they are not going to sell this fake
fish.
We urge support for this amendment and ask it be passed.
I yield time to Senator Murkowski.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I join my colleague in urging Members to support this
amendment. All it does is require labeling of this fish, this fake
fish. If you are going to be serving your family a good-quality
product, you want to know it is good and it is quality. Allow us to
label this fish.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe we can pass this amendment on a
voice vote, unless there is an objection. Seeing none, I suggest we do
this by voice.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 341) was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. I believe Senator Alexander's amendment is up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, Senator Alexander is off the floor.
Senator Merkley is here. I would ask unanimous consent to reverse the
order of these two amendments and go to Senator Merkley and then back
to Senator Alexander.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. I yield to the Senator from Oregon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Amendment No. 398
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 398.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Merkley] proposes an amendment
numbered 398.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To increase investment in high-impact breakthrough clean
energy technologies through the Advanced Research Projects Agency-
Energy of the Department of Energy)
On page 18, line 23, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
[[Page S2280]]
On page 18, line 24, increase the amount by $3,000,000.
On page 19, line 3, increase the amount by $5,000,000.
On page 19, line 7, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
On page 19, line 11, increase the amount by $18,000,000.
On page 19, line 15, increase the amount by $13,000,000.
On page 19, line 19, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
On page 19, line 23, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
On page 46, line 11, decrease the amount by $50,000,000.
On page 46, line 12, decrease the amount by $3,000,000.
On page 46, line 16, decrease the amount by $5,000,000.
On page 46, line 20, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
On page 46, line 24, decrease the amount by $18,000,000.
On page 47, line 3, decrease the amount by $13,000,000.
On page 47, line 7, decrease the amount by $2,000,000.
On page 47, line 11, decrease the amount by $1,000,000.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote on amendment No.
398.
The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, this amendment increases the Advanced
Research Projects Agency-Energy of the Department of Energy by $50
million. This is essentially what we know as ARPA-E. This is the most
basic research to create breakthroughs in areas which range from
renewable energy to energy conservation, so on and so forth. Energy is
the lifeblood of our economy. It is the lifeblood of putting ourselves
in a position to be one of the nations which sells technology to the
world, rather than buying it from the world. This is a huge leverage
issue, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. I request Senators be recognized to speak at this
moment.
Mr. President, I believe, as I indicated last night, Mr. Lomborg of
Europe, who has done a lot of research on these issues--energy research
is preferable to mandating requirements which would utilize inefficient
sources and oversubsidizing. Breakthroughs might happen. This is a
paid-for amendment. I would suggest we take it by voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 398) was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, Senator Alexander is on the floor, and I
will yield to him to offer his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Amendment No. 515
Mr. ALEXANDER. I call up amendment No. 515.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Alexander], for himself and
Mr. Paul, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Rubio, and Mr. McConnell, proposes
an amendment numbered 515.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund related to the
education of low-income children, which may include allowing funding
under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to follow
children from low-income families to the school the children attend)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR SCHOOL CHOICE.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports
related to the education of low-income children, which may
include allowing funding under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 to follow children from low-income
families to the school the children attend, by the amounts
provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided
that such legislation would not increase the deficit over
either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through
2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through
2023.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote on amendment No.
515 offered by the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of
Senator Paul and myself, with Senators Toomey and McConnell
cosponsoring. It is designed to help 11 million low-income children in
this country. We appropriate $14.5 billion every year through our title
I Federal funding. It is supposed to go to them but it doesn't get
there. That is agreed upon by both the left and the right.
For example, Marguerite Roza, writing for the Center for American
Progress, says the difference between school expenditures is often
substantial, and she pointed out the money goes to schools where
teachers are paid more but the children aren't necessarily the poorer
children. So the poorer children--the ones we intend to help--are left
in schools with less money. And sometimes the money can add up to quite
a bit.
The same analysis has been found by the Fordham Foundation--I would
say that is a center-right organization--because of the Federal formula
we use.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. ALEXANDER. So we are suggesting to let the money follow the child
to the school, whether it is public or private and accredited.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. I yield our time to the Senator from Iowa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the way this amendment is drafted means
the money that goes to title I could then be taken and go to private
schools. That is the first thing.
Secondly, we have tried this before. The District of Columbia has a
voucher program that we passed in Congress in 2003. And guess what they
have found since 2O03? It made no impact whatsoever on student
achievement, and now the program is to the point it is being phased
out.
Again, at this point in time when we are worried about uncertainty in
our schools, teacher salaries, and we have the sequester taking money
from schools, this isn't the time to take even more money out of our
public school system.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 60, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 63 Leg.]
YEAS--39
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--60
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Fischer
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
[[Page S2281]]
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 515) was rejected.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 292
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote on amendment No.
292, offered by the Senator from Florida, Mr. Rubio.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 292.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Florida [Mr. Rubio] proposes an amendment
numbered 292.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate to enact the Child
Interstate Abortion Notification Act)
At the end of title V, add the following:
SEC. 5__. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING CHILD INTERSTATE
ABORTIONS.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) laws requiring parental notification or consent prior
to an abortion, or in the alternative judicial waiver, are in
effect in more than half of the States, but these laws are
often circumvented by interstate activity in which minors
travel or are transported across State lines to avoid laws
requiring parental involvement;
(2) abortion providers use targeted advertising to minors
across State lines, using avoidance of parental notification
requirements as a selling point;
(3) when an abortion provider performs an abortion on a
minor without parental notification, the provider is likely
to lack the complete medical history of the minor, and
parents of the minor are unaware of the need to watch for
complications that may develop after the abortion when the
minor is sent back to her State of residence, far from the
provider; and
(4) parental notification and parental consent laws are
supported by overwhelming majorities of the public in the
United States.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) a physician who performs or induces an abortion on a
minor who is a resident of a State other than the State in
which the abortion is performed should be required by Federal
law to provide, or cause an agent of the physician to
provide, at least 24 hours advance notice to a parent of the
minor before the abortion is performed;
(2) such a Federal requirement for interstate parental
notification should not apply if--
(A) the minor declares in a signed written statement that
she is the victim of sexual abuse, neglect, or physical abuse
by a parent, and, before an abortion is performed on the
minor, the physician notifies the authorities specified to
receive reports of child abuse or neglect by the law of the
State in which the minor resides of the known or suspected
abuse or neglect;
(B) the abortion is necessary to save the life of a minor
whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical
injury, or physical illness, including a life endangering
physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy
itself, provided that the attending physician or an agent of
the physician notifies a parent of the minor in writing that
an abortion was performed on the minor and of the
circumstances of the abortion within 24 hours;
(C) the abortion is performed or induced in a State that
has in force a law requiring parental involvement in the
abortion decision of a minor and the physician complies with
the requirements of that law;
(D) the physician is presented with documentation that
shows with a reasonable degree of certainty that a court in
the State of residence of the minor has authorized that the
minor be allowed to procure an abortion; or
(E) the minor is physically accompanied by a person who
presents the physician or an agent of the physician with
documentation showing with a reasonable degree of certainty
that he or she is in fact a parent of that minor;
(3) a parent who suffers harm by a violation of the
interstate notification requirement should be entitled to
obtain appropriate relief in a civil action, unless that
parent has committed an act of incest with the minor;
(4) whoever has committed an act of incest with a minor and
knowingly transports the minor across a State line with the
intent that the minor obtain an abortion should be subject to
imprisonment of up to 1 year for such transportation, in
addition to any other penalties; and
(5) Congress should enact S. 369, the Child Interstate
Abortion Notification Act (CIANA), to accomplish these
purposes.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, abortion is a divisive issue in this
country, and I deeply respect everyone's opinions with regard to this
issue. But there is one thing that is not dividing us. There is one
thing we are united upon as a people, and that is the idea that parents
should know what their children are being involved in, especially when
it comes to a medical procedure of this magnitude. That is why so many
States have passed parental notification laws that require parents to
be notified before their child--a minor--undergoes an abortion.
Unfortunately, in this country there are people who are transporting
these children across State lines in order to avoid these notification
laws. This sense of the Senate is based on a bill I have filed, and
others have supported in the past, that makes that illegal, that does
not allow that to happen.
You will hear arguments against this in terms of maybe the child is
living in a very unstable environment or a dangerous environment. Maybe
one of the parents--God forbid--is involved in the pregnancy that led
to this, and that is why there are judicial overrides at the State
level, so they can go to courts to override it. That is why this sense
of the Senate is built on a bill that has exceptions for things like
rape or incest or medical emergencies or a hostile home. So this is an
important point, and I hope it can garner the support of as many
Members as possible.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield my time to the Senator from
California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Rubio amendment hurts families. It is
opposed by respected doctors organizations and many women's groups.
Colleagues, under the Rubio amendment, a doctor and a grandmother
would go to jail if the grandmother brought her grandchild across State
lines, say, after she was raped. Senator Rubio insists that only a
parent be there. But what if the mom is ill or the dad is in
Afghanistan or she is scared to death to tell her mom or her dad?
Colleagues, there are cases of daughters dying due to their desperation
and fear of telling their parents. Let's not endanger our children and
place government against our grandmothers. Please vote no.
Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment is
not germane to the underlying resolution. It, therefore, violates
section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. RUBIO. I move to waive the rule with regard to the applicable
portion of the act and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 64 Leg.]
YEAS--48
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Donnelly
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--51
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Collins
Coons
Cowan
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
[[Page S2282]]
Nelson
Reed
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are
51. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained and the amendment falls.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 278
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote in relation to
amendment No. 278, offered by the Senator from North Carolina, Mrs.
Hagan.
The Senator from North Carolina.
Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, this amendment establishes a deficit-
neutral reserve fund for families of servicemembers and veterans. My
home State has the third largest military footprint in the Nation. One
out of every three people is in the military, a veteran or related to a
servicemember or veteran. We are proud that we make military families
welcome in North Carolina because supporting military families is one
of the best ways we can support our troops.
This amendment is deficit neutral. It will not add one penny to our
deficit. It helps to create room in the budget for legislation to help
military families in areas ranging from health care to housing and from
education to job placement while their loved ones are serving our
country away from home.
A vote for this amendment is a vote for our military families, for
the sons, daughters, husbands, wives, and families who sacrifice for
this Nation alongside our troops.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator from
North Carolina.
Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 278.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina [Mrs. Hagan] proposes an
amendment numbered 278.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for the families
of United States servicemembers and veterans)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE FAMILIES OF
AMERICA'S SERVICEMEMBERS AND VETERANS.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports relating to support for the
families of members of the Armed Forces and veterans,
including--
(1) expanding educational opportunities;
(2) providing increased access to job training and
placement services;
(3) tracking and reporting on suicides of family members of
members of the Armed Forces;
(4) ensuring access to high-quality and affordable
healthcare; or
(5) improving military housing;
by the amounts provided in such legislation for those
purposes, provided that such legislation would not increase
the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal
years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal
years 2013 through 2023.
Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to consider our
military families who serve this Nation. They just don't do it in
uniform.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, unless there are any Senators who wish
to speak in opposition to this amendment, I know we are all in very
strong support of veterans. This amendment would make it easier to pass
legislation, but that legislation would be required to be deficit
neutral. I think we have to know that nothing comes from nothing. If we
start new programs, they have to be paid for. But we certainly support
the goal of this amendment. I suggest we could take it by voice vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if there is no objection, I suggest we
voice vote this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question
is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 278) was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. I believe the Senator from Georgia is next.
Amendment No. 138
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2
minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 138
offered by the Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 138.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Isakson], for himself and
Mrs. Shaheen, proposes an amendment numbered 138.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
establishing a biennial budget and appropriations process)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
ESTABLISHING A BIENNIAL BUDGET AND
APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports relating to establishing a
biennial budget and appropriations process, by the amounts
provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided
that such legislation would not increase the deficit over
either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through
2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through
2023.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, this is an Isakson-Shaheen budget
amendment that creates a deficit-neutral fund for the purpose of
converting our appropriations and budget process to a 2-year process
where we budget and appropriate in odd-numbered years.
We would budget and appropriate in odd-numbered years and do
oversight for efficiencies, finding abuses and finding those programs
that are not working in even-numbered years. This is a process asked
for by every President, from Ronald Reagan to our current President,
and endorsed by Democrats and Republicans in this body. The person who
knows the most about it is Ms. Jeanne Shaheen, former Governor of New
Hampshire and a Senator, who is my partner.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague Senator Isakson. I
was a Governor for three budgets, and we were able to balance them
every other year every cycle because biennial budgeting gives us an
opportunity to prioritize scarce resources and provide more oversight
to the budgeting process.
This is idea whose time has come. We need this reform and I urge my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mrs. MURRAY. Is there a Senator who wishes to speak in opposition?
Seeing none, I yield our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 31, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 65 Leg.]
YEAS--68
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Cardin
Carper
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
[[Page S2283]]
Donnelly
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Portman
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Schatz
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Vitter
Warner
Warren
Wyden
NAYS--31
Baldwin
Baucus
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Casey
Cowan
Durbin
Feinstein
Heller
Hirono
Kirk
Landrieu
Lee
Levin
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Pryor
Reed
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schumer
Stabenow
Udall (NM)
Whitehouse
Wicker
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 138) was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay the motion
on the table.
For the information of all Senators, we have worked through a lot of
amendments, and I appreciate everybody's hard work. I am about to ask
for unanimous consent that will lock in the next 16 amendments, which
will take us well past midnight. I suggest that any Senator who is
going to need a vote and wants to keep the Senate later talk to either
Senator Sessions or myself very soon.
Amendments Nos. 693, 307, 198, 697, 482, 263, 314, 247, 606, 689, 537,
535, 442, 514, 273, and 373 en bloc
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next
amendments in order to be called up be the following: Warner amendment
No. 693, Thune amendment No. 307, Sanders amendment No. 198, Burr
amendment No. 697, Reed of Rhode Island amendment No. 482, Paul
amendment No. 263, Landrieu amendment No. 314, Cornyn amendment No.
247, Menendez amendment No. 606, Vitter amendment No. 689, Tester
amendment No. 537, Toomey amendment No. 535, Casey amendment No. 442,
Coats amendment No. 514, Cardin amendment No. 273, and Lee amendment
No. 373; that there be no second-degree amendments in order prior to
the votes in relation to any of these amendments; that notwithstanding
all time having expired on the resolution, there be 2 minutes equally
divided prior to each vote; that upon disposition of the Lee amendment
No. 373, the majority have the next amendment in order; finally, that
all of these votes be 10-minute votes and the Chair report en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I believe this is a good list, and I
support this list. I would advise that a number of Senators have
amendments that they have waited patiently on and that they are
entitled to get votes on, so we need to move forward. The more
effectively we can do so, the sooner we can finish. There are some very
serious matters that have not yet been put on this list that will need
to be voted on.
With that, I withdraw my objection.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. The Senator
from Alabama talked about Senators who have been waiting for a long
time. It happens that I was among the very first to put all of mine
in--I was ready to go--and cut it down to two votes. I am still
waiting. I will not wait beyond the next time; I am serving notice.
At this time, I do not object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we finalize these amendments, and we will
have disposed of 41 amendments. Senators are going to have to
understand that this is not going to go on forever. The average is
about 30 or 35 votes. After we finish, it will be 41. Everyone should
understand that we had 400 amendments that had been offered, and we are
not going to do that.
Mr. DURBIN. Voice votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
I will again remind Senators that if anyone has an amendment, please
let us know very quickly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. We look forward to working hard as we go forward and
take up new amendments. It is unfortunate that we are coming to the end
of the week as we have. We still would have a week when we come back--
the week of April 8--but I know the majority leader wants to finish. So
we are going to try to cooperate, and I know he will cooperate with us
as we seek to get as many amendments done and as many people satisfied
with the issues they are concerned about as is possible.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if the clerk could call up the amendments
en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments en bloc.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an
amendment numbered 693.
The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] proposes an
amendment numbered 307.
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] proposes an
amendment numbered 198.
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Burr] proposes an
amendment numbered 697.
The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] proposes an
amendment numbered 482.
The Senator from Texas [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment
numbered 263.
The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an
amendment numbered 314.
The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] proposes an amendment
numbered 247.
The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] proposes an
amendment numbered 606.
The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an
amendment numbered 689.
The Senator from Montana [Mr. Tester] proposes an amendment
numbered 537.
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Toomey] proposes an
amendment numbered 535.
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Casey] proposes an
amendment numbered 442.
The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats] proposes an amendment
numbered 514.
The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] proposes an
amendment numbered 273.
The Senator from Utah [Mr. Lee] proposes an amendment
numbered 373.
The amendments are as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 693
(Purpose: To repeal or reduce the estate tax, but only if done in a
fiscally responsible way)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO THE REPEAL
OR REDUCTION OF THE ESTATE TAX.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports
relating to the repeal or reduction of the estate tax, by the
amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 307
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to permanently
eliminate the Federal estate tax)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO PERMANENTLY
ELIMINATE THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports that may permanently eliminate
the Federal estate tax without raising new revenue, by the
amounts provided in such legislation for that purpose,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 198
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to protect the
benefits of disabled veterans and their survivors, which may not
include a chained CPI)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR DISABLED VETERANS
AND THEIR SURVIVORS.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this
resolution for one or more bills,
[[Page S2284]]
joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports
related to protecting the benefits of disabled veterans and
their survivors, which may not include a chained CPI, by the
amounts provided in that legislation for that purpose,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total fiscal years 2013 through
2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through
2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 697
(Purpose: To create a point of order against legislation that would
raise taxes on veterans, and for other purposes)
Beginning on page 49, strike line 20 and all that follows
through page 50, line 2.
On page 4, line 6, reduce the amount by $20,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 7, reduce the amount by $40,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 8, reduce the amount by $55,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 9, reduce the amount by $70,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 10, reduce the amount by $82,110,000,000.
On page 4, line 11, reduce the amount by $95,881,000,000.
On page 4, line 12, reduce the amount by $115,534,000,000.
On page 4, line 13, reduce the amount by $135,203,000,000.
On page 4, line 14, reduce the amount by $149,801,000,000.
On page 4, line 15, reduce the amount by $159,650,000,000.
On page 4, line 20, reduce the amount by $20,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 21, reduce the amount by $40,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 22, reduce the amount by $55,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 23, reduce the amount by $70,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 24, reduce the amount by $82,110,000,000.
On page 4, line 25, reduce the amount by $95,881,000,000.
On page 5, line 1, reduce the amount by $115,534,000,000.
On page 5, line 2, reduce the amount by $135,203,000,000.
On page 5, line 3, reduce the amount by $149,801,000,000.
On page 5, line 4, reduce the amount by $159,630,000,000.
At the end of subtitle A of title IV, add the following:
SEC. 4__. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT WOULD RAISE
TAXES ON VETERANS.
(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment,
amendment between the Houses, or conference report that would
increase taxes on United States veterans or their survivors.
(b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or
suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative
vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of
the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under
subsection (a).
AMENDMENT NO. 482
(Purpose: To provide funding for low-income weatherization and energy
efficiency retrofit programs)
On page 18, line 23, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
On page 18, line 24, increase the amount by $3,000,000.
On page 19, line 3, increase the amount by $5,000,000.
On page 19, line 7, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
On page 19, line 11, increase the amount by $18,000,000.
On page 19, line 15, increase the amount by $13,000,000.
On page 19, line 19, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
On page 19, line 23, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
On page 46, line 11, reduce the amount by $50,000,000.
On page 46, line 12, decrease the amount by $3,000,000.
On page 46, line 16, decrease the amount by $5,000,000.
On page 46, line 20, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
On page 46, line 24, decrease the amount by $18,000,000.
On page 47, line 3, decrease the amount by $13,000,000.
On page 47, line 7, decrease the amount by $2,000,000.
On page 47, line 11, decrease the amount by $1,000,000.
On page 57, after line 25, insert the following:
(4) low-income weatherization and energy efficiency
retrofit programs;
On page 58, line 1, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.
On page 58, line 3, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(6)''.
On page 58, line 4, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(7)''.
On page 58, line 7, strike ``(7)'' and insert ``(8)''.
On page 58, line 9, strike ``(8)'' and insert ``(9)''.
On page 58, line 10, strike ``(9)'' and insert ``(10)''.
amendment no. 263
(The amendment is printed in the Record of Thursday, March 21, 2013,
under ``Text of amendments.'')
AMENDMENT NO. 314
(Purpose: To modify the deficit-neutral reserve fund for America's
servicemembers and veterans to include leases of major medical
facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs)
On page 59, line 25, insert after ``space'' the following:
``, to include leases of major medical facilities,''.
AMENDMENT NO. 247
(Purpose: To ensure that if the President fails to submit his budget by
the deadline set in law the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget does not get paid until he submits a budget; and that any
savings will reduce the deficit)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. ___. DEFICIT REDUCTION FUND FOR NO BUDGET, NO OMB PAY.
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget shall
reduce allocations, pursuant to section 302(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, equal to amounts withheld
pursuant to one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between houses, motions, or conference reports
related to the federal budget process, which may include
prohibiting paying the salaries of either the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the OMB Deputy
Director, or the OMB Deputy Director for Management, or all
three officials, for the period of time after which the
President fails to submit a budget, pursuant to section 1105
of title 31, United States Code, and until the day the
President submits a budget to Congress.
AMENDMENT NO. 606
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to provide
funding for the purposes of embassy or diplomatic security)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR
EMBASSY OR DIPLOMATIC SECURITY.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports that would provide funding for
the purposes of embassy or diplomatic security, by the
amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2023.
amendment no. 689
(Purpose: To End ``Too Big To Fail'' Subsidies or Funding Advantage for
Wall Street Mega-Banks (over $500 billion in total assets)
At the appropriate place insert the following:
SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO END ``TOO BIG TO
FAIL'' SUBSIDIES OR FUNDING ADVANTAGE FOR WALL
STREET MEGA-BANKS (OVER $500 BILLION IN TOTAL
ASSETS).
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between houses, motions, or conference reports
related to any subsidies or funding advantage relative to
other competitors received by bank holding companies with
over $500,000,000,000 in total assets, which may include
elimination of any subsidies or funding advantage relative to
other competitors resulting from the perception of federal
assistance to prevent receivership, or any subsidies or
funding advantage relative to other competitors resulting
from the perception of federal assistance to facilitate exit
from receivership, or to realign market incentives to protect
the taxpayer, except in the case of Federal assistance
provided in response to a natural disaster, without raising
new revenue, by the amounts provided in such legislation for
that purpose, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit over either the period of the total of
fiscal years 2014 through 2018 or the period of the total of
fiscal years 2014 through 2023.
Amendment No. 537
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
authorizing children who are eligible to receive health care furnished
under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to retain
such eligibility until age 26)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
AUTHORIZING CHILDREN ELIGIBLE FOR HEALTH CARE
UNDER LAWS ADMINISTERED BY SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS TO RETAIN SUCH ELIGIBILITY
UNTIL AGE 26.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports
relating to authorizing children who are eligible to receive
health care furnished under laws administered by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to retain such eligibility
until age 26, by the amounts provided in such legislation for
those purposes, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit over either the period of the total of
fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of
fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
[[Page S2285]]
AMENDMENT NO. 535
(Purpose: To repeal the tax increase on catastrophic medical expenses
created by Obamacare)
On page 49, strike lines 20 through line 2 on page 50
The levels in this resolution are amended by--Reducing
total revenues by the following amounts
On page 4, line 6, reduce the amount by $300,000,000.
On page 4, line 7, reduce the amount by $1,400,000,000.
On page 4, line 8, reduce the amount by $1,400,000,000.
On page 4, line 9, reduce the amount by $2,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 10, reduce the amount by $3,400,000,000.
On page 4, line 11, reduce the amount by $3,700,000,000.
On page 4, line 12, reduce the amount by $4,100,000,000.
On page 4, line 13, reduce the amount by $4,400,000,000.
On page 4, line 14, reduce the amount by $4,800,000,000.
On page 4, line 15, reduce the amount by $5,100,000,000.
And reducing the amounts by which federal revenues should
be changed by the following amounts
On page 4, line 20, reduce the amount by $300,000,000.
On page 4, line 21, reduce the amount by $1,400,000,000.
On page 4, line 22, reduce the amount by $1,400,000,000.
On page 4, line 23, reduce the amount by $2,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 24, reduce the amount by $3,400,000,000.
On page 4, line 25, reduce the amount by $3,700,000,000.
On page 5, line 1, reduce the amount by $4,100,000,000.
On page 5, line 2, reduce the amount by $4,400,000,000.
On page 5, line 3, reduce the amount by $4,800,000,000.
On page 5, line 4, reduce the amount by $5,100,000,000.
Amendment No. 442
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for State and
local law enforcement)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ____. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR STATE AND LOCAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT.
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this
resolution by the amounts provided by a bill, joint
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report to
support State and local law enforcement, which may include
investing in State formula grants, to aid State and local law
enforcement and criminal justice systems in implementing
innovative, evidence-based approaches to crime prevention and
control, including strategies such as specialty courts,
multi-jurisdictional task forces, technology improvement, and
information sharing systems, provided that such legislation
would not increase the deficit over either the period of the
total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the
total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
Amendment No. 514
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to enable prompt
action relating to the Presidential exemption for the rule of the
Environmental Protection Agency commonly known as the Mercury and Air
Toxins Standard for affected electric utility steam generating units
that need additional time to install the major emissions control
equipment, construct replacement generation, or implement other
mitigation measures in order to ensure the reliability of the grid)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO ENABLE PROMPT
ACTION FOR PRESIDENTIAL EXCEPTION FOR MERCURY
AND AIR TOXINS STANDARD.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports
that may allow the Environmental Protection Agency to enable
the President to be adequately informed and take prompt
action to issue, on a case-by-case basis, Presidential
exemptions, which may include exemptions under section
112(i)(4) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(i)(4)),
without raising new revenue, by the amounts provided in such
legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
Amendment No. 273
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to improve oral
health care for children with Medicaid coverage)
On page 76, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
(c) Oral Health Care for Children With Medicaid Coverage.--
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports that improve the oral health
outcomes for children covered by Medicaid, including
legislation that may allow for risk-based disease prevention
and comprehensive, coordinated chronic disease treatment
approaches, by the amounts provided in such legislation for
those purposes, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit over either the period of the total of
fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of
fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
Amendment No. 373
(Purpose: To provide a point of order against budgets spending more on
net interest payments on the debt than on national defense, and to
ensure the United States government funds its military at higher levels
than the militaries of foreign holders of its debt)
At the end of subtitle A of title IV, insert the following:
SEC. 4__. SENATE POINT OF ORDER AGAINST BUDGET PROVIDING
OUTLAYS FOR INTEREST ON THE DEBT IN EXCESS OF
OUTLAYS FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE.
(a) In General.--In the Senate, it shall not be in order to
consider a concurrent resolution on the budget for the budget
year or any amendment, amendment between Houses, motion, or
conference report thereon that includes outlays for function
900 in any fiscal year that exceed outlays for function 050
in the same fiscal year.
(b) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal in the Senate.--
(1) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the
Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(2) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of
the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.
Amendment No. 693
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to
amendment No. 693, offered by the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner.
The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in the spirit of what our leader said
about us trying to move along, I think while we may have a variety of
views, we all know we are $16.5 trillion in debt--a debt that goes up
by $3 billion every night. The last thing we should do is dig this hole
any deeper.
This amendment is paired actually with an amendment that will be
offered by the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune. The Thune
amendment would repeal the estate tax without the ability to offset
with additional revenue.
I believe the estate tax is actually a meaningful part of our Tax
Code. We put in place appropriate exemptions: $5 million a person, $10
million a couple. That means the estate tax right now only applies to
about 3,800 people a year. Yet, if we were to repeal the estate tax
without any offset, that would add $600 billion to our debt.
We have spent a lot of time over these last number of months talking
about the dramatic cuts in defense from sequester--$550 billion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues, if we want to repeal
the estate tax and pay for it, to vote for the Warner amendment No.
693.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I appreciate the effort being made by the
Senator from Virginia. He is moving in the right direction. We do need
to get rid of this once and for all. I would be happy to accept his
amendment by voice if he would be willing to do that. But I think it is
important to have a vote on eliminating the death tax.
The death tax is a punitive tax. It hits farmers and ranchers
squarely in the face at a time when they are trying to pass on their
farm or ranch operation to the next generation of Americans.
By the way, the amendment I will offer is a deficit-neutral reserve
fund; it would be offset. The point the Senator from Virginia made
about it not being offset is not accurate.
The way we would approach this, it would have to be offset, but it is
time that we put a stake in the heart of the death tax and end it once
and for all.
[[Page S2286]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I believe we need a balanced approach. The
notion that we can continue to take away revenue sources is not a
responsible way to address this budget.
I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 693.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 80, nays 19, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 66 Leg.]
YEAS--80
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cowan
Crapo
Cruz
Donnelly
Enzi
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kaine
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Schatz
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Vitter
Warner
Warren
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--19
Baldwin
Brown
Coons
Durbin
Franken
Gillibrand
Harkin
Johnson (SD)
King
Levin
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Reed
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Udall (NM)
Whitehouse
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 693) was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 307
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there now will be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to
amendment No. 307, offered by the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune.
The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this amendment will create a deficit-
neutral reserve fund to completely--completely--eliminate the Federal
estate tax burden that is facing America's family farmers and small
businesses. There are lots of reasons to support elimination of this
destructive and inefficient tax, but for me the issue comes down to
being able to tell the farmers and ranchers I represent that I am doing
everything I can to make sure they can pass on their family farm to the
next generation without a double tax imposed from Washington, DC.
Behind me is a chart. This is data selected from the latest
Agriculture Department report on farmland values. Farmers in the States
represented on this chart truly are land rich and cash poor. These
farmers literally have to sell off land or spend large sums in
financial planning solely because of the estate tax--all of that to
bring in less than one-half of 1 percent of all Federal revenue.
Next year the estate tax will generate $15 billion--that is all--
relative to all the harm that it causes to farms, ranches, and small
businesses in this country. It is time to end this tax. It is time to
put a stake through the heart of this tax. I ask my colleagues to
support the repeal with this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Who yields time in opposition?
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, there are strong feelings of opinion in
this body about the estate tax. I personally believe the current estate
tax--with a very generous $5 million-per-person exemption, and $10
million per family; an estate tax that only applies to 3,800 families
per year--is a fair part of our Tax Code. Others may disagree.
But in our previous amendment, Warner amendment No. 693, we said if
you are going to replace the estate tax, you have to pay for it. The
unfortunate thing about the Senator's amendment is it says if you
repeal the estate tax, you cannot use revenues to replace that. It will
only have to be replaced with additional cuts.
The problem we have at this point--$16.5 trillion in debt--is because
we have not recognized to get a budget balanced you have to look at
both sides of the balance sheet, revenue and spending. You cannot just
keep taking revenue away on every item. So I would urge my colleagues
to oppose the Thune amendment.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 67 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--53
Baldwin
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 307) was rejected.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote and lay that motion on the
table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 198
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 198
offered by the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 198.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this amendment would create a deficit-
neutral reserve fund to protect disabled veterans and their survivors,
which may not include a chained CPI--no chained CPI.
This amendment is cosponsored by Senators Harkin, Hirono, and
Whitehouse. This amendment is strongly supported by the American Legion
and all of the veterans organizations. It is supported by the AARP and
all of the senior organizations because they do not want to see cuts in
Social Security. It is supported by the AFL-CIO and the National
Organization for Women, among many other groups.
After all of the fine Memorial Day speeches about how much we love
and support our veterans, the Disabled Veterans of America, the Gold
Star Wives----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
[[Page S2287]]
Mr. SANDERS. They want to know if we are going to balance the budget
on the backs of disabled veterans. I hope very much we will not do
that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Sanders amendment.
I urge my colleagues to support it. I support chained CPI, just as the
President, as it relates to entitlement reform. The fact is, if we want
to protect veterans, then the important amendment is the next one. It
is the amendment that bans excessive taxes from being applied to our
country's veterans. It shields them from the massive tax increases
found in this budget.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. I believe we can take this on a voice vote.
Mr. SANDERS. If Mr. Burr supports this amendment, I ask for a
rollcall vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
At the moment there is not a sufficient second. At this time, there
is not a sufficient second.
The question is on the amendment.
Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for a voice vote on the Sanders amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Hearing no further debate, the question is on
agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 198) was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay
that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 697
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to
amendment No. 697.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that will
actually protect veterans, one that will protect them from the massive
tax increases in this budget. The budget before us today raises $1
trillion but does not tell us how. My amendment would ensure that the
Democrats in the Chamber cannot raise a dime of that trillion dollars
on the backs of our Nation's veterans. It would strike their ability to
fast-track any tax increases through this body.
I encourage all Members to vote for the amendment that will actually
protect veterans from the threat before them. That threat is higher
taxes that will come from this budget.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I strongly oppose this amendment.
Repealing this budget's revenue increase and striking reconciliation
would be irresponsible. Our budget would not raise taxes on veterans.
I yield back the remainder of my time to the Senator from Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. What this amendment basically says is it does away with
the revenue that the committee has put into the bill. It says the only
way to do deficit reduction is to cut, cut, cut--cut Social Security,
veterans programs, Medicare, Medicaid. One out of four corporations
does not pay a nickel in taxes today. No problem. We are losing $100
billion with companies putting their money in the Cayman Island's tax
havens. No problem. The only way to go forward is to cut, cut, cut. The
American people do not support that concept. This amendment should be
defeated.
Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment is
not germane to the underlying resolution and therefore violates section
305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I move to waive section 305(b)(2) of the
Congressional Budget Act for consideration of the pending amendment No.
697 pursuant to section 904(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 68 Leg.]
YEAS--45
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--54
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 45 and the nays are
54. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained and amendment No. 697 falls.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote and lay that motion on the
table.
The motion to reconsider was agreed to.
Amendment No. 482
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to amendment No. 482, offered
by the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed.
The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. This bipartisan amendment, cosponsored by Senator Collins,
Senator Merkley, and others, would add resources to energy programs for
the purpose of increasing support for the Weatherization Assistance
Program. It would also include weatherization in the investments under
the deficit-neutral reserve fund on clean energy and environmental
protection.
Weatherization does several things: It puts people to work, helps
low-income people control their energy bills, and helps us move toward
energy independence. We need to do more of this, not less. This
amendment will put us back on the track of doing more, not less.
I would urge passage of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator and his cosponsors for their work
on this amendment. I note it would double the budget number for the
weatherization program. Also, the Recovery Act of a few years ago, the
stimulus bill, provided $5 billion for the weatherization program.
While I am dubious about the wisdom of the doubling of this program, it
is offset. Therefore, I would accept a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Without objection, we will move to a voice vote on this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 482) was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider and lay that motion
on the table.
[[Page S2288]]
The motion to reconsider was agreed to.
Amendment No. 263
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 263 offered by the Senator
from Kentucky, Mr. Paul.
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the President is fond of calling for a
balanced approach. Today, I rise in this body to offer a balanced
approach to budgets. I offer a budget that balances in 5 years.
This budget is called the Revitalize America Budget. It reforms and
saves Social Security and Medicare, making them solvent for 75 years;
it creates millions of jobs by letting taxpayers keep an additional
$600 billion of their income; it repeals ObamaCare; and it requires
Congress to vote to approve or disapprove all major regulations.
Our ever-expanding debt is costing us millions of jobs a year. It is
time to stop burying our kids in debt. I suggest a vote for this 5-year
balanced budget.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the budget resolution before the Senate
represents the values and priorities of the pro-middle-class agenda.
The Paul budget that is being offered includes tax savings for the
wealthy and eliminates the programs that strengthen our economy and
support our middle class.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 18, nays 81, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 69 Leg.]
YEAS--18
Barrasso
Coburn
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Flake
Inhofe
Johnson (WI)
Lee
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Risch
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Vitter
NAYS--81
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Fischer
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 263) was rejected.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I lay
that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 314
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes equally divided prior
to a vote on amendment No. 314 offered by the Senator from Louisiana,
Ms. Landrieu.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am proud to offer this amendment on
behalf of myself, Senator Chambliss, Senator Vitter, Senator
Blumenthal, Senator Isakson, Senator Murphy, and Senator Udall of New
Mexico that will fix a problem in the way CBO is scoring the leasing of
veterans clinics.
This amendment, if adopted, will have no impact on the deficit. It
will allow veterans clinics in 30 States to be able to finance their
buildings. It is something that must be done in order to solve this
problem for our veterans, and I think we can take this by voice vote.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I believe Senator Coburn wished to speak
on this amendment.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I understand what the Senator from
Louisiana is trying to do, but it goes toward the bigger problems of
GSA. I will give you a great example.
In my hometown they are building a brand new U.S. Attorney's Office
with four other sites that are available that could have been leased,
and they are going to lease this one as well. So leasing doesn't solve
the problem. What we need to attack is the inefficiencies and
ineffectiveness of GSA.
I am sure we will take a voice vote on this, but I am not sure I
agree with the solution of the Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. This is only for veterans clinics, and I ask for a
voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if there is no discussion, we will take
this by voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 314) was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. SESSIONS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 247
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 247, offered by
the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up
amendment No. 247 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this is an amendment which would
facilitate passage of legislation that would deny pay to the personnel
at the Office of Management and Budget for such time as they delay in
the statutory requirement for the President to submit a budget for
consideration by the Senate.
As we all know, the law requires the President to submit a budget the
first Monday in February, but the President has not done so 4 out of
the last 5 years, nor will he do so this year reportedly until April.
The problem with that is we will finish our work here this week, the
House will finish their work, and the President has rendered himself
entirely irrelevant.
We know because the House passed the No Budget No Pay bill that it
prompted the first budget in the Senate in more than 1,400 days, and
that is good, that is progress. We would like to do the same now with
the Office of Management and Budget to encourage the President to be
relevant to the budget debate and require him to submit his budget on a
timely basis.
So I would ask my colleagues for their vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, there is no opposition. We suggest a
voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 247) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 606 Withdrawn
Amendment No. 483
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Menendez
amendment listed in the previous order, amendment No. 606, be replaced
with Udall amendment No. 483.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendment
No. 606 has been withdrawn.
The clerk will report amendment No. 483.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] for Mr. Udall of
New Mexico, proposes amendment numbered 483.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
hardrock mineral royalty and fee reform)
At the end of title III, add the following:
[[Page S2289]]
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING HARDROCK
MINING REFORM.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for 1 or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports
relating to Federal land management, which may include
provisions relating to budget deficit reduction,
establishment of a reclamation fund, imposition of a
locatable mineral royalty, revenue sharing with States, and
improvements to the permitting process, by the amounts
provided in the legislation for those purposes, provided that
the legislation would not increase the deficit over either
the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or
the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
Amendment No. 483
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior
to a vote on amendment No. 483, offered by the Senator from New Mexico,
Mr. Udall.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, let me just say that I very
much appreciate the help on this amendment from both Senator Wyden, who
is here and is the chairman of the committee, and also Senator
Murkowski, who has been working with me on this amendment.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if there is no opposition, I would
suggest a voice vote.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand there have been discussions
about this, and it is on the agreed list for a voice vote. I would have
no objection unless others do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 483) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 689
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior
to a vote on amendment No. 689, offered by the Senator from Louisiana,
Mr. Vitter.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 689.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, there have been at least three independent
studies now recently that underscore that too-big-to-fail is still
alive and well, and that too-big-to-fail policies give Wall Street
megabanks a subsidy in comparison to their competitors--an unfair
advantage, creating an uneven playing field. And not coincidentally,
that is why these megabanks dominate the market--the biggest market
share ever in history.
This amendment is very simple. It says we should do away with the
Federal policies that create that subsidy, the uneven playing field. It
doesn't say we forcibly break up the banks, it doesn't say we tax them,
it just says that.
I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Brown of Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, we ask support for the Vitter-Brown-Corker-
Pryor amendment. The community banks of America support it because they
know the playing field isn't level.
One real quick statistic. Eighteen years ago, the six biggest U.S.
banks had assets equal to 18 percent of GDP. Today it is 65 percent of
GDP.
I ask for your support of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I don't believe there is any opposition
to this amendment. I would ask the Senator if we could have a voice
vote on this amendment as well.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, we believe this is an important matter,
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
At this moment there is not a sufficient second.
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 70 Leg.]
YEAS--99
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cowan
Crapo
Cruz
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 689) was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 537
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior
to a vote in relation to amendment No. 537, offered by Mr. Tester.
Mr. TESTER. I rise on behalf of amendment No. 537.
First of all, I thank Senator Coons and Senator Heller for
cosponsoring this amendment. It would allow the children under the
Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans
Affairs, otherwise known as CHAMP-VA, to remain eligible for coverage
until their 26th birthday. These children are the children of veterans
who have been rated permanently and totally disabled and children of
veterans who have died from a service-connected disability or service-
connected disease.
With the enactment of the Affordable Health Care Act, children up to
26 years of age can now be covered on their parents' health insurance
if they are unable to receive health insurance from their employers. In
contrast to private insurance plans, or TRICARE, children under the
CHAMP-VA program are only eligible for coverage until age 18 or 23 if
they are a full-time enrolled student. This amendment is offered on
their behalf to allow them to be on the CHAMP-VA program up to age 26.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama?
Mr. SESSIONS. This is a budget-neutral reserve fund, and it
essentially says, using that language, if the authorizing committee can
pay for this bill, it will not be subject to a budget point of order.
It should be offset to avoid that. This is certainly a worthy goal. We
would like to see if this can be done. It would be a challenge for the
authorizers because nothing comes from nothing. It could well end up
cutting other veterans benefits. But I think this is a worthy goal. I
think the Senator would suggest we take it by a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Seeing no opposition, I suggest we take this by a voice
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 537) was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 535
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior
to a vote in relation to amendment No. 535, offered by the Senator from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Toomey.
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 535.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
[[Page S2290]]
Mr. TOOMEY. As we know, the ObamaCare bill raises taxes by $1.2
trillion. Much of that is on middle-income families. One in particular
is a tax increase on people who incur and then deduct catastrophic
medical expenses.
Imagine a woman slips and falls at home, is seriously injured, runs
up huge medical costs which she pays for out her own pocket, and then
on top of her personal and physical misery ObamaCare hits her with a
double whammy by reducing the amount of medical expenses she is allowed
to deduct. Who does this hurt? Disproportionately, middle-income
taxpayers; 96 percent of these deductions are for people who earn less
than $200,000. It adds up to $30 billion over 10 years. Madam
President, 60 percent of these deductions are by senior citizens. The
fact is the ObamaCare tax increase imposes this tax on people who can
least afford it, the sick, elderly, middle-income folks.
My amendment repeals this ill-conceived tax on victims of
catastrophic illness and repeals the reconciliation instructions in the
budget.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second.
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, again, for our colleagues, the goal of
our budget is to tackle our deficit and debt responsibly in a way that
works for our middle-class families and our economy. That means a
balanced mix of responsible spending cuts and new revenue from those
who can afford it most.
I remind all Senators every bipartisan group who has examined our
budget situation has acknowledged that reality. Simpson-Bowls, the Gang
of 6, Domenici-Rivlin--all recommend several times more revenue than
the roughly $600 billion that was generated by the yearend deal. In
fact, Simpson-Bowles and the Gang of 6 each recommend well over $2
trillion in new revenue. So striking this reconciliation instruction,
which is what this amendment does, and reducing the revenue level, goes
in exactly the wrong direction. I ask for a strong ``no'' vote and
oppose this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 71 Leg.]
YEAS--45
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--54
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 535) was rejected.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to
lay the motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 442
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to
amendment No. 442, offered by Mr. Casey of Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. I call up amendment No. 442.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
Mr. CASEY. This amendment creates a neutral reserve fund that
supports the Edward Byrne memorial justice assistance grants. It helps
every one of our States. It has been cut by one-third over the last 2
years. We provide support for local and State law enforcement. The
money is used to support innovative, evidence-based approaches to
public safety--by way of example, special courts that have new
technological innovations to help reduce and fight crime in our
communities.
In part, it is supported by--and this is only a partial list--the
National Sheriffs' Association, the International Association of Chiefs
of Police, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the National Narcotics
Officers' Association.
I am grateful for the work that was done by so many people on this
amendment--especially Senator Grassley--and urge for its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I hope all of us begin to think a
little bit here. We have a lot of votes that have gone forward. Each
one seems to be an attempt to spend more money. It sets deficit-neutral
reserve funds that require offsets. In my view, we are really thinking
too much with a mindset that we have money, and I believe we are in
denial about the financial condition of our country. Truly, we should
be looking to have more amendments that save some money and use that
money to pay down the debt rather than fund some new spending program.
This country is on an unsustainable debt path. We have to get off of
it, and it cannot be done all by tax increases. Trust me, we have to
have some spending reductions. Our spending rate of growth is more than
two times the rate of economic growth, and that really--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. I suggest a voice vote. I appreciate my colleague's
work on this amendment.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I believe we can take this by a voice
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 442) was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote in
relation to amendment No. 273, offered by the Senator from Maryland,
Mr. Cardin.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I believe the pending amendment is
Coats amendment No. 514.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair stands corrected.
Amendment No. 514
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote in relation
to amendment No. 514, offered by Mr. Coats of Indiana.
The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 514. It is a
bipartisan amendment with Senator Manchin. It clarifies that a
Presidential exemption exists for utilities that despite their good-
faith efforts have been unable to complete the necessary measures to
comply with the standards of the EPA regarding the mercury toxic
elements issue. That deadline is 2016.
This amendment does not repeal or weaken the existing standard, the
MATS rule. It simply allows powerplants that qualify for a Presidential
exemption additional time to finish their upgrades and provides much-
needed stability and reliability to the electric grid.
It is the President's decision, and if he sees that a utility is
acting in good
[[Page S2291]]
faith and needs a little more time to complete it to meet those
standards, he can make that decision to provide that additional time.
It is a bipartisan amendment supported by both sides, and I urge our
colleagues to vote for this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I strongly oppose this amendment. I
agree with the Senator from California, and I yield her my time in
opposition.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, the Coats amendment allows open-ended
exemptions to the mercury air toxic rule. This is not a 1-year
extension, it is a permanent extension if any President, now or in the
future, simply decides it. It doesn't even require any finding.
Let me tell my colleagues a little bit about mercury. It is
dangerous. It is poison. It harms the brain, the nervous system, and
childhood development. It is especially damaging to infants and
pregnant women. Mercury harms a child's ability to speak, to hear, to
walk, to see, and to think. Can't we protect our children?
I want to give my colleagues 11,000 reasons to oppose the Coats
amendment. That is how many premature deaths will be avoided with the
rule he wants to eviscerate. Just last June we held on this rule. Let's
vote no on the Coats amendment.
Thank you very much.
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 72 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Donnelly
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--53
Ayotte
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cowan
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 514) was rejected.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 273
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior
to a vote in relation to amendment No. 273, offered by the Senator from
Maryland, Mr. Cardin.
The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, this amendment would set up a deficit-
neutral reserve fund.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Heinrich be added as a cosponsor
of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARDIN. It would improve the oral health care for our children
who are Medicaid-eligible. We still have major problems. The majority
of our children who are Medicaid-eligible have untreated tooth decay,
which affects their general health.
Let me respond to my good friend from Alabama, Senator Sessions, and
tell him why this amendment will not add to the deficit but will save
us money.
I will give the example of Deamonte Driver, a 12-year-old who died in
my State of Maryland from untreated tooth decay. He needed an $80 tooth
extraction. Instead, we spent $\1/4\ million dollars in unnecessary
operations and he lost his life.
This amendment gives us a chance to find ways to save money in order
to expand oral health for our children, and I urge my colleagues to
support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank Senator Cardin for his hard
work. He is correct that oral care for children is important. It does
require that it be paid for if a new program is advanced.
I suggest a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, hearing no opposition, I suggest we
have a voice vote on it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 273) was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 373
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2
minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No.
373, offered by the Senator from Utah, Mr. Lee.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Madam President, under this budget, by the year 2020 we will
be spending more every year on interest on our national debt than we
spend on our national defense. This is alarming and ought to be a
concern to every one of us. This amendment creates a point of order
that would address this problem and all similar problems in the future
with other budgets that have the same defect.
While we are on this note, I would like to add that I am concerned
about the amendment process. I heard from our majority leader a few
minutes ago a statement suggesting that he might cut off debate, cut
off the amendment process--this after he promised us at the beginning
of the week that there would be unlimited amendments. And he repeated
that phrase twice.
It is imperative that we finish this job. Each of us was elected to
do a job. Each of us deserves to have our amendments called up. We have
no business taking a 2-week vacation until we have gone through every
amendment that any Senator from either side of the aisle wants to
present.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I too am committed to meeting the needs
of our military to defend the Nation and our interests abroad. That is
exactly what this budget does.
We should not be linking defense funding with unrelated benchmarks.
This amendment is unnecessary. The Senate budget does fund defense
above net interest in fiscal year 2014 and over both the 5- and 10-year
windows.
I recommend that my colleagues oppose the amendment.
Madam President, may I just respond and say that we have been very
hard at work here. We have had a number of amendments come before us.
All of our staffs are working together to have as many amendments as we
can put together for the next group of votes.
Really, I do want to thank all of our Senators. I know everybody has
been working really hard to get their amendments up so we can have them
in order. I think we are going to keep working on that, and I
appreciate everybody's focus.
Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
[[Page S2292]]
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenburg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 73 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--53
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 373) was rejected.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Madam President, a lot of progress has been made. We are
doing extremely well. I admire the progress made by the two managers of
this bill.
Over the last two decades, after the expiration of debate time on
those budget resolutions, the Senate has offered and the Senate
disposed of an average of 35 amendments. Today, since the expiration of
that debate time on this resolution, we have now disposed of 33
amendments. We have considered and disposed of 44 amendments on the
resolution in total, counting those we did yesterday.
We need to continue working. There are a lot of things that people
want to have offered. But, you know, there are 400 amendments that have
already been filed. Senator Byrd, whom we all revere, said, and I will
quote:
I once described vote-aramas as pandemonium, which was the
Palace of Satan in Milton's Paradise Lost. But that term
fails to describe the ignominy of the Senate when it becomes
engulfed in these budget vote carnivals.
So we are doing fine. We are not at the carnival stage yet. Let's
proceed and try to finish this with a lot of dignity. I again tell
Senator Murray and Senator Sessions what a good job they have done. We
need to proceed to see what else we can get done.
Amendments Nos. 366, 213, 455, and 597
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the next
amendments in order to be called up be the following: McCaskill No.
366, Johnson of Wisconsin No. 213, Brown No. 455, and Scott No. 597;
that there be no second-degree amendments in order prior to the votes
in relation to any of these amendments; that notwithstanding all time
having expired on the resolution, there be 2 minutes equally divided
prior to each vote; that upon disposition of Scott 597, the majority
have the next amendment in order; finally, all these votes be 10-minute
votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendments be reported en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes
amendments en bloc: for Mrs. McCaskill, an amendment numbered
366; for Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin, an amendment numbered 213;
for Mr. Brown, an amendment numbered 455; for Mr. Scott, an
amendment numbered 597.
The amendments are as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 366
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to support the
transition of servicemembers to the civilian workforce by streamlining
the process associated with Federal and State credentialing
requirements)
On page 60, line 7, insert ``Federal and State'' before
``credentialing''.
AMENDMENT NO. 213
(Purpose: To force Congress to ensure the solvency of the Social
Security and Medicare programs)
At the end of subtitle A of title IV, add the following:
SEC. ___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST CONSIDERING BUDGET
RESOLUTIONS THAT ASSUME THE INSOLVENCY OF THE
SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE PROGRAMS.
(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider a concurrent resolution on the budget for the
budget year or any amendment, amendment between Houses,
motion, or conference report thereon whose revenue and outlay
assumptions do not assume that Social Security and Medicare
will be solvent for the seventy-five years following the year
in which the budget resolution is considered.
(b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or
suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative
vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of
the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under
subsection (a).
AMENDMENT NO. 455
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to establish a
national network for manufacturing innovation that leverages private
and public sector investments for proven United States based
manufacturing industries)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO ESTABLISH A
NATIONAL NETWORK FOR MANUFACTURING INNOVATION.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports that relate to accelerating
the development and deployment of advanced manufacturing
technologies, advancing competitiveness, improving the speed
and infrastructure with which small- and medium-sized
enterprises and supply chains commercialize new processes and
technologies, and informing industry-driven education and
training, by the amounts provided in such legislation for
those purposes, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit over either the period of the total of
fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of
fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 597
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the
prohibition of taxpayer dollars and resources being used to
automatically deduct union dues from the pay of Federal employees)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO THE
PROHIBITION OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND RESOURCES
BEING USED BY FEDERAL AGENCIES TO AUTOMATICALLY
DEDUCT UNION DUES FROM THE PAY OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports relating to the prohibition of
taxpayer dollars and resources being used by Federal agencies
to automatically deduct union dues from the pay of Federal
employees without raising new revenue, by the amounts
provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided
that such legislation would not increase the deficit over
either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through
2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through
2023.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I would add to what the majority leader
said. Senators have been very good in helping us work through our list
on both sides. We will have some more amendments to be offered in a
unanimous consent in a short while once we work through these four.
Again, I would ask all Senators to please work with the leader on
your side, Mr. Sessions on the Republican side, and myself. We need to
know which amendments you have to have votes on so we can start letting
Senators know where we are going to end up here. I would ask everybody
to continue cooperating with us. I appreciate everybody who has been
working so hard.
[[Page S2293]]
Amendment No. 366
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior
to a vote in relation to amendment No. 366 offered by the Senator from
Missouri, Mrs. McCaskill.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, the budget already includes a
deficit-neutral reserve fund to assist servicemembers and veterans. It
contains a provision supporting the transition of our military to the
workforce by recognizing the process is too cumbersome for them in
terms of credentialing requirements and licensing requirements.
What my amendment does is it clarifies this section to ensure that a
servicemember's military training, education, and experience shall be
taken into account for both Federal and State licensing requirements.
These men and women have performed technical jobs in the most
difficult circumstances imaginable. We should recognize that and accept
their service and their experience and their training and allow them to
be easily credentialed when they return home. It helps them so much in
the search for jobs.
I would ask for a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, hearing no opposition, I suggest we
voice vote this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 366) was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay
that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 213
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior
to a vote in relation to amendment No. 213, offered by the Senator from
Wisconsin, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Madam President, I would call up my
amendment No. 213.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Madam President, this is a very simple
amendment. It recognizes I think what most of us recognize; that is,
the entitlement programs, Social Security and Medicare, are the primary
drivers of our debt and deficit. So it is a very simple amendment. It
establishes a budget point of order that any budget resolution that is
brought forward that does not count or does not prepare for a 75-year
solvency for both Medicare and Social Security would be considered out
of order.
We in the next 20 years will be paying out $5.1 trillion in benefits
in excess of what we are bringing in in terms of dedicated revenue
through the payroll tax. The unfunded liabilities of Social Security
alone are $20.5 trillion. For Medicare the unfunded liability is $42.8
trillion. Those programs must be reformed so they are saved for future
generations.
Again, I would hope everybody would support a budget point of order
for any budget that does not have a 75-year solvency for Medicare and
Social Security.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, Social Security and Medicare have
played a very critical role in providing a foundation of financial
security and health care for millions upon millions of Americans over
the decades. Democrats are committed to preserving and protecting them.
When analyzing the solvency of these programs, it must be over more
than just a 10-year budget window; we must measure them over a 75-year
window.
This amendment, however, does nothing to protect the integrity of the
Medicare and Social Security trust funds, and it does not do anything
to improve their solvency. We should have a debate about the solvency
of these programs but not on the budget resolution.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and ask for the yeas
and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 74 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--53
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 213) was rejected.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay
that motion upon the table.
The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 455
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to amendment No. 455, offered
by the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I rise and join with Senator Blunt in a
bipartisan amendment, No. 455, in support of a national network for
manufacturing innovation.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from
the National Association of Manufacturers, Semiconductor Industry
Association, United Auto Workers, and others.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Association of
Manufacturers,
March 22, 2013.
Dear Senator: The National Association of Manufacturers
(NAM)--the nation's largest industrial trade association--
appreciates efforts in the Senate this year to advance a
budget plan for fiscal year 2014 (S. Con. Res. 8).
Manufacturers remain extremely concerned about the impact of
the historically-high levels of the federal deficit and the
national debt on manufacturing and the overall U.S. economy
and believe that we need a budget plan that puts us on a path
to reduce the federal debt and deficits, focusing both on
real and immediate spending cuts and longer term structural
changes to our nation's entitlement programs. In addition to
advocating for debt and deficit reduction, the NAM also
supports comprehensive tax reform to promote economic growth
and U.S. competitiveness.
Unfortunately, the budget blueprint approved by the Senate
Budget Committee on March 15, 2013, does not adequately
address needed spending cuts and also would impose roughly $1
trillion in job-killing, anti-growth tax increases on the
American economy. During the Senate's consideration of the
budget plan, we strongly urge you to support the amendments
described below that would improve the Senate budget and
reject the amendments below that would make the plan even
more anti-growth and anti-manufacturing.
Promoting U.S. Manufacturing and Economic Growth
NAM members strongly believe that our current tax system
discourages economic growth and U.S. competitiveness and that
comprehensive, revenue neutral reform of our current system
is critical to our nation's economic future. In contrast, tax
reform that increases the tax burden on U.S. businesses and
individuals will discourage job creation, investment and
economic growth. Consequently, we strongly support amendments
that would eliminate provisions in S. Con. Res. 8, as
approved by the Budget Committee, that call for more than $1
trillion in tax increases on American businesses and families
and allow Congress to advance pro-
[[Page S2294]]
growth, revenue-neutral tax reform that would spur job
creation and investment. We also support an amendment offered
by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) that would require a
supermajority of the Senate to increase tax rates on
businesses and individuals.
In addition, it is critically important that tax reform
addresses the tax treatment of both corporations and
individuals. Thus, Manufacturers oppose an amendment filed by
Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) that provides for corporate-only
reform. About two-thirds of manufacturers are organized as
``flow throughs'' and pay taxes at individual rates. Any tax
reform effort that includes a higher tax burden for these
flow through companies would negatively impact their ability
to invest in their business and create and retain jobs.
Manufacturers also have long led the business community in
providing quality retirement benefits, including defined
benefit and defined contribution plans to their employees. As
such, we support amendments offered by Senator Richard Burr
(R-NC) that would protect these benefits from being a source
of revenue for additional government spending.
Innovation is the lifeblood of U.S. manufacturing and the
NAM strongly supports polices to ensure that manufacturers in
the United States are the world's leading innovators. To that
end, the NAM strongly supports an amendment filed by Senator
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that would preserve and make permanent the
R&D tax credit. A strong, permanent and competitive R&D
credit will allow manufacturers in the United States to
continue as global leaders in technology and innovation.
Similarly, NAM strongly supports public-private
partnerships that promote manufacturing research efforts
focused on base-building technologies and processes. The NAM
supports an amendment to the budget blueprint filed by
Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Roy Blunt (R-MO) that will
accelerate the development of advanced manufacturing
technologies without adding to the deficit. This will result
in innovative products going to market faster, providing an
overall benefit to the U.S. economy.
NAM also supports an amendment filed by Senator John Thune
(R-SD) that will allow for the full and permanent repeal of
the estate tax. Many small and medium size manufacturers are
family-owned businesses. Planning for and paying estate taxes
take away important resources from these important job
creators. While NAM supports the reforms of the existing
system enacted at the beginning of 2013, our long term goal
is full repeal of the estate tax, which is the best solution
to protect family-owned businesses from the estate tax.
Manufacturers however, oppose efforts to increase taxes on
U.S. global companies. Current U.S. tax laws make it
difficult for U.S. companies with worldwide operations to
thrive and compete in the global marketplace. If American
companies cannot compete abroad, where 95 percent of the
world's consumers are located, the U.S. economy suffers from
the loss of both foreign markets and domestic jobs that
support foreign operations. In order to make U.S.
multinationals more competitive, the NAM supports the
adoption of a competitive territorial tax system. In
contrast, increasing taxes on U.S. companies with overseas
operations will make it even more difficult for them to
compete in the world markets while reducing their ability to
grow and add jobs in the United States.
The Affordable Care Act
NAM members also support amendments to the budget plan that
would improve our current tax system by eliminating job-
killing taxes on manufacturers. In particular, amendments
that would eliminate several tax increases that were included
in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Thus, we applaud the Senate
for recently approving, a bipartisan amendment offered by
Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) that
would repeal the current 2.3 percent excise tax on the gross
sales of medical devices.
By increasing the costs of medical devices, the excise
tax--which took effect at the beginning of 2013--hurts the
device manufacturers and their workers and also stifles the
research and innovation that leads to the development of
medical products that contribute to the health and well-being
of all Americans. The additional costs imposed by the tax
make it more difficult for U.S. medical device manufacturers
to compete in the global marketplace and threaten U.S. jobs,
investment and our nation's leadership in life sciences.
Manufacturers also support an amendment to repeal the
Health Insurance Tax (HIT) included in ACA filed by Senator
John Barrasso (R-WY). This new tax--to be levied on health
insurance companies beginning in 2014--will have the
unintended result of increasing costs for many small
manufacturers that provide health care benefits for their
employees.
Recent analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation confirms
that this additional cost for insurers will be shifted to
consumers in the form of higher premiums for private
coverage. Manufacturers will bear a significant burden from
this cost shifting. Based on a recent survey, nearly 70
percent of NAM's small and medium-size manufacturers buy
health insurance in the fully insured marketplace. Moreover,
this additional cost for companies will be on top of the
nearly 10 percent average health insurance premium increases
experienced last year by NAM's small and medium-size members.
The NAM also supports an amendment offered by Senator Dan
Coats (R-IN) that would repeal the 3.8 percent investment
income surtax also included in ACA. The investment income
surtax, which took effect at the beginning of the year, will
discourage savings and investment. When the surtax is added
to the recent increases in the top tax rates on investment
income, some taxpayers now pay a tax rate of 23.8 percent on
capital gains and dividends, up from just 15 percent last
year, an increase of over 50 percent. Manufacturers strongly
support the repeal of this burdensome tax that would increase
the tax on savings and investment and reduce the amount of
capital business owners have available to invest in their
companies. This tax will ultimately result in the loss of
vital funds needed for business operations and job creation
and for that reason we support the amendment.
Beyond the tax area, the NAM also supports amendments that
address other shortcomings of the ACA. Specifically, the NAM
supports amendments filed by Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) to
clarify the definition of a full-time employee, Senator Pat
Roberts (R-KS) to protect patients from using data collected
as a part of comparative effectiveness to deny coverage under
federal programs, and Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) to repeal
the employer mandate.
Reducing Costs for Manufacturers
The NAM also supports several amendments that protect
manufacturers against new costs and burdens that would result
from poorly-crafted proposals to regulate greenhouse gases
(GHGs). It is, on average, 20 percent more expensive to
manufacture in the U.S. than any of our nine largest trading
partners. Placing unilateral restrictions or prices on U.S.
GHG emissions, without similar regulations in operation on
other major emitting nations, would further disadvantage U.S.
manufacturers, costing jobs in the process. For instance, a
recent NAM study performed by NERA Economic Consulting found
that a carbon tax would impact millions of jobs and result in
higher prices for natural gas, electricity, gasoline and
other energy commodities. The resulting net negative effect
on consumption, investment and jobs would lead to lower
federal revenues from taxes on capital and labor. The NAM
study concluded that any revenue raised by a carbon tax would
be far outweighed by the negative impacts to the overall
economy. Thus, the NAM supports an amendment filed by
Senators Roy Blunt (R-MO) and John Thune (R-SD) opposing a
carbon tax.
Manufacturers also support an amendment filed by Senator
John Barrasso (R-WY) that would protect exports from being
blocked by unnecessarily broad environmental reviews under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Expanding NEPA
to consider the environmental impact of the cargo could
hamper exports of many products, such as cars, tractors,
agricultural products, electronics, toys, steel, chemicals,
pumps, air conditioners, elevators and airplanes.
The NAM also supports amendments that would enhance North
American oil and gas production by expanding and accelerating
onshore and offshore leasing, as well as an amendment from
Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) that would support final
approval and construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Construction of Keystone XL would create tens of thousands of
jobs and keep manufacturers competitive by providing access
to crude oil from Canada and the Bakken formation in North
Dakota and Montana. The states along the pipeline route have
signed off and the federal government has found that the
project will have no significant environmental impact. The
delay and red tape for this project is inexcusable; Keystone
XL is shovel-ready and it is time for Washington to get out
of the way.
In addition, an amendment from Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV)
supported by Manufacturers would encourage diversification of
sources of rare earth metals. Rare earths are used in a wide
range of applications, from consumer electronics to renewable
energy to aerospace and defense. Until very recently, the
U.S. imported 100 percent of the rare earths it used; as
recently as 2009, 96 percent of this supply came from China.
Senator Manchin's amendment, would encourage research into
alternative technologies, promotion of recycling, and
encouragement of domestic production.
U.S. Trade and Competitiveness
The NAM also supports amendments that will strengthen
America's competitiveness in the global economy through trade
agreements and export promotion. In particular, the NAM
supports amendments offered by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
and Rob Portman (R-OH) to renew trade promotion authority to
enable the United States to negotiate and implement trade
agreements eliminating barriers to greater access overseas.
The NAM also supports amendments offered by Senator Hatch to
maintain a strong Office of the United States Trade
Representative and to strengthen U.S. government efforts
promoting innovation and protecting intellectual property
rights worldwide. Similarly, Manufacturers support amendments
offered by Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Kay Hagan (D-NC)
and Deb Fischer (R-NE) that would make improvements in export
promotion programs for small businesses to increase
commercial opportunities and support and grow jobs.
In contrast, the NAM strongly opposes amendments that will
undermine manufacturers' ability to access foreign markets.
In
[[Page S2295]]
particular, NAM opposes an amendment offered by Senator Mike
Lee (R-UT) to defund the Export-Import Bank, which supported
more than $170 billion in exports in 2012. Manufacturers also
oppose an amendment offered by Senator Lee to defund efforts
to implement the Law of the Sea Convention that is an
important framework, which the United States should ratify,
to help create greater predictability for offshore resources
and operations.
Overreach by NLRB
Manufacturers have long been concerned about the direction
of the National Labor Relations Board and recent actions
taken by the NLRB have borne out this concern. In particular,
manufacturers are troubled by the Board's apparent disregard
for the U.S. Appeals Court decision regarding the
appointments of Members Block and Griffin. The New Process
Steel Supreme Court ruling made it clear that the NLRB cannot
make case decisions or promulgate regulations without a
properly constituted quorum of at least three members. As
such, the NAM supports the amendments by Senators Lamar
Alexander (R-TN), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Ted Cruz (R-TX)
to limit funds available to the Board.
In addition, the Board's decision in the Specialty
Healthcare case represents the most dramatic change in labor
law in over 70 years. The decision sets forth a new standard
for determining which group or ``unit'' of employees will
vote in the union election. By establishing a new standard, a
bargaining unit could now consist of as little as two
employees. These ``micro-unions,'' could cripple an
employer's ability to manage operations in an effective way,
and result in a facilities operating with separate unions for
each job category and unnecessarily dividing employees. The
NAM support, an amendment filed by Senator Johnny Isakson (R-
GA) to prevent funding to implement the new ``micro union''
standard established by the Specialty Healthcare decision.
Addressing Manufacturers' Workforce Needs
World-class manufacturing demands world-class talent.
Today, approximately 600,000 manufacturing jobs go unfilled
because of the skills gap. Consequently, NAM members strongly
support efforts to develop a more productive and skilled
workforce. S.Con.Res. 8, as approved by the Budget Committee,
does include provisions for improving workforce development,
job training, and other reemployment programs. Manufacturers
also support an amendment offered by Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC)
that would also ensure that training leading to nationally
recognized post-secondary credentials would be included as
one of the goals of new legislation. This amendment clearly
supports NAM's policy of promoting industry-recognized
credentials.
Conclusion
Thank you in advance for considering the views of
Manufacturers. Clearly our nation's fiscal challenges are of
critical importance not only to the future of American
manufacturers, but to the future of all Americans. NAM
members firmly believe that it is critically important that
any budget blueprint puts the country on a path to address
these important issues without raising taxes on manufacturers
and other job creators and American families. We look forward
to working with you and your colleagues to advance a pro-
growth, pro-manufacturing budget plan for fiscal 2014 that
addresses our nation's fiscal challenges.
Sincerely,
Aric Newhouse,
Senior Vice President.
____
Semiconductor Industry
Association,
March 22, 2013.
Hon. Sherrod Brown,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Roy Blunt
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Brown and Senator Blunt: I am writing in
support of the bipartisan amendment to establish a deficit
neutral reserve fund for the National Network for
Manufacturing Innovation. This network could bring together
industry, universities and community colleges with federal,
state and local governments to accelerate manufacturing
innovation.
Public-private institutes to leverage investments in
industrially-relevant manufacturing technologies bridge the
gap between basic research and product development, provide
shared assets to help companies all along the supply chain
and can stimulate manufacturing and jobs. Including students
from community colleges and training facilities to build a
workforce with the advanced manufacturing skills we need.
We have seen the success of regional hubs in California,
Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, and Texas, and we
believe this model can be broadened locally and replicated
nationally to create manufacturing excellence. Manufacturing
is an important sector in our economy, and continued U.S.
leadership in advanced manufacturing of semiconductors is in
the national interest.
Given the bipartisan nature of this deficit neutral
amendment, we believe it should be accepted by the Senate.
Sincerely,
Brian Toohey,
President & CEO.
____
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America--UAW,
March 22, 2013.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the UAW's more than one million
active and retired members, I write to strongly urge you to
vote in support of the Amendment to S. Con. Res. 8 to be
offered by Senators Brown (D-OH) and Blunt (R-MO) when it
comes to the floor. The purpose of this amendment is to
establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to create a national
network for manufacturing innovation. This fund would bring
together the best minds from both the private and public
sectors. It would create joint public-private institutes that
leverage investments to broadly applicable manufacturing
technologies for proven manufacturing industries within the
United States.
This type of partnership would help bridge the gap between
basic research and product development, and provide assets to
particularly help small and medium sized manufacturing
businesses access cutting-edge technology and create a 21st
century pipeline for the education and training of students
and workers in advanced manufacturing skills.
A strong manufacturing sector is critical for our economy.
The resurgence of the domestic auto industry has proven the
resiliency of the U.S. manufacturing base, leading the way
towards the retention and creation of tens of thousands of
good-paying middle class jobs through the worst of the
recession. The continued growth and prosperity of
manufacturing sectors like the auto industry is directly
reliant on a shared public and private commitment to
developing the next generation of advanced manufacturing
technologies.
In our global economy, we must invest in the next
generation of workers and technologies to ensure we remain a
step ahead of our international competitors. Similar programs
have already been successfully deployed in other countries.
The model offered by this amendment would help fill the gap
between U.S. manufacturing innovation and infrastructure and
we must not miss the opportunity to make a vital investment
in the future of our domestic manufacturing sector. We
strongly encourage you to vote in support of the Brown-Blunt
amendment when it comes to the floor.
Sincerely,
Josh Nassar,
Legislative Director.
____
The Association for
Manufacturing Technology,
March 21, 2013.
Hon. Sherrod Brown,
Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Roy Blunt,
Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Brown and Blunt: On behalf of AMT--The
Association For Manufacturing Technology and its over 600
member companies, I am writing in support of your efforts to
establish a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation
(NNMI) by offering an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2014
Senate Budget Resolution. I sit on the board of the pilot
institute, the National Additive Manufacturing Innovation
Institute, located in Youngstown.
AMT members are the innovators that make modern life
possible--from lightning speed communications and efficient
transportation to revolutionary medical procedures and new
energy exploration. In order to continue to outpace, out-
innovate and outperform the global competition, these mostly
small and medium-sized companies need access to the best
research tools and talent available. Public-private
collaborations, such as the NNMI, that focus on providing
that access and accelerating the pace of manufacturing
technology innovation are the best multipliers of government
R&D dollars.
AMT's Manufacturing Mandate urges a three-pronged approach
to strengthening manufacturing for economic growth and job
creation. First, increase global competitiveness by leveling
the playing field for U.S. businesses. Next, build an
educated and trained manufacturing workforce that can meet
the challenges of today's workplace. AMT calls it the
``Smartforce.'' Finally, support R&D and rapid innovation
through collaborative projects like the NNMI.
Thank you again for your leadership in getting this
exciting program off the ground. I am taking the liberty of
letting AMT members in Ohio and Missouri know of your support
for boosting American manufacturing innovation.
Sincerely,
Douglas K. Woods,
President.
____
The Ohio State University,
March 22, 2013.
Hon. Sherrod Brown,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: On behalf of The Ohio State University, I
write to express my support for your amendment to the FY 2014
Senate Budget Resolution to establish a deficit-neutral
funding source for the National Network for Manufacturing
Innovation (NNMI). I appreciate your continued support of
manufacturing in Ohio, and of the University's role as a
critical industry partner. The proposed NNMI will address
critical needs facing our nation's manufacturing sector and
represents a worthwhile and necessary investment by our
federal government.
Manufacturing continues to be a vital sector of our economy
and one that must adapt
[[Page S2296]]
to the evolving structures of industry, workforce, and
technology on which it depends. The NNMI targets these needs
by bringing together industry, government, and academia to
enhance our national competitiveness and economic security.
This is especially important to a state like Ohio, which is
ranked third in the nation in manufacturing output and
workforce, and in which nearly 18% of the state domestic
product is impacted by manufacturing.
As you know, Ohio State's land-grant mission drives our
faculty to engage in research that supports industry from
discovery to deployment. As a national leader in industry-
sponsored research, Ohio State recognizes the importance of
connecting with those who will help carry scientific
discoveries beyond the laboratory, and the NNMI will foster
these partnerships across the country. Equally important is
our commitment to training and ensuring opportunities for the
next generation of manufacturing innovators. The NNMI will
strengthen our manufacturing sector to better serve not only
today's workforce but tomorrow's as well.
I recognize that leaders in Washington are making difficult
choices regarding the federal budget. I believe this is the
right time for establishing a national resource such as the
National Network for Manufacturing Innovation. The Ohio State
University firmly supports this effort.
Sincerely,
E. Gordon Gee,
President.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, this amendment--the NNMI--offers one
commonsense approach by partnering with private industry to bring
together companies, small businesses, research institutions, and
community colleges so we can outinnovate the rest of the world.
I ask for its support and yield the remainder of my time to Senator
Blunt.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I would just say these entities would
allow basic research to come together with product development. It
brings the research elements, the universities, and others together
with private capital, and even some government agencies, in ways that
let things happen that wouldn't otherwise.
I am pleased to join Senator Brown in offering this to the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator in Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I don't believe there is any opposition
to this amendment and I ask that we take it by a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 455) was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. ENZI. I move to lay the motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 597
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 2 minutes
of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No.
597 offered by the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Scott.
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. SCOTT. Madam President, my amendment is very simple. It prohibits
the automatic deduction of union dues from Federal employees'
paychecks.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the Senator has yielded back his time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. He has.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I would speak in opposition.
Gains in quality, productivity, and efficiency year after year, in
department after department, would not have been possible without the
reasonable and sound use of collective bargaining and worker
representation. This amendment is just another in a long line of
attempts to kill public-sector unions--unions that represent and ensure
quality public service.
I strongly recommend that my colleagues oppose this amendment, and I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 56, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 75 Leg.]
YEAS--43
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--56
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 597) was rejected.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CARDIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 706, 359, 705, 614, 696, 187, 619, and 152 En Bloc
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the next
amendments in order to be called up be the following: Cardin No. 706,
Inhofe No. 359, Menendez No. 705, Sessions No. 614, Merkley No. 696,
Roberts No. 187, Menendez No. 619, Portman No. 152; that there be no
second-degree amendments in order prior to the votes in relation to any
of these amendments; that notwithstanding all time having expired on
the resolution there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote;
upon disposition of Portman No. 152, the majority have the next
amendment in order; all these votes be 10 minutes; and we report them
en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendments en bloc.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], proposes for Mr.
Cardin, amendment numbered 706; for Mr. Inhofe, amendment
numbered 359; for Mr. Menendez, amendment numbered 705; for
Mr. Sessions, amendment numbered 614; for Mr. Merkley,
amendment numbered 696; for Mr. Roberts, amendment numbered
187; for Mr. Menendez, amendment numbered 619; for Mr.
Portman, amendment numbered 152.
The amendments are as follows:
AMENDMENT NO.706
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to ensure that
any carbon emissions standards must be cost effective, based on the
best available science, and benefit low-income and middle class
families)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO ENSURE
THAT ANY CARBON EMISSIONS STANDARDS MUST BE
COST EFFECTIVE, BASED ON THE BEST AVAILABLE
SCIENCE, AND BENEFIT LOW-INCOME AND MIDDLE
CLASS FAMILIES.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this
[[Page S2297]]
resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions,
amendments, motions, or conference reports relating to carbon
emission standards, that any such standards must be cost
effective, based on best available science and benefit low-
income and middle class families, by the amounts provided in
such legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 359
(Purpose: To reduce spending and decrease the risk of drastic energy
price increases by prohibiting further greenhouse gas regulations for
the purposes of addressing climate change)
On page 20, line 19, reduce the amount by $26,000,000.
On page 20, line 20, reduce the amount by $10,000,000.
On page 20, line 23, reduce the amount by $26,000,000.
On page 20, line 24, reduce the amount by $22,000,000.
On page 21, line 2, reduce the amount by $27,000,000.
On page 21, line 3, reduce the amount by $26,000,000.
On page 21, line 6, reduce the amount by $27,000,000.
On page 21, line 7, reduce the amount by $27,000,000.
On page 21, line 10, reduce the amount by $28,000,000.
On page 21, line 11, reduce the amount by $27,000,000.
On page 21, line 14, reduce the amount by $28,000,000.
On page 21, line 15, reduce the amount by $28,000,000.
On page 21, line 18, reduce the amount by $29,000,000.
On page 21, line 19, reduce the amount by $28,000,000.
On page 21, line 22, reduce the amount by $29,000,000.
On page 21, line 23, reduce the amount by $29,000,000.
On page 22, line 2, reduce the amount by $30,000,000.
On page 22, line 3, reduce the amount by $29,000,000.
On page 22, line 6, reduce the amount by $30,000,000.
On page 22, line 7, reduce the amount by $30,000,000.
AMENDMENT NO. 705
(Purpose: To address the eligibility criteria for certain undocumented
immigrant individuals with respect to certain health insurance plans)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO ADDRESS THE
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR CERTAIN UNLAWFUL
IMMIGRANT INDIVIDUALS WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN
HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports
related to limiting undocumented immigrants from qualifying
for federally subsidized health insurance coverage, by the
amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 614
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-reduction reserve fund to achieve
savings by prohibiting illegal immigrants or illegal immigrants granted
legal status from qualifying for federally subsidized health care)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-REDUCTION RESERVE FUND TO ACHIEVE SAVINGS
BY PROHIBITING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS OR ILLEGAL
IMMIGRANTS GRANTED LEGAL STATUS FROM QUALIFYING
FOR FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZED HEALTH CARE.
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports that achieve savings in health
care that may be related to prohibiting illegal immigrants or
aliens who were unlawfully present in the United States prior
to receiving a grant of legal immigration status from
qualifying for Medicaid or the exchange subsidies established
by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law
111-148; 124 Stat. 119), without raising revenues, provided
that such legislation would reduce the deficit over either
the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or
the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
The Chairman may also make adjustments to the Senate's pay-
as-you-go ledger over 5 and 10 years to ensure that the
deficit reduction achieved is used for deficit reduction
only. The adjustments authorized under this section shall be
the amount of deficit reduction achieved.
AMENDMENT NO. 696
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to facilitate the
criminal prosecutions of financial institutions operating in the United
States, regardless of size)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO ENSURE NO FINANCIAL
INSTITUTION IS ABOVE THE LAW REGARDLESS OF
SIZE.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports
relating to criminal liability of a financial institution
operating in the United States, which may include measures to
address the criminal prosecution of a large financial
institution operating in the United States or executives of a
large financial institution operating in the United States,
including for wrongdoing relating to money laundering or
violation of sanctions laws, by the amounts provided in such
legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 187
(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for promotional or marketing
materials promoting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or
its benefits)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO PROHIBIT MARKETING
MATERIALS RELATING TO THE PATIENT PROTECTION
AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the budget authority and outlay allocations of a
committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, amendments between houses, motions,
or conference reports that prohibit the use of funds for
promotional or marketing materials promoting the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act or its benefits, provided
that such legislation would not increase the deficit or
revenues over either the period of the total of fiscal years
2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years
2013 through 2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 619
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
helping homeowners and small businesses mitigate against flood loss)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO HELPING
HOMEOWNERS AND SMALL BUSINESSES MITIGATE
AGAINST FLOOD LOSS.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports
relating to providing better coordination among flood
mitigation programs to meet the unmet mitigation needs of
homeowners and small businesses, by the amounts provided in
such legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 152
(Purpose: To provide reconciliation instructions to reduce the deficit
by $63,860,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2014 through 2023)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REFORM.
(a) Modification of Functional Levels.--
(1) Function 920.--The levels for function 920 in this
resolution are amended by--
(A) reducing the budget authority for each fiscal year by--
(i) $100,000,000 in fiscal year 2014;
(ii) $880,000,000 in fiscal year 2015;
(iii) $3,070,000,000 in fiscal year 2016;
(iv) $5,240,000,000 in fiscal year 2017;
(v) $6,510,000,000 in fiscal year 2018;
(vi) $6,980,000,000 in fiscal year 2019;
(vii) $7,450,000,000 in fiscal year 2020;
(viii) $8,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2021;
(ix) $8,570,000,000 in fiscal year 2022; and
(x) $9,160,000,000 in fiscal year 2023; and
(B) reducing the outlays for each fiscal year by--
(i) $100,000,000 in fiscal year 2014;
(ii) $880,000,000 in fiscal year 2015;
(iii) $3,070,000,000 in fiscal year 2016;
(iv) $5,240,000,000 in fiscal year 2017;
(v) $6,510,000,000 in fiscal year 2018;
(vi) $6,980,000,000 in fiscal year 2019;
(vii) $7,450,000,000 in fiscal year 2020;
(viii) $8,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2021;
(ix) $8,570,000,000 in fiscal year 2022;
(x) $9,160,000,000 in fiscal year 2023.
(2) Federal revenues.--The levels for Federal revenues in
this resolution are amended by increasing the level for each
fiscal year by--
(A) $10,000,000 in fiscal year 2014;
(B) $90,000,000 in fiscal year 2015;
(C) $350,000,000 in fiscal year 2016;
(D) $640,000,000 in fiscal year 2017;
(E) $730,000,000 in fiscal year 2018;
(F) $1,010,000,000 in fiscal year 2019;
(G) $1,160,000,000 in fiscal year 2020;
(H) $1,230,000,000 in fiscal year 2021;
(I) $1,300,000,000 in fiscal year 2022; and
[[Page S2298]]
(J) $1,380,000,000 in fiscal year 2023.
(b) Reconciliation.--Not later than October 1, 2013, the
Committee on Judiciary shall report changes in laws, bills,
or resolutions within its jurisdiction to reduce the deficit
by $110,000,000 in fiscal year 2014 and $63,860,000,000 for
the period of fiscal years 2014 through 2023.
Amendment No. 706
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior
to a vote in relation to amendment No. 706, offered by the Senator from
Maryland, Mr. Cardin.
The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, we have two amendments that are going to
be considered, one I am offering, one Senator Inhofe is offering.
Senator Inhofe's amendment is a rather extreme amendment. It cuts the
funds to the Environmental Protection Agency and basically prohibits
them from regulating carbon emissions. I would hope most of us would
consider that a rather extreme position to take, to prevent the
Environmental Protection Agency from protecting the environment.
My amendment is an amendment that says the carbon emissions standards
must be cost-effective--and we all agree they should be cost-
effective--it should be based upon best-available science and benefit
low-income and middle-class families. I would hope we can all agree on
the amendment I would offer, and I would hope we would do that and
allow the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out its critical
mission on behalf of the people of this country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I wish to ask one question of the
author. First of all, this does not authorize the EPA to regulate in
any way. This sets the standards. Is that correct?
Mr. CARDIN. The Senator is correct.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I support this amendment. I suggest we
voice vote it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 706) was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 359
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior
to a vote in relation to the amendment numbered 359, offered by Mr.
Inhofe of Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, people at home are going out of business
every day--I think everybody knows that--from the overregulation that
is out there. A lot of people talk about the problem with the taxes. I
contend that the imposition of these regulations is even worse than the
taxes. And this regulation does one thing: It stops the EPA from having
the jurisdiction over the regulation of carbon.
Madam President, I retain the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, Senator Inhofe's amendment will cut
money from the Environmental Protection Agency that has already gone
through, I think, three rounds of cuts from sequestration, and then
prevents it from carrying out its mission to regulate our environment.
It is a very extreme approach. We have already approved the Cardin
amendment that establishes the right standards for regulating carbon
emissions.
I urge my colleagues to reject the Inhofe amendment, and I reserve
the remainder of my time.
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, did I have 30 seconds?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct, he has 30 seconds.
Mr. INHOFE. They have been trying to regulate carbon now
legislatively for 10 years and have been unable to do it. I actually
had a bill up where we got 50 votes, but it took a 60-vote threshold to
make it happen. So we know the votes are here and the people are
concerned about the regulation.
I would only leave you with a quote from Dr. Richard Lindzen from
MIT, who said that regulating carbon is the bureaucrat's dream. ``If
you regulate carbon, you regulate life.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. INHOFE. I suggest you vote in favor of this amendment.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, has all time been used on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Murray has 30 seconds.
Mrs. MURRAY. I yield to the Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, let me point out that the framework that
is set up to protect our health has to be based upon best science, it
has to protect low-income and middle-income families, and it has to be
done in a cost-effective way. That should be our mission, and that is
what we have already approved.
I would urge us to reject the Inhofe amendment.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I think I had 5 seconds remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 76 Leg.]
YEAS--47
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Landrieu
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--52
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Levin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 359) was rejected.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 705
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 705, offered by
the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, is my amendment called up, No. 705?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is pending.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, this side-by-side with Senator Sessions
is very straightforward. It restates current law. Let me repeat that.
It restates current law, which already explicitly excludes undocumented
immigrants who are in this country from obtaining benefits such as tax
credits and cost-sharing subsidies when obtaining health insurance
coverage.
We debated this policy at length during health care reform, and this
exemption was included in the final bill to address concerns of some of
our Republican colleagues that undocumented immigrants would somehow be
able to
[[Page S2299]]
receive the benefits we included in the law. That is why we
specifically and explicitly excluded them from being able to gain this
type of coverage.
Finally, addressing the issues of immigrant families is currently
being done in a bipartisan fashion. The last thing we need to do in
this budget process is to try to muck that up.
This is not a great way to do your outreach to the Hispanic and
immigrant community. I urge our colleagues just to stay with present
law. Let's restate it once again, support our amendment, and reject the
Sessions amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I agree that the Senator's amendment
restates current law. I have no objection to that. I would accept that.
But the question is and what has been suggested in the paper from what
I have seen is that if a person is in our country illegally and they
are rewarded with some legal status, do they then immediately become
eligible for Federal health care benefits? It is a different situation
than somebody who came legally and has legal status.
So I would say I would accept a voice vote on this.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. SESSIONS. My amendment will deal with the next question.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe there is no opposition. If we
could take a voice vote on this?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate? Hearing none, the
question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 705) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 614
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There now is 2 minutes equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 614, offered by
the Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, under current law, if a person is here
unlawfully and becomes ``lawfulized,'' in some fashion, they then
become qualified for this program. That is what we are talking about.
So the question is, Should they then become qualified for ObamaCare or
Medicaid? I think the answer is no. I think that is what people have
said they believe.
My amendment would simply say that if you are here illegally, did not
enter legally, and you get a lawful status in the United States, you
then do not qualify for the Federal programs of ObamaCare and Medicaid.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield time to the Senator from New
Jersey.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, nothing changes present law, and nothing
is contemplated to change--which I think the Group of 8 wouldn't mind
me saying--what the Senator is concerned about in our negotiations. It
would have to come before this body before, in fact, it could be
changed.
The current law is very clear. They do not have access to any of the
benefits that the Senator is worried about because present law
prohibits an undocumented immigrant from having access to those
benefits. That is why this is unnecessary. It is just the need of some
to have an immigration amendment.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 56, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 77 Leg.]
YEAS--43
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--56
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 614) was rejected.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 696
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 696, offered by
the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Merkley.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, under the American system of justice
where Lady Justice is blindfolded, there should never be a prosecution-
free zone. But that is what the Department of Justice announced there
is on Tuesday, December 11 of last year. They said they would fine but
they would not indict and they would not prosecute Hongkong and
Shanghai Banking Corporation for laundering $800 million in illicit
drug money; for laundering $600 million in transactions that violated
U.S. sanctions against Iran, Sudan, Cuba, and other countries against
American law; and for allowing $200 trillion to bypass the sanctions
and money-laundering filters.
As the New York Times reported, the Department of Justice decided not
to indict HSBC ``over concerns that criminal charges could jeopardize
one of the world's largest banks, ultimately destabilizing the global
financial system.'' Our Attorney General repeated this justification on
March 6, 2013, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, saying: I am
concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large,
it does become difficult to prosecute them.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has
expired.
Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent for 20 more seconds.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, is there opposition?
Mr. SESSIONS. How much time?
Mr. MERKLEY. I ask for 20 seconds.
Mr. SESSIONS. Twenty seconds.
Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you.
Too-big-to-jail is wrong under our Constitution. It promises equality
under the law. Let's send a strong message by supporting this.
I thank my Republican sponsors, Senators Grassley, Heller, Cornyn,
and Shelby; and Democrats Tester, Warren, Begich, and Levin; and our
Independent Senators, Sanders and King.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, there may be someone else here, but I
have prosecuted banks before and big institutions and put some people
in jail. But we have--this is serious. I don't think the deficit
reserve fund is the way to go about it, frankly, but it is an issue
worthy of discussion. It should be brought up in the authorizing
committee--the Judiciary Committee--and considered. And I am very
inclined to believe we have had too little prosecution in these cases.
But I think the right thing to do is to take this by voice vote. People
can decide how they want to vote on it.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe there is no opposition. We can
take it by a voice vote. Senator Merkley has asked for a loud vote.
[[Page S2300]]
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
The amendment (No. 696) was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 187
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes of debate
divided equally on amendment No. 187.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, this amendment would prohibit funds for
promotional and marketing materials that promote the affordable health
care act and its benefits at taxpayer expense.
According to HHS's own documents obtained by the House Ways and Means
Committee, which issued the subpoena last year, HHS spent almost $52
million in behalf of the affordable health care act public relations
work using outside contractors. That is just not right. When the media
is reporting more and more problems, more costs, more regulations, more
lost jobs, higher premiums, this is a gratuitous use of taxpayer
dollars. It sets a very bad precedent for the Department of Health and
Human Services stretching the truth, at best, at public expense.
This administration should not be using American taxpayer dollars to
fund marketing and promotional campaigns promoting a law and
regulations that a majority of Americans oppose.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. I yield to the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this ought to be known as the Harry Potter
invisibility cloak amendment.
Anyone who has read ``Harry Potter'' knows he had this invisibility
cloak he put over himself and people couldn't see him. They have tried
36 separate times to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. They can't do
that, so now they want to put an invisibility cloak over it.
The Roberts amendment says we can't tell people, for example, that
their kids can stay on their policy until they are 26; we can't tell
people that now they can get coverage even though they have a
preexisting condition; we can't tell people they can go on the exchange
starting this October, where they can get good health care.
Let's vote down the Harry Potter invisibility cloak amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. ROBERTS. No, I accept it on a voice vote. Harry Potter accepts it
on a voice vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
The amendment (No. 187) was rejected.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas will state
his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. ROBERTS. I respectfully ask the Parliamentarian if the official
Senate decibel meter indicates that the ruling by the distinguished
Parliamentarian that the count--or that the vote was not accurate on
the last vote.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, the
noes had it.
Mr. ROBERTS. Perhaps a hearing problem.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 619
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 2 minutes equally divided
prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 619, offered by the
Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, this amendment would allow for better
coordination of our flood mitigation programs to meet the unmet needs
of victims of disaster.
As homeowners along the Jersey Shore seek to recover from Superstorm
Sandy, they are not just faced with the task of rebuilding, they also
have to comply with new, incredibly costly elevation requirements.
Seniors who have lived in their modest homes their entire lives now
face tens of thousands of dollars in unanticipated costs, all in
addition to the costs of rebuilding. And while there are Federal
programs available to help coordination among these programs, it is
incredibly poor and leads to a lot of victims never being helped. For
example, there are hazard mitigation grants available, but homeowners
will lose eligibility if they begin work before their application was
approved, even if they complied with every other rule and regulation.
My amendment would allow coordination and fine tuning of these
mitigation programs so they operate more effectively and meet the unmet
needs of disaster victims. The amendment would not cost any money, nor
would it add another penny to the deficit. It just encourages the use
of current programs in a more wise and coordinated fashion.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. I think we can accept this by a voice vote.
I would note that the House has nonreserved funds. The Senate now has
about 50 we have adopted already. We have reserve funds adopted for
education, clean energy, infrastructure, farm payments, food stamps,
health care, pensions, housing, tooth decay, and now homeowners. So
these create 50 ways to pass taxes more easily. It turns the budget
discipline, if we don't watch it, into mush and makes it difficult to
maintain the integrity of the Budget Act and avoids really in some ways
the hard work of setting priorities.
So I think we should do this by voice vote, but I did want to call
the attention of my colleagues to the fact that reserve funds too
readily used can undermine the integrity of the budget process.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there any further debate?
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 619) was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 152
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 152 offered by the
Senator from Ohio, Mr. Portman.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment that actually saves
some money. It is an amendment that instructs the Judiciary Committee
to produce savings of over $60 billion by cutting back on frivolous
lawsuits through medical malpractice reform.
Today, patients and physicians alike are held hostage by a broken
medical liability system that continues to incentivize defensive
medicine, which leads to a lot of wasteful spending and unnecessary
tests and studies. PricewaterhouseCoopers has released a study showing
that the estimated cost of this defensive medicine is about $210
billion a year.
Comprehensive medical malpractice reform has been proposed by
Simpson-Bowles, by Rivlin-Domenici, and by other bipartisan deficit-
reduction groups. It has also been examined in depth as a means for
deficit reduction by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. In
fact, CBO has told us that sensible medical malpractice reform could
reduce the deficit by over $62 billion over 10 years. CBO also points
out that comprehensive reform could alleviate shortages of certain
kinds of physicians around the country.
The amendment provides maximum flexibility for the Judiciary
Committee in allowing the committee to determine the best way to
achieve deficit reduction by reforming the current system. This
flexibility, by the way, includes the ability to enact reforms that
[[Page S2301]]
would only come into effect if States fail to act.
ObamaCare has not only led to rising insurance premiums and loss of
employer-sponsored coverage, but it has also missed this crucial
opportunity to reduce costs while maintaining access to critical
specialty care.
So let's set this reform in motion today as part of this budget
process.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment. Malpractice
premiums and claims and claim payouts have all gone down in recent
years, partly as a result of steps many of our States have already
taken. Caps on noneconomic damages limit compensation for such harms as
loss of fertility or severe disfigurement or loss of mobility or loss
of a spouse or a child. Damage caps do not affect frivolous lawsuits
but, rather, impact the victims who have been seriously injured and who
would win in court.
Tort reform can create enormous risks and costs. Immunizing health
care providers against accountability for their mistakes risks
increasing the number of preventable medical errors.
So this proposal would cut losses for insurers by curbing our
patients' right to sue, but there is no requirement in these proposals
for insurers to pass on any savings to the doctors who pay their
premiums.
So I recommend a ``no'' vote on this amendment and ask for the yeas
and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 56, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 78 Leg.]
YEAS--43
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--56
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coburn
Coons
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Lee
Levin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 152) was rejected.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, we
have had very good cooperation. We are working this list down. I have
another unanimous consent request. I believe most of these will go by
voice vote, and I appreciate everybody's cooperation.
Amendments Nos. 624, 295, 232, 538, 412, and 340 En Bloc
I ask unanimous consent that the next amendments in order to be
called up be the following: Johanns No. 624, Corker No. 295, Burr No.
232, Wicker No. 538, Coburn No. 412, and Shelby No. 340; that there be
no second-degree amendments in order prior to the votes in relation to
any of these amendments; that notwithstanding all time having expired
on the resolution, there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each
vote and that all the votes be 10-minute votes; that upon disposition
of the Shelby amendment No. 340, the next amendment in order be an
amendment from the majority; and I ask unanimous consent they be
reported en bloc.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendments en bloc.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes
amendments en bloc: for Mr. Johanns, amendment numbered 624;
for Mr. Corker, amendment numbered 295; for Mr. Burr,
amendment numbered 232; for Mr. Wicker, amendment numbered
538; for Mr. Coburn, amendment numbered 412; for Mr. Shelby,
amendment numbered 340.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 624
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to restore
families' health care flexibility by repealing the $2,500 federal cap
on flexible spending accounts and the requirement that individuals
obtain a prescription from a physician before purchasing over-the-
counter drugs with their own flexible spending account or health
savings account dollars in order to safeguard families' capacity to
plan ahead for the rising cost of care, make their own health care
decisions, and ensure children who have special needs can receive
adequate care)
At the appropriate place insert the following:
SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO RESTORE FAMILY
HEALTH CARE FLEXIBILITY BY REPEALING THE HEALTH
SAVINGS ACCOUNT AND FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNT
RESTRICTIONS IN THE HEALTH CARE LAW
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between houses, motions, or conference reports
that restore families' health care flexibility, which may
include repealing tax increases on tax-advantaged accounts in
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law
111-148; Stat. 119), without raising revenue, by the amounts
provided in such legislation for that purpose, provided that
such legislation would not increase the deficit over either
the period of the total of fiscal years 2014 through 2018 or
the period of the total of fiscal years 2014 through 2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 295
(Purpose: To end a scoring gimmick that allows changes in mandatory
program spending that do not save money to offset increased spending)
At the end of subtitle A of title IV, insert the following:
SEC. ___. BUDGET SCORING RULE RELATING TO CERTAIN CHANGES IN
MANDATORY PROGRAM SPENDING.
In the Senate, a bill, resolution, amendment, motion or
conference report that includes a provision that reduces
direct spending that would have been estimated as affecting
direct spending or receipts under section 252 of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 shall not be
scored by the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget
as new negative budget authority if such provision does not
result in net outlay savings over the total of the period of
the current year, the budget year, and all fiscal years
covered under the most recently adopted concurrent resolution
on the budget.
AMENDMENT NO. 232
(Purpose: To protect the American people and strengthen our national
security by fully funding the Biomedical Advanced Research and
Development Authority (BARDA) and the BioShield Special Reserve Fund)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR BARDA AND THE
BIOSHIELD SPECIAL RESERVE FUND.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports that may provide for full
funding for the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development
Authority under section 319L of the Public Health Serve Act
(42 U.S.C. 247d-7e) and the Special Reserve Fund under
Section 319-F2 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
247d-6b) without raising new revenue by the amounts provided
in such authorizing legislation for those purposes, provided
that such legislation does not increase the deficit over
either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through
2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through
2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 538
(Purpose: To increase the vote threshold required to waive a budget
point of order prohibiting unfunded mandates in excess of limit)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
[[Page S2302]]
SEC. __. SUPERMAJORITY ENFORCEMENT.
Section 425(a)(1) and (2) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 shall be subject to the waiver and appeal
requirements of subsections (c)(2) and (d)(3) of section 904
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
AMENDMENT NO. 412
(Purpose: To create a deficit-reduction reserve fund that addresses the
nonprofit postal discount for State and national political committees)
At the appropriate place, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-REDUCTION RESERVE FUND FOR POSTAL REFORM.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports related to the United States
Postal Service, which may include measures addressing the
nonprofit postal discount for State and national political
committees and use such savings to reduce the deficit. The
Chairman may also make adjustments to the Senate's pay-as-
you-go ledger over 6 and 11 years to ensure that the deficit
reduction achieved is used for deficit reduction only. The
adjustments authorized under this section shall be of the
amount of deficit reduction achieved.
AMENDMENT NO. 340
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for legislation
that requires financial regulators to conduct rigorous cost-benefit
analyses on all proposed rules)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO REQUIRE FINANCIAL
REGULATORS TO CONDUCT RIGOROUS COST-BENEFIT
ANALYSES ON ALL PROPOSED RULES.
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports
that relate to the finalization of rules with positive cost-
benefit analyses promulgated by a financial regulator,
including the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, the Federal Housing Finance Agency,
the Financial Stability Oversight Council, the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Financial
Research, the National Credit Union Administration, and the
Securities and Exchange Commission, by the amounts provided
in such legislation for that purpose, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
Amendment No. 624
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 624, offered by
the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Johanns.
The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, this amendment restores a family's
ability to plan ahead for health care costs and afford care. It
eliminates a cap on flexible spending accounts.
It also eliminates the silly requirement that Americans get a
doctor's prescription to purchase over-the-counter medications with
their FSA or health savings account.
In addition, the health savings account can be used for people who
have disabilities, so this eliminates the possibility of doing that
beyond the cap.
I ask my colleagues to support me in eliminating the cap and
eliminating this crazy requirement about getting a doctor's
prescription to use a common medication.
It is supported by the National Downs Syndrome Society, the National
Center for Learning Disabilities, and the Chamber of Commerce. I urge
my colleagues to support this amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have looked at this amendment. I do
have some concerns about the implementation, but I think we can work
them out. I would be willing to accept this on a voice vote.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
The amendment (No. 624) was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay
that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 295 Withdrawn
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 295 offered by the
Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Corker.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, we saw during this last CR that there is a
process called ChIMPS where you can take money out of mandatory
spending temporarily and spend more in discretionary spending, which
over the last 2 years has allowed us to spend $35 billion more than the
Budget Control Act allowed. Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby both
agree that there is a problem here. They have agreed to try to work
toward a solution to keep this gimmick from being used in the future. I
will say that this came over from the House this way. It is not
something that originated here in the Senate. But because they have
agreed to work toward a solution, I withdraw my amendment and thank
them for their cooperation.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from
Tennessee first for consulting with Senator Shelby and me. You are
exactly right, he has identified a problem. We are concerned. I promise
the Senator we will definitely work with him. I appreciate the Senator
withdrawing the amendment. I am going to say publicly in front of my
colleagues, we will definitely work with the Senator.
Amendment No. 232
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 232 offered by the
Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe that the next amendment in
order is the Burr amendment No. 232.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, very quickly, the purpose of my amendment is
very simple. It is to protect the American people and strengthen our
national security by fully funding the Biomedical Advanced Research and
Development Authority and the BioShield Reserve Fund. BARDA and
Bioshield are critical components of our Nation's medical
countermeasure enterprise. Today these programs ensure that we have the
countermeasures necessary to protect the American people against the
full range of chemical, biologic, radiological, and nuclear threats
whether natural or the result of manmade attacks. After 9/11 Congress
established Bioshield to encourage the development of these
countermeasures. Supporting BARDA and Bioshield at their authorized
levels is a matter of national security and should be a priority.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am speaking for my counterpart. This is
another deficit-neutral fund, which I know Senator Sessions has been
expressing his concern about all evening. I am delighted to accept this
amendment on a voice vote.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there is no further debate, the
question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 232) was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 538
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 538 offered by the
Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Wicker.
Mr. WICKER. This amendment simply puts us back where we were several
years ago, at a 60-vote point of order for unfunded mandates.
Washington should not use extensive unfunded mandates to shove the
weight of irresponsible government growth down to State and local
governments. The threshold now is 51 votes to wave a point of order on
unfunded mandates. This amendment would simply put it back the way it
used to be in the law to 60 votes.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I think this amendment is unnecessary.
[[Page S2303]]
We already have proper points of order. I will not hold it up. I will
not oppose it if you want to do a voice vote.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there any further debate?
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The nos appear to have it.
Mr. WICKER. Division. Mr. President, the Chair accepted the
amendment. If we are going to start enforcing this, I will marshal my
forces and we will learn to yell louder. But the Chair accepted my
amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe that the voice vote was a
``yes'' vote. I would ask my colleagues if we can redo the vote so we
can hear it.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
The amendment (No. 538) was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay
that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 412
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes prior to a
vote in relation to amendment No. 412 offered by the Senator from
Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is a simple vote. The Postal Service
lost $15.8 billion last year. Political parties contributed to that
loss by our getting a discount on all of our mail. All this will do is
put us at the same rate as everybody else commercially in terms of the
mailing. It is probably about $50- to $60 million if we pass this
amendment that we will increase the revenue to the Postal Service.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I will not oppose this amendment. I am
delighted to see another deficit-neutral reserve fund put into place on
this bill that I know my colleagues on the other side of this aisle
have not been very happy about throughout the process. But in the
spirit of good will, I am happy to accept this amendment on a voice
vote.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
The amendment (No. 412) was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 340
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 340 offered by the
Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, this amendment would create a deficit-
neutral reserve fund for legislation that requires financial regulators
to perform rigorous cost-benefit analysis of their proposals. If this
analysis determines that a proposed rule's cost exceeds its benefits,
the rule should not be implemented. Given the far-reaching scope many
new financial rules will have on our markets, I believe it is
imperative that regulators conduct thorough cost-benefit analysis to
fully understand how these rules will affect our economy.
Independent final regulators operate under a patchwork of Federal
laws that require varying degrees of economic analysis and provide too
much discretion to regulators. As a result, American job creators are
under siege from capricious rulemaking activities. Regulations should
be based on solid evidence and supported by robust economic analysis,
not the arbitrary preferences of bureaucrats.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield my time to the Senator from South
Dakota.
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, I rise in strong
opposition to amendment No. 340. The amendment is another attempt to
block Wall Street reform. This amendment would slow down rulemaking and
invite Wall Street to bring lawsuits against their financial
regulators.
GAO recently found that the recent financial crisis may have cost us
over $13 trillion. We should not hamstring the cops on the beat as they
try to prevent another crisis. Efforts to undermine sensible
regulations are opposed by many organizations, including AARP, CFA, and
the AFL-CIO. I oppose this amendment and I urge my colleagues to do so
as well.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I join my colleague in opposing this
amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 79 Leg.]
YEAS--47
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
King
Kirk
Lee
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--52
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 340) was rejected.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 225, 329, 293, 527, 153, and 136 En Bloc
Mrs. MURRAY. I have another group of amendments for which I will ask
unanimous consent.
I ask unanimous consent the next amendments in order to be called up
will be the following: Flake amendment No. 225, Graham amendment No.
329, Heller amendment No. 293, Boozman amendment No. 527, Portman
amendment No. 153, and Ayotte amendment No. 136; that there be no
second-degree amendments in order prior to the votes in relation to any
of these amendments, but notwithstanding all time having expired on the
resolution, there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote, and
that all votes be 10-minute votes; that upon the disposition of Ayotte
amendment No. 136, the next amendment be an amendment from the
majority.
I ask the amendments be called up en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEE. I would ask the chairperson of the Budget Committee how many
more traunches there might be.
Mrs. MURRAY. I would answer the Senator, we are working through
between the majority and minority as fast as we can. I don't think
anybody here will say I have not been working very hard to get up their
amendment.
We are doing our best to get everybody considered from both sides. If
we keep going, I am happy to do this.
Mrs. BOXER. Parliamentary inquiry: May I ask the Chair how many
amendments we have voted on in this budget, both voice and actual
votes?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. It will take some time to answer
that.
Mrs. MURRAY. May I make a suggestion?
[[Page S2304]]
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. I think a lot of people want to know the answer to that
question. If we could move to the Flake amendment, ask me any question
you have, and I will have the answer for you.
Mrs. BOXER. I have the answer. It is 61.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington has a
unanimous consent request. Is there objection? Hearing none, so
ordered.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the
amendments en bloc.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes
amendments en bloc: for Mr. Flake, amendment numbered 225,
for Mr. Graham, amendment numbered 329, for Mr. Heller,
amendment numbered 293, for Mr. Boozman, amendment numbered
527, for Mr. Portman, amendment numbered 153, for Ms. Ayotte,
amendment numbered 136.
The amendments are as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 225
(Purpose: To prohibit earmarks)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ____. SENATE POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT
CONTAINS EARMARKS.
(a) In General.--It shall not be in order in the Senate to
consider a bill or resolution introduced in the Senate or the
House of Representatives, amendment, amendment between the
Houses, or conference report that includes an earmark.
(b) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal in the Senate.--
(1) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the
Senate only by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(2) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of two-thirds of the
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of
the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.
(c) Consideration.--
(1) Procedure.--Upon a point of order being made by any
Senator pursuant to subsection (a) against an earmark, and
such point of order being sustained, such earmark shall be
deemed stricken.
(2) Conference report and amendment between the houses
procedure.--When the Senate is considering a conference
report on, or an amendment between the Houses, upon a point
of order being made by any Senator pursuant to subsection
(a), and such point of order being sustained, such material
contained in such conference report shall be deemed stricken,
and the Senate shall proceed to consider the question of
whether the Senate shall recede from its amendment and concur
with a further amendment, or concur in the House amendment
with a further amendment, as the case may be, which further
amendment shall consist of only that portion of the
conference report or House amendment, as the case may be, not
so stricken. Any such motion in the Senate shall be debatable
under the same conditions as was the conference report. In
any case in which such point of order is sustained against a
conference report (or Senate amendment derived from such
conference report by operation of this subsection), no
further amendment shall be in order.
(d) Definitions.--
(1) Earmark.--For the purpose of this section, the term
``earmark'' means a provision or report language included
primarily at the request of a Senator or Member of the House
of Representatives as certified under paragraph 1(a)(1) of
rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate--
(A) providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific
amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority,
or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan
guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with
or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or
Congressional district, other than through a statutory or
administrative formula-driven or competitive award process;
or
(B) that--
(i)(I) provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion,
or preference to a particular beneficiary or limited group of
beneficiaries under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
(II) contains eligibility criteria that are not uniform in
application with respect to potential beneficiaries of such
provision; or
(ii) modifies the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States in a manner that benefits 10 or fewer entities.
(2) Determination by the senate.--In the event the Chair is
unable to ascertain whether or not the offending provision
constitutes an earmark as defined in this subsection, the
question of whether the provision constitutes an earmark
shall be submitted to the Senate and be decided without
debate by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members,
duly chosen and sworn.
(e) Application.--This section shall not apply to any
authorization of appropriations to a Federal entity if such
authorization is not specifically targeted to a State,
locality or congressional district.
AMENDMENT NO. 329
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to broaden the
effects of the sequester, including allowing Members of Congress to
donate 20 percent of their salaries to charity or to the Department of
the Treasury during sequestration)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO BROADEN THE EFFECTS
OF THE SEQUESTER, INCLUDING ALLOWING MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS TO DONATE A PORTION OF THEIR SALARIES
TO CHARITY OR TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
DURING SEQUESTRATION.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports that are related to broadening
the impact of the sequester, which may include allowing
Members of Congress to donate 20 percent of their salaries to
charity or to the Department of the Treasury if the
enforcement procedures established under section 251A of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and
section 901(e) of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 go
into, or remain in effect, provided that such legislation
would not increase the deficit over either the period of the
total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the
total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 293
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to ensure that
the Bureau of Land Management collaborates with States in efforts to
promote sustainable sage-grouse populations and the conservation of
sage-grouse habitat by developing and approving State plans that
prevent the listing of the bird under the Endangered Species Act of
1973 and preserve the way of life in, and economic health of, the
impacted areas)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO ENSURE THE BUREAU
OF LAND MANAGEMENT COLLABORATES WITH WESTERN
STATES TO PREVENT THE LISTING OF THE SAGE-
GROUSE.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for 1 or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports
that would improve the management of public land and natural
resources, by the amounts provided in the legislation for
those purposes, provided that the legislation would not
increase the deficit over either the period of the total of
fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of
fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 527
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-reduction reserve fund to protect
private property rights by discouraging eminent domain abuse by State
and local governments, while providing for continued economic
development assistance eligibility where eminent domain is used for
customary purposes, including to acquire property for public use, for
public rights of way, to acquire abandoned property, or to remove
immediate threats to public health and safety, and to provide that any
savings will reduce the deficit)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ______. DEFICIT-REDUCTION RESERVE FUND FOR EMINENT
DOMAIN ABUSE PREVENTION.
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget shall
reduce allocations, pursuant to section 302(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, equal to amounts withheld
pursuant to one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports
related to federal economic development assistance, which may
include amendments to the eligibility of a State or local
government to receive benefits, including restricting
benefits when eminent domain has been used to take private
property and transfer it to another private use, and reduce
the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal
years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal
years 2013 through 2023. The Chairman may also make
adjustments to the Senate's pay-as-you-go ledger over 6 and
11 years to ensure that the deficit reduction achieved is
used for deficit reduction only. The adjustments authorized
under this section shall be of the amount of deficit
reduction achieved.
AMENDMENT NO. 153
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to promote
exports.
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 332. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR EXPORT PROMOTION.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this
[[Page S2305]]
resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions,
amendments, motions, or conference reports that relate to
promoting exports, which may include providing the President
with trade promotion authority, by the amounts provided in
such legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 136
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for the
prohibition on funding of the Medium Extended Air Defense System)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ____. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE PROHIBITION
ON FUNDING OF THE MEDIUM EXTENDED AIR DEFENSE
SYSTEM.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between Houses, motions, or conference reports
relating to prohibiting use of funds for defense programs not
authorized by law, which may include the Medium Extended Air
Defense System (MEADS), without raising new revenue, by the
amounts provided in such legislation for that purpose,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2023.
Amendment No. 225 Withdrawn
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 225, offered by
the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Flake.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. I have not yet delivered my maiden speech. I will be very
brief. I plan to withdraw this amendment, and I understand there will
be a point of order raised against germaneness with a 60-vote threshold
I can't overcome. I just want to make the point this body has done good
work in the last 2 years on a bipartisan basis to get rid of the
scourge of earmarks and the abuse of earmarks which has taken place in
both this Chamber and the House.
This amendment would have simply been for a point of order to be
raised if earmarks were contained in legislation. I would encourage
this body to continue the practice which has occurred over the past 2
years and not have congressional earmarks. I thank you for your
indulgence.
I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is withdrawn.
Amendment No. 329
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 329, offered by
the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham.
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the next amendment is offered by Senator
Graham, amendment No. 329.
Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. We need to vote on this.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. This amendment will get your attention.
About 500,000 or 600,000 Federal employees will be furloughed because
of sequestration. They are going to miss 1 day a week of pay. We can't
dock our own pay constitutionally, but I am asking through this
amendment that all of us, beginning in April, take 20 percent of our
salary and give it to the charity of our choice or anybody we would
like so that we would feel what other people are feeling because of
sequestration.
Thank you. Have a good night.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there an amendment?
Mr. GRAHAM. What is the question?
I will take a voice vote, absolutely.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to take a voice vote on this amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there any further debate?
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The Chair is in doubt.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The noes appear to have it.
Mr. GRAHAM. Wait a minute. I ask for a rollcall vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, may I have the floor for a moment?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I was really trying to focus on what the
Senator was saying. It was very difficult for me to understand, and I
think many of us were confused about the amendment. I support the
amendment, and I ask for a voice vote.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
The amendment (No. 329) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 293
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 2 minutes of debate
equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 293,
offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Heller.
Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, my amendment reinforces the important role
of States having primary responsibility for wildlife management. If the
sage-grouse is listed as an endangered species, it will hurt most
States in the western portion of the country. It will make important
activities, such as renewable energy and grazing, in many cases
impossible.
I need help and support. I urge support for this amendment, and I
appreciate the help and support I have gotten from Senators Hatch,
Crapo, and Risch.
I thank the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this actually is a commonsense approach,
and I do urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I will be happy to accept it on a voice vote.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 293) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 527
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 527, offered by
the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Boozman.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, this amendment would discourage the
taking of private property to transfer to another private,
nongovernmental use. It does not diminish the use of eminent domain for
customary purposes, including the acquiring of property for public use,
for public rights-of-way, to acquire abandoned property, or to remove
immediate threats to public health or safety.
In the past, we have had significant bipartisan support in regard to
protecting property rights, so I would encourage us to vote in favor of
the amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I do not oppose this amendment, and I am
happy to have a voice vote.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate?
The question is agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 527) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 153
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 153, offered by
the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Portman.
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, this is a jobs amendment. This is about
having authority to knock down barriers to trade.
I am offering this in connection with Senator Wyden today and also
Senator Hatch. Expanding exports and enforcing our trade laws go hand
in hand. That is why later I will be supporting the ENFORCE Act offered
by Senator Wyden.
The bottom line is that not since 2007 have we had trade promotion
authority in this country, and without it we can't complete trade
agreements. As a result, America is falling behind because other
countries are completing agreements, and the people who are getting
hurt the most are our workers, our farmers, and our service providers.
So if you want to give our workers in this country a fair shake, a
level playing field by knocking down barriers to trade, you can vote
for this amendment.
I yield to my colleague from Oregon.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon.
[[Page S2306]]
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, very briefly, I think this is an
opportunity to update our laws, particularly looking at environmental
protection, labor rights, and digital trade. So I urge all colleagues
to support this amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am willing to accept this on a voice
vote.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
The amendment (No. 153) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 136
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 136, offered by
the Senator from New Hampshire, Ms. Ayotte.
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, my amendment would establish a deficit-
neutral reserve fund to prohibit funding for the Medium Extended Air
Defense System, known as MEADS. This is a system our Army has said
would never work. We have already spent $3 billion on this system. It
is essentially a missile to nowhere. In fact, the chairman of the Armed
Services Committee, Senator Levin, has said he feels strongly that it
is a waste of money. We have already appropriated $380 million in 2013
for something our troops will never use.
Some have argued there is an agreement that we have to pay
termination fees. That is false. The actual agreement says the
responsibility of the participants will be subject to the availability
of funds appropriated for such purposes. The language is clear.
With $16 trillion in debt, I would urge my colleagues to stop funding
the missile to nowhere and make sure our taxpayer dollars are used
wisely.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Ms. AYOTTE. I thank the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. I yield to the Senator from Illinois.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to suggest that the amendment
being offered by the Senator from New Hampshire is unnecessary. It
relates to fiscal year 2014. There will be no request for this missile
system in fiscal year 2014.
I suggest that if she wants to pass this, she might, but perhaps she
can do it by voice vote because her amendment won't apply to any
suggested funding for this missile system in this next fiscal year.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. I am amenable to a voice vote.
Mr. COBURN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that the chairman be recognized. She
tried to get recognition, and she couldn't.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, before we go to the rollcall vote on
this, I want to turn to all my colleagues and remind all of us that
what we are here trying to do is to pass a budget out of the Senate.
I have heard from so many people for so many months about how
important it is that we get a budget out so we can move to the next
process in this whole thing of getting our country back on track, and
we are trying to do it in a responsible way.
We have had a really great debate in our committee, out here on the
floor, and many Senators have participated in it. We have now had I
believe 62 or 63 amendments, and I think we have a responsibility to
work toward final passage.
I am aware that not every Senator had an opportunity to have an
amendment, but I think many, many Senators have to say they were able
to get their amendments. We have had amendments on virtually every
topic here tonight, including the budget, but I would really ask all
Senators to stop and think about what we are showing the American
public.
What we would like the American public to think is that the Senate as
a group of 100 people can have a process to move a budget forward and
vote on it, whether we agree with it or we disagree with it. And I
think we are pretty much there in showing the American public that we
can have a good debate, have numerous amendments, have our voices
heard. At the end of the day, it is a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote.
So while we have this next vote, I would really like everyone to take
a second and think about how we look to the American people and how
important it is that we move this process along so that we can come to
a final conclusion and hopefully get bipartisan agreement to get our
country back on track.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Murray for her
leadership and for her fairness in helping us move a lot of amendments
fairly and equitably tonight. We are in a situation where--no need to
debate it into the night--I wish we had not been in a position where
the majority leader was determined to finish this weekend. I wish we
could have started earlier in the week or to come back on April 8, but
that is not possible.
We have gone 4 years without a budget, and Members have been
constricted in the filing of amendments this year more than any other
time in probably the history of the Senate. One has to ask or beg
permission to be allowed to have an amendment. Senator Ayotte is one of
those. Senator Moran and others had amendments. So they are frustrated,
and they want their votes.
So I would just say, let's keep going. Let's keep in good humor.
Let's try to get as many of these votes in as possible. I have had
several Members suggest that we might vote from our chairs and not
leave the Chamber and cut these rollcall votes down to a much shorter
period of time. Maybe we could discuss that. But I think the list needs
to be continued to be produced. A number of Senators haven't had
amendments, and they really feel as though they have a right to. And
this may be their only opportunity, the way things are going this year,
to even get a vote on something they care about.
So that is my observation.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we do have a vote that needs to occur but
a final word here. I would just say that we want to get a budget
passed, and I know the minority wants us to pass a budget. We have been
told that time and time again. We can't pass a budget if we are
filibustered by amendments for the rest of the night.
So I would urge all our colleagues to have this vote, and let's have
some discussions and see if we can come to a final conclusion.
With that, I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, point of information.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. I would like to ask the distinguished budget chair
through the Chair what delay or what conflict with any other event
could this possibly pose until at least 6 or 7 a.m.? I don't understand
what delay that would cause, to allow more votes on amendments, or what
conflict that could possibly pose with any other events, including
airplane flights, at least until several hours from now. None of us
wants to delay the process, and none of us wants to prevent a vote.
Clearly, that is not an issue for several hours. I would just ask that
of the distinguished chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Washington
wish to respond?
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I can keep on standing all night. I am
sure a number of Senators can. I do have respect for a number of our
Senators here who may not be able to stand as long as some of us or who
are elderly, and I would ask consideration of them. That is just my
request.
With that, I do think we need to get to a vote here.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There has been a request for the
yeas and nays.
Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient
second.
There is a sufficient second.
[[Page S2307]]
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 5, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 80 Leg.]
YEAS--94
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coats
Coburn
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cowan
Crapo
Cruz
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--5
Chambliss
Cochran
Isakson
Sessions
Shelby
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 136) was agreed to.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the order, the majority has
the next amendment.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we have been working throughout the last
vote. I am hoping we are getting to a very short list in the near
future.
I recognize there are Senators who are frustrated and that want an
opportunity to speak out. I know there are a number of Senators who are
very tired. Everybody's patience is wearing thin. I would just ask
everybody to hold your patience for just a few more minutes. I am going
to put us into a quorum call. I am hoping we can get an agreement and
give everybody some certainty.
I know on our side we want to get a budget passed. We have been
working for a great deal of time. We want to move this process forward.
We know there are Senators on the other side who may not agree with our
budget but agree with us that we have to move to a process to get our
country back on track.
So I would ask everybody's patience for just a short while;
hopefully, we can get this resolved and we can get a budget passed.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Washington yield
for a question?
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I will hold the floor and yield for a
question.
Mr. SESSIONS. If the Senator will yield for a question with regard to
the possibility of us starting one of the votes that will probably be a
rollcall vote, and let's get started on that while we work out the
further details.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would be willing to get an amendment
going, but I haven't seen it yet. I would like the ability to take a
look at it, so I suggest the absence of a quorum. It will only be for a
very few minutes--patience, please--and then we will come back in and
see if we can get to a vote.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am proud of our Senators for having
patience for exactly 30 seconds.
I yield to the Senator from Idaho to offer an amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho.
Amendment No. 318
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up
amendment No. 318.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] proposes an amendment
numbered 318.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
further reading of the amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To amend the reconciliation instruction to include
instructions to the Committee on Finance to achieve the Budget's stated
goal of $275 billion in mandatory health care savings)
On page 50, line 1, after the number ``$975,000,000,000''
insert the following: ``and sufficient to reduce outlays by
$275,000,000,000''
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, there is now 2
minutes of debate.
The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in the budget that has been put forward,
there is a reconciliation instruction for almost $1 trillion of new
taxes. On the spending side there is, I think, a relatively modest
amount--not adequate--but there is an amount of health care savings in
the amount of $275 billion. Interestingly, that is not in a
reconciliation instruction. We do not have the protection and
assistance of a reconciliation instruction for the economy reforms that
are in the budget but we do for the tax increases that are in the
budget which results in this interesting circumstance. The tax
increases by this budget would be guaranteed to occur because the
filibuster would be avoided through reconciliation, and the reforms of
the entitlement system would be guaranteed not to occur because they
would face a 60-vote margin, having been kept out of the reconciliation
instructions.
What this amendment does is it would put the health care savings in
the budget into a reconciliation instruction so we can at least start
down the path of dealing with reforms of our entitlement system.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Let me thank the Senator from Idaho, who has been very
involved in a lot of discussions over time in trying to manage us
toward a better place with our Federal debt and deficit. I understand
his dedication, but I oppose this amendment. Over the last several
years we have enacted $1.8 trillion in spending cuts on a bipartisan
basis. We do not have any trouble cutting spending in this body right
now. We do seem to have trouble locking in the revenue necessary to
achieve a balanced revenue reduction. I recommend our colleagues oppose
this amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 81 Leg.]
YEAS--47
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--52
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
[[Page S2308]]
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 318) was rejected.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the following package of
amendments, 17 Democratic and 13 Republican amendments, be considered
and agreed to en bloc: Shaheen No. 149, Blumenthal-Moran No. 577,
Johnson No. 593, Manchin No. 316, Wyden No. 394, Baucus No. 267, Hagan
No. 269, Franken No. 353, Cardin No. 453, Udall of New Mexico No. 192,
Franken No. 479, Baucus No. 581, Casey No. 265, Sanders No. 594, Wyden-
Portman No. 618, Levin No. 430, as modified, Manchin No. 499, Toomey
No. 434, Coats No. 195, Hoeven No. 319, Ayotte No. 161, Kirk No. 671,
Murkowski No. 672, Rubio No. 623, Alexander No. 348, Boozman No. 389,
Heller No. 477, Hoeven No. 217, Enzi No. 489, and Hoeven No. 655.
This is a package that has been agreed to by both managers, and I
urge the Senate to accept them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, it is understood that we
are having a side-by-side that would be on there.
No objection.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, does the Senator have
foreign affairs amendments there?
Mrs. MURRAY. That is different.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 149
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to increase the
capacity of Federal agencies to ensure effective contract management
and contract oversight)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO INCREASE THE
CAPACITY OF AGENCIES TO ENSURE EFFECTIVE
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AND CONTRACT OVERSIGHT.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports that would increase the
capacity of Federal agencies to ensure effective contract
management and contract oversight, including efforts such as
additional personnel and training for Inspectors General at
each agency, new reporting requirements for agencies to track
their responses to and actions taken in response to Inspector
General recommendations, urging the President to appoint
permanent Inspectors General at agencies where there is
currently a vacancy, and any other effort to ensure
accountability from contractors and increase the capacity of
Inspectors General to rout out waste, fraud, and abuse in all
government contracting efforts, by the amounts provided in
such legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 577
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for legislation
to ensure operation of all contract air traffic control towers
receiving funding through the contract tower program of the Federal
Aviation Administration as of March 20, 2013, and that are located at
airports still in service as of the date of the introduction of such
legislation)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 332. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR INVESTMENTS IN AIR
TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICES.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports
relating to Federal investment in civil air traffic control
services, which may include air traffic management at airport
towers across the United States or at facilities of the
Federal Aviation Administration, by the amounts provided in
such legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 593
(Purpose: To establish a scorekeeping rule to ensure that increases in
guarantee fees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shall not be used to
offset provisions that increase the deficit)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. PROHIBITING THE USE OF GUARANTEE FEES AS AN OFFSET.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to ensure that
increases in guarantee fees charged by Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac shall not be used to offset provisions that increase the
deficit.
(b) Budgetary Rule.--In the Senate, for purposes of
determining budgetary impacts to evaluate points of order
under this resolution and the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, this resolution, any previous resolution, and any
subsequent budget resolution, provisions contained in any
bill, resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report
that increases any guarantee fees of Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac shall not be scored with respect to the level of budget
authority, outlays, or revenues contained in such
legislation.
AMENDMENT NO. 316
(Purpose: To address prescription drug abuse in the United States)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO ADDRESS
PRESCRIPTION DRUG ABUSE IN THE UNITED STATES.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports related to addressing
prescription drug abuse, by the amounts provided in such
legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 394
(Purpose: To ensure that chronic illness is addressed as part of health
care improvement)
On page, 62, line 12, insert ``focus on chronic illness,''
after ``efficiency,''.
AMENDMENT NO. 267
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to support rural
schools and districts)
On page 76, after line 25, add the following:
SEC. 332. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO SUPPORT RURAL
SCHOOLS AND DISTRICTS.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports related to the establishment
of the Office of Rural Education Policy within the Department
of Education, which could include a clearinghouse for
information related to the challenges of rural schools and
districts or providing technical assistance within the
Department of Education on rules and regulations that impact
rural schools and districts, provided that such legislation
would not increase the deficit over either the period of the
total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the
total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 269
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to strengthen the
enforcement of provisions of free trade agreements that relate to
textile and apparel articles)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 332. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO STRENGTHEN
ENFORCEMENT OF FREE TRADE AGREEMENT PROVISIONS
RELATING TO TEXTILE AND APPAREL ARTICLES.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports that relate to strengthening
the enforcement of provisions of free trade agreements that
relate to textile and apparel articles, which may include
increased training with respect to, and monitoring and
verification of, textile and apparel articles, by the amounts
provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided
that such legislation would not increase the deficit over
either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through
2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through
2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 353
(Purpose: To amend section 308 relating to broadband infrastructure
investments in rural areas)
On page 59, line 1, after ``telecommunications,'' insert
``including promoting investments in broadband infrastructure
to expedite deployment of broadband to rural areas,''.
AMENDMENT NO. 453
(Purpose: To provide for a deficit-neutral reserve fund on health care
improvement)
On page 62, line 13, insert ``improve overall population
health, promote health equity or reduce health disparities,''
after ``nation,''.
[[Page S2309]]
AMENDMENT NO. 192
(Purpose: To modify the deficit-neutral reserve fund for America's
servicemembers and veterans to increase access to health care for
veterans in rural areas)
On page 60, strike line 7 and insert the following:
credentialing requirements; or
(6) supporting additional efforts to increase access to
health care for veterans in rural areas through telehealth
and other programs that reduce the need for such veterans to
travel long distances to a medical facility of the Department
of Veterans Affairs;
AMENDMENT NO. 479
(Purpose: To provide an additional use for the deficit-neutral reserve
fund for higher education)
On page 60, line 22, insert ``standardize financial aid
award letters,'' after ``students,''.
AMENDMENT NO. 581
(Purpose: To exempt remote sales of business inputs)
On page 2, line 10, insert ``and provided that such
legislation may include requirements that States recognize
the value of small businesses to the United States economy by
exempting the remote sales of business inputs from sales and
use taxes'' after ``2023''.
AMENDMENT NO. 265
(Purpose: To prohibit certain revisions of allocations for workforce
investment measures that lack program integrity controls for the Job
Corps program)
On page 76, line 18, strike ``reduce'' and all that follows
through ``job training,'' on lines 19 and 20 and insert
``ensure effective administration, reduce inefficient
overlap, improve access, and enhance outcomes of Federal
workforce development, youth and adult job training,''
AMENDMENT NO. 594
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the
Older Americans Act of 1965, which may include congregate and home-
delivered meals programs, or other assistance to low-income seniors)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO ASSIST LOW-INCOME
SENIORS.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports
relating to the Older Americans Act of 1965, which may
include congregate and home-delivered meals programs, or
other assistance to low-income seniors, by the amounts
provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided
that such legislation would not increase the deficit over
either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through
2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through
2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 618
(Purpose: To provide for the enforcement of the trade remedy laws of
the United States)
On page 52, line 18, strike ``, or international'' and
insert ``(including requiring timely and time-limited
investigations into the evasion of antidumping and
countervailing duties), or international''.
AMENDMENT NO. 430, as modified
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. ___. RESERVE FUND TO END OFFSHORE TAX ABUSES BY LARGE
CORPORATIONS.
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this
resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions,
amendments, amendments between the Houses, motions, or
conference reports related to corporate income taxes, which
may include measures to end offshore tax abuses used by large
corporations, or measures providing for comprehensive tax
reform that ensures a revenue structure that is more
efficient, leads to a more competitive business environment,
and may result in additional rate or deficit reductions,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2023''.
AMENDMENT NO. 499
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to ensure that
abundant domestic energy sources and technologies can meet present and
future greenhouse gas emissions rules)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO ENSURE THAT
DOMESTIC ENERGY SOURCES CAN MEET EMISSIONS
RULES.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for 1 or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions,
or conference reports that are related to the research,
development, and demonstration necessary for domestically
abundant energy sources and current energy technologies to
comply with present and future greenhouse gas emissions rules
while still remaining economically competitive, by the
amounts provided in the legislation for those purposes,
provided that the legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 434
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
increasing funding for the inland waterways system)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO INCREASING
FUNDING FOR THE INLAND WATERWAYS SYSTEM.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports
relating to funding the inland waterways system, by the
amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 195
(Purpose: To require fuller reporting on possible costs to taxpayers of
any budget submitted by the President)
At the end of title V, add the following:
SEC. 5__. TO REQUIRE FULLER REPORTING ON POSSIBLE COSTS TO
TAXPAYERS OF ANY BUDGET SUBMITTED BY THE
PRESIDENT.
When the Congressional Budget Office submits its report to
Congress relating to a budget submitted by the President for
a fiscal year under section 1105 of title 31, United States
Code, such report shall contain--
(1) an estimate of the pro rata cost for taxpayers who will
file individual income tax returns for taxable years ending
during such fiscal year of any deficit that would result from
the budget; and
(2) an analysis of the budgetary effects described in
paragraph (1).
AMENDMENT NO. 319
(Purpose: To provide additional resources to Criminal Investigations
and Police Services of the Bureau of Indian Affairs)
On page 28, line 3, increase the amount by $3,500,000.
On page 28, line 4, increase the amount by $3,500,000.
On page 46, line 11, decrease the amount by $3,500,000.
On page 46, line 12, decrease the amount by $3,500,000.
AMENDMENT NO. 161
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for achieving
full auditability of the financial statements of the Department of
Defense by 2017)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ____. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR ACHIEVING FULL
AUDITABILITY OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BY 2017.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between Houses, motions, or conference reports
relating to achieving full auditability of the financial
statements Department of Defense by 2017, without raising new
revenue, by the amounts provided in such legislation for that
purpose, provided that such legislation would not increase
the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal
years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal
years 2013 through 2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 671
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
sanctions with respect to Iran)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 332. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO SANCTIONS
WITH RESPECT TO IRAN.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports
relating to Iran, which may include efforts to clarify that
the clearance and settlement of euro-denominated transactions
through European Union financial institutions may not result
in the evasion of or otherwise undermine the impact of
sanctions imposed with respect to Iran by the United States
and the European Union (including provisions designed to
strictly limit the access of the Government of Iran to its
foreign exchange reserves and the facilitation of
transactions on behalf of sanctioned entities), by the
amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 672
(Purpose: To permit a deficit-neutral reserve fund to provide
assistance for fishery disasters declared during 2012)
On page 58, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
(10) to provide assistance for fishery disasters declared
by the Secretary of Commerce during 2012;
[[Page S2310]]
AMENDMENT NO. 623
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on underutilized
facilities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and
their potential use)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. SENSE OF SENATE ON UNDERUTILIZED FACILITIES OF THE
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
AND THEIR POTENTIAL USE.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
(1) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) is the ninth largest real property holder of the
Federal Government, with more than 124,000 acres and more
than 4,900 buildings and other structures with a replacement
value of more than $30,000,000,000.
(2) The annual operation and maintenance costs of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration have increased
steadily, and, as of 2012, the Administration has more than
$2,300,000,000 in annual deferred maintenance costs.
(3) According to Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the
Administration continues to retain real property that is
underutilized, does not have identified future mission uses,
or is duplicative of other assets in its real property
inventory.
(4) The Office of Inspector General, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO), and Congress have identified the
aging and duplicative infrastructure of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration as a high priority and
longstanding management challenge.
(5) In the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, Congress
directed the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to
examine its real property assets and downsize to fit current
and future missions and expected funding levels, paying
particular attention to identifying and removing unneeded or
duplicative infrastructure.
(6) The Office of Inspector General found at least 33
facilities, including wind tunnels, test stands, airfields,
and launch infrastructure, that were underutilized or for
which National Aeronautics and Space Administration managers
could not identify a future mission use and that the need for
these facilities have declined in recent years as a result of
changes in the mission focus of the Administration, the
condition and obsolescence of some facilities, and the advent
of alternative testing methods.
(7) The Office of Inspector General found that the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration has taken steps to
minimize the costs of continuing to maintain some of these
facilities by placing them in an inactive state or leasing
them to other parties.
(8) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has a
series of initiatives underway that, in the judgment of the
Office of Inspector General, are ``positive steps towards
`rightsizing' its real property footprint'', and the Office
of Inspector General has concluded that ``it is imperative
that NASA move forward aggressively with its infrastructure
reduction efforts''.
(9) Existing and emerging United States commercial launch
and exploration capabilities are providing cargo
transportation to the International Space Station and offer
the potential for providing crew support, access to the
International Space Station, and missions to low Earth orbit
while the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
focuses its efforts on heavy-lift capabilities and deep space
missions.
(10) National Aeronautics and Space Administration
facilities and property that are underutilized, duplicative,
or no longer needed for Administration requirements could be
utilized by commercial users and State and local entities,
resulting in savings for the Administration and a reduction
in the burden of the Federal Government to fund space
operations.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that
the levels in this concurrent resolution assume--
(1) the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
should move forward with plans to reduce its infrastructure
and, to the greatest extent practicable, make property
available for lease to a government or private tenant;
(2) the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
should pursue opportunities for streamlined sale or lease of
property and facilities, including for exclusive use, to a
private entity, or expedited conveyance or transfer to a
State or political subdivision, municipality, instrumentality
of a State, or Department of Transportation-licensed launch
site operators for the promotion of commercial or scientific
space activity and for developing and operating space launch
facilities; and
(3) leasing or transferring underutilized facilities and
properties to commercial space entities or State or local
governments will reduce operation and maintenance costs for
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, save money
for the Federal Government, and promote commercial space and
the exploration goals of the Administration and the United
States.
AMENDMENT NO. 348
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to prevent
restrictions to public access to fishing downstream of dams owned by
the Corps of Engineers)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO PREVENT
RESTRICTIONS TO PUBLIC ACCESS TO FISHING
DOWNSTREAM OF DAMS OWNED BY THE CORPS OF
ENGINEERS.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for 1 or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions,
or conference reports relating to prohibiting the Corps of
Engineers from restricting public access to waters downstream
of a Corps of Engineers dam, without raising new revenue, by
the amounts provided in the legislation for those purposes,
provided that the legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 389
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to address the
disproportionate regulatory burdens on community banks)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO ADDRESS THE
DISPROPORTIONATE REGULATORY BURDENS ON
COMMUNITY BANKS.
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports
relating to alleviating disproportionate regulatory burdens
on community banks, by the amounts provided in such
legislation for that purpose, provided that such legislation
would not increase the deficit over either the period of the
total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the
total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 477
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to authorize the
provision of per diem payments for the provision of services to
dependents of homeless veterans under laws administered by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO AUTHORIZE PROVISION
OF PER DIEM PAYMENTS FOR PROVISION OF SERVICES
TO DEPENDENTS OF HOMELESS VETERANS UNDER LAWS
ADMINISTERED BY SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between both Houses, motions, or conference
reports related to care, services, or benefits for homeless
veterans, which may include providing per diem payments for
the furnishing of care for dependents of homeless veterans,
without raising new revenue, by the amounts provided in such
legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 217
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to support
programs related to the nuclear missions of the Department of Defense
and the National Nuclear Security Administration)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 332. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO SUPPORT PROGRAMS
RELATED TO THE NUCLEAR MISSIONS OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND THE NATIONAL NUCLEAR
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports that support programs related
to the nuclear missions of the Department of Defense and the
National Nuclear Security Administration, by the amounts
provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided
that such legislation would not increase the deficit over
either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through
2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through
2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 489
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to phase-in any
changes to the individual or corporate tax systems)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO PHASE-IN ANY
CHANGES TO INDIVIDUAL OR CORPORATE TAX SYSTEMS.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports relating to the phase-in of
any changes to the individual or corporate tax systems,
including any changes to individual or corporate income tax
exclusions, exemptions, deductions, or credits, by the
amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2023.
[[Page S2311]]
AMENDMENT NO. 655
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
increases in aid for tribal education programs, including the Tribally
Controlled Postsecondary Career and Technical Institutions Program
administered by the Department of Education)
On page 76, after line 25, add the following:
SEC. 332. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO INCREASES
IN AID FOR TRIBAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports
relating to increases in aid for tribal education programs,
including the Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Career and
Technical Institutions Program administered by the Department
of Education, by the amounts provided in such legislation for
those purposes, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit over either the period of the total of
fiscal years 2014 through 2018 or the period of the total of
fiscal years 2014 through 2023.
Mrs. MURRAY. I am now going to ask for unanimous consent for a number
of amendments to get to final passage. I would say to all Senators that
we are going to have a number of votes. We would like to tell everyone
to sit in your seat. We will get through these faster if we can have
the rollcalls and be done quickly. So I encourage everyone to be in
this room.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that on the next
block of amendments--we have talked to everybody who was talkable--we
would vote from our desks. There would be no recapping of the votes by
the tally clerks, and that they be 7 1/2-minute votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank the leader. I think it has
real potential. There still would be some votes that could go by voice
vote, we would hope. But if we do this pressure in this way I think it
would speed up things. I thank the leader for that suggestion. I have
heard it from our side for a while. I think it is a good idea.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
amendments nos. 184, 382, 526, 338, 471, 702, 673, 521, 414, 416, 709,
154, 710, and 139, en bloc
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the next amendments in
order to be called up be the following: Barrasso No. 184, Paul No. 382,
Vitter No. 526, Vitter No. 338, Cruz No. 471, Cruz No. 702, Lee No.
673, Lee No. 521, Coburn No. 414, Coburn No. 416, Coburn No. 709,
Portman No. 154, Leahy No. 710, a side-by-side to Senator Inhofe's No.
139, and Inhofe No. 139; that there be no second-degree amendments
prior to votes in relation to any of those amendments; that none of the
amendments be divisible; that notwithstanding all time having expired
under the resolution, there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each
vote, and that all votes be 10-minute votes; that upon disposition of
the Inhofe amendment No. 139, the Senate proceed immediately to vote on
adoption of S. Con. Res. 8, as amended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, I will not object, but I
do want our colleagues to understand that some of these amendments the
chairwoman just asked to be put in order are incredibly fundamental
important foreign policy issues that you do not do at 3 in the morning
and change the dynamics of the Middle East, and change the dynamics of
our national security and interests in international organizations.
That is what some of these amendments will do. You do not do it in a
budget process, you do it through regular order in a committee that
ultimately can hear both sides as we have succeeded so far this session
in a very bipartisan way. So I will not object because of the
chairwoman's effort to get us to a conclusion. But I will be urging all
of our colleagues to oppose all of those amendments because this is
foreign policy on the fly. It is dangerous. We send very important
messages when we cast votes in certain ways that can affect the balance
of stability in the Middle East, that can affect our relationships
across the world, that can affect our effectiveness in institutions
that we need at the end of the day to promote our national security,
our national interests.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I would hope that we would defeat these
amendments. If there is no objection----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. We will then move to these amendments. Again, all
Senators sit in your seats and vote. We will get through these as
quickly as possible.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. I have an inquiry. I would like to make a unanimous consent
request that we be able to use our electronic devices while we are
sitting at our desks on the floor so that we might get any
communication that we need from our staff, and also so we can be
productive.
Mr. REID. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The clerk will report the
amendments en bloc.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes
amendments en bloc: For Mr. Barrasso, No. 184, for Mr. Paul
No. 382, for Mr. Vitter No. 526, for Mr. Vitter No. 338, for
Mr. Cruz No. 471, for Mr. Cruz No. 702, for Mr. Lee No. 673,
for Mr. Lee No. 521, for Mr. Coburn No. 414, for Mr. Coburn
No. 416, for Mr. Coburn No. 709, for Mr. Portman No. 154, for
Mr. Leahy No. 710, for Mr. Inhofe No. 139.
The amendments are as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 184
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to expedite
exports from the United States through reform of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in such a manner that greenhouse gas
emissions produced outside the United States by any good exported from
the United States are not subject to the requirements of that Act)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO EXPEDITE EXPORTS
FROM THE UNITED STATES.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for 1 or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions,
or conference reports related to promoting the export of
goods, including manufactured goods, from the United States
through reform of environmental laws, which may include the
regulation of greenhouse gas emissions produced outside the
United States by goods exported from the United States,
without raising new revenue, by the amounts provided in the
legislation for those purposes, provided that the legislation
would not increase the deficit over either the period of the
total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the
total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 382
(Purpose: To provide funding to the Department of Transportation for
interstate bridge infrastructure projects and to reduce the Federal
deficit by decreasing the amounts available for foreign assistance and
loan guarantee programs administered by the Department of Energy)
On page 5, line 9, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 10, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 11, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 12, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 13, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 14, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 15, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 16, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 17, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 18, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 23, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 24, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 25, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 6, line 1, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 6, line 2, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 6, line 3, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 6, line 4, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 6, line 5, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 6, line 6, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 6, line 7, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 6, line 12, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 6, line 13, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 6, line 14, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
[[Page S2312]]
On page 6, line 15, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 6, line 16, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 6, line 17, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 6, line 18, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 6, line 19, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 6, line 20, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 6, line 21, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 15, line 7, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
On page 15, line 8, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
On page 15, line 11, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
On page 15, line 12, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
On page 15, line 15, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
On page 15, line 16, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
On page 15, line 19, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
On page 15, line 20, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
On page 15, line 23, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
On page 15, line 24, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
On page 16, line 2, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
On page 16, line 3, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
On page 16, line 6, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
On page 16, line 7, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
On page 16, line 10, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
On page 16, line 11, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
On page 16, line 14, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
On page 16, line 15, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
On page 16, line 18, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
On page 16, line 19, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
On page 18, line 23, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
On page 18, line 24, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
On page 19, line 2, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
On page 19, line 3, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
On page 19, line 6, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
On page 19, line 7, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
On page 19, line 10, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
On page 19, line 11, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
On page 19, line 14, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
On page 19, line 15, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
On page 19, line 18, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
On page 19, line 19, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
On page 19, line 22, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
On page 19, line 23, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
On page 20, line 2, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
On page 20, line 3, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
On page 20, line 6, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
On page 20, line 7, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
On page 20, line 10, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
On page 20, line 11, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
On page 26, line 6, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 26, line 7, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 26, line 10, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 26, line 11, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 26, line 14, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 26, line 15, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 26, line 18, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 26, line 19, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 26, line 22, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 26, line 23, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 27, line 2, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 27, line 3, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 27, line 6, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 27, line 7, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 27, line 10, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 27, line 11, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 27, line 14, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 27, line 15, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 27, line 18, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 27, line 19, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
AMENDMENT NO. 526
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to ensure
election integrity by requiring a valid government-issued photographic
ID for voting in federal elections)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO REQUIRE A
PHOTOGRAPHIC ID FOR VOTING IN FEDERAL
ELECTIONS.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between houses, motions, or conference reports
that would create a system for requiring a valid government-
issued photographic ID for voting in federal elections
without raising new revenue, by the amounts provided in such
legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 338
(Purpose: To end the mobile phone welfare program)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR ENDING SUBSIDIES
FOR MOBILE PHONE SERVICE.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between houses, motions, or conference reports
that would prohibit the Universal Service Fund from
subsidizing commercial mobile service, without raising new
revenue, by the amounts provided in such legislation for
those purposes, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit over either the period of the total of
fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of
fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 471
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to reduce foreign
assistance to Egypt and increase funding for an east coast missile
defense shield)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO REDUCE FOREIGN
ASSISTANCE TO EGYPT AND INCREASE FUNDING FOR AN
EAST COAST MISSILE DEFENSE SHIELD.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports relating to reducing foreign
assistance to Egypt and increasing funding for the Missile
Defense Agency to establish a land-based missile defense
capability on the east coast of the United States, by the
amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 702
(Purpose: To Create A Point of Order Against Any Legislation That Would
Provide Taxpayer Funds to The United Nations While Any Member Nation
Forces Citizens or Residents of that Nation to Undergo Involuntary
Abortions)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. SENATE POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION FUNDING
THE UNITED NATIONS WHILE MEMBER NATIONS FORCE
THEIR CITIZENS OR RESIDENTS TO UNDERGO
ABORTIONS.
(a) In General--It shall not be in order in the Senate to
consider a concurrent resolution on the budget for the budget
year or any amendment, amendment between Houses, motion, or
conference report thereon that would make public funds
available to the United Nations, or to any affiliate
organization of the United Nations, while any member nation
compels citizens or residents of that nation to involuntarily
undergo abortions in any year covered by the budget
resolution.
(b) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal in the Senate--
(1) WAIVER--This section may be waived or suspended in the
Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(2) APPEAL--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of
the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.
AMENDMENT NO. 673
(Purpose: To create a point of order against legislation that would
further restrict the right of law-abiding Americans to own a firearm)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
[[Page S2313]]
SEC. ___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT WOULD
FURTHER RESTRICT THE RIGHT OF LAW-ABIDING
AMERICANS TO OWN A FIREARM.
(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider a concurrent resolution on the budget for the
budget year or any amendment, amendment between Houses,
motion, or conference report thereon that further restricts
the right of law-abiding individuals in the United States to
own a firearm in any year covered by the budget resolution.
(b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``further
restriction on the right of law-abiding individuals in the
United States to own a firearm'' means any further
restriction on the right of law-abiding individuals in the
United States to own a firearm not contained in law prior to
the consideration of the concurrent resolution on the budget,
including but not limited to any legislation that--
(1) prohibits, increases restrictions on, or regulates the
manufacture or ownership of any firearm that is permitted
under Federal law prior to the consideration of the
concurrent resolution on the budget;
(2) prohibits the manufacture or possession of specified
categories of firearms based on the characteristics of such
firearms that are permitted to be manufacture or possessed
under Federal law prior to the consideration of the
concurrent resolution on the budget;
(3) prohibits specific firearms or categories of firearms
that are permitted under Federal law prior to the
consideration of the concurrent resolution on the budget;
(4) limits the size of ammunition feeding devices or
prohibits categories of ammunition feeding devices that are
permitted under Federal law prior to the consideration of the
concurrent resolution on the budget;
(5) requires background checks through a Federal firearms
licensee for private transfers of firearms if the transfers
do not require a background check under Federal law prior to
the consideration of the concurrent resolution on the budget;
(6) establishes a record-keeping system for the sale of
firearms not established prior to the consideration of the
concurrent resolution of the budget; or
(7) imposes prison sentences for sales, gifts, or raffles
of firearms to veterans who are unknown to the transferor as
a person prohibited from possessing a firearm that would not
otherwise be imposed under Federal law prior to the
consideration of the concurrent resolution on the budget.
(c) Super Majority Waiver and Appeal.--
(1) Waiver.--In the Senate, subsection (a) may be waived or
suspended only by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(2) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of two-thirds of the
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a
point of order raised under subsection (a).
AMENDMENT NO. 521
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
supporting the reauthorization of the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program
at levels roughly equivalent to property tax revenues lost due to the
presence of Federal land)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO SUPPORTING
THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF
TAXES PROGRAM AT LEVELS ROUGHLY EQUIVALENT TO
PROPERTY TAX REVENUES LOST DUE TO THE PRESENCE
OF FEDERAL LAND.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for 1 or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports
relating to that make changes to or provide for the
reauthorization of the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program at
levels roughly equivalent to lost tax revenues due to the
presence of Federal land without raising new revenue, by the
amounts provided in the legislation for those purposes,
provided that the legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 414
(Purpose: To create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to eliminate tax
loopholes and special interest tax breaks for the PGA tour, the NFL,
NASCAR, Hollywood, fish tackle box manufacturers, and Eskimo whaling
captains)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND CLOSING TAX
EXPENDITURES FOR THE PGA TOUR, THE NFL, NASCAR,
HOLLYWOOD, FISH TACKLE BOX MANUFACTURERS, AND
WHALING CAPTAINS.
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this
resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions,
amendments, amendments between the Houses, motions, or
conference reports related to closing certain tax
expenditures, by the amounts provided in such legislation for
those purposes, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit over either the period of the total of
fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of
fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 416
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to eliminate non-
defense related spending by the Department of Defense)
At the appropriate place, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE PREVENTION OF
NON-DEFENSE RELATED SPENDING BY THE DEPARTMENT
OF DEFENSE.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between Houses, motions, or conference reports
related to the Department of Defense, which may include
measures eliminating non-defense related programs at the
Department, by the amounts provided in such legislation for
those purposes, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit over either the period of the total of
fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of
fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
amendment no. 709
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S2313, March 22, 2013, the Record reads: Amendment No.
401
The online Record has been corrected to read: Amendment No. 709
========================= END NOTE =========================
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
AMENDMENT NO. 154
(Purpose: To require the Congressional Budget Office to include
macroeconomic feedback scoring of tax legislation)
At the end of subtitle B of title IV, add the following:
SEC. 4__. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATES.
(a) Request for Supplemental Estimates.--In the case of any
legislative provision to which this section applies, the
Congressional Budget Office, with the assistance of the Joint
Committee on Taxation, shall prepare, to the extent
practicable, as a supplement to the cost estimate for
legislation affecting revenues, an estimate of the revenue
changes in connection with such provision that incorporates
the macroeconomic effects of the policy being analyzed. Any
macroeconomic impact statement under the preceding sentence
shall be accompanied by a written statement fully disclosing
the economic, technical, and behavioral assumptions that were
made in producing--
(1) such estimate; and
(2) the conventional estimate in connection with such
provision.
(b) Legislative Provisions to Which This Section Applies.--
This section shall apply to any legislative provision--
(1) which proposes a change or changes to law that the
Congressional Budget Office determines, pursuant to a
conventional fiscal estimate, has a revenue impact in excess
of $5,000,000,000 in any fiscal year; or
(2) with respect to which the chair or ranking member of
the Committee on the Budget of either the Senate or the House
of Representatives has requested an estimate described in
subsection (a).
AMENDMENT NO. 710
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to ensure that
the United States will not negotiate or support treaties that violate
Americans' Second Amendment rights under the Constitution of the United
States)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO ENSURE THAT THE
UNITED STATES WILL NOT NEGOTIATE OR SUPPORT
TREATIES THAT VIOLATE AMERICANS' SECOND
AMENDMENT RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports
relating to the implementation of treaties, including
upholding the constitutional rights of citizens of the United
States when treaties are negotiated, by the amounts provided
in such legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
AMENDMENT NO. 139
(Purpose: To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United
States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO UPHOLD SECOND
AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND PREVENT THE UNITED STATES
FROM ENTERING INTO THE UNITED NATIONS ARMS
TRADE TREATY.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports that relate to upholding
Second Amendment rights, which shall include preventing the
United States from entering into the United Nations Arms
Trade Treaty, by the amounts provided in such legislation for
those purposes, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit or revenues over either the period of
the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of
the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
[[Page S2314]]
Amendment No. 184
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin.) There is now 2 minutes equally
divided prior to a vote.
The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, in 2010, President Obama set forth a
goal of doubling our Nation's exports in 5 years. Three years later we
are not on the pace to achieve that goal. One problem is the EPA is
blocking exports. EPA is blocking exports on account of the greenhouse
gas emissions those exports would produce outside of the United States;
that is after they leave our shores.
This is a dangerous precedent. It will hurt exports of automobiles,
aircraft, and heavy equipment such as tractors. This amendment
prohibits Federal agencies from blocking exports on account of
greenhouse gas emissions those exports would produce after they leave
the United States.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, before we go to the yeas and nays, can I
just say, in setting an example for the evening, I will be less than 1
minute. We believe this is current law. We will accept a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays were already ordered on this
amendment. Does the Senator from Wyoming seek recognition?
Mr. BARRASSO. A voice vote will be acceptable.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the yeas and nays are
vitiated.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 184) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 382
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. On behalf of Senator McConnell and myself, I have to
introduce this amendment to create a bridges fund. We have done
considerable nation building abroad. I think it is time we do some
nation building at home.
We have two bridges in our State, Brent Spence as well as the Sherman
Minton Bridge, that need to be repaired and replaced. We do not have
enough money in our highway trust fund. This would create a new bridges
fund. It would come from money we are currently sending overseas to
build bridges overseas. So it would bring foreign aid money back home
to the United States where it is needed. It would also take some money
from the Department of Energy loans, which I think can be more useful
at home to build bridges.
So I urge adoption of this amendment which would allow a new creation
of a bridges fund, which I think our country desperately needs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. The Senate budget resolution that is in front of us,
that we are hoping to get passed tonight, provides strong investments
in transportation infrastructure. It fully funds MAP-21, the recent
highway bill. It provides $50 billion for urgent transportation needs
and another $10 billion for an infrastructure bank.
We could put more funding toward transportation projects and fund
some good projects but not without making cuts to other vital programs.
The amendment before us will make unnecessary and deep cuts to foreign
aid and energy programs. I oppose this amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine) and
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 26, nays 72, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 82 Leg.]
YEAS--26
Barrasso
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Inhofe
Johnson (WI)
Lee
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
NAYS--72
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Hoeven
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Kaine
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 382) was rejected.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WYDEN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 526
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, there is 2 minutes equally
divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 526 offered by Mr. Vitter.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment would require photo IDs to
participate in Federal elections, which is allowed now by States.
However, the Justice Department is trying to virtually shut down this
practice unreasonably by opposing it in many States. This would be a
clarification to mandate the Federal IDs, just as we do in many other
less consequential acts such as air travel.
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Voter photo identification laws are overly burdensome
and have the ability to disenfranchise voters. We should not attempt to
implement these policies nationwide, especially at 3:15 in the morning
on a budget resolution.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine) and
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 54, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 83 Leg.]
YEAS--44
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--54
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Kaine
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 526) was rejected.
[[Page S2315]]
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 338
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are two amendments equally divided prior
to a vote on amendment No. 338 offered by Mr. Vitter.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. I would just note there is nothing in a unanimous
consent which precludes a Senator from withdrawing an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thanks the Senator from Washington.
The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. I certainly thank the honorable chairwoman for that kind
note, but I do wish to move forward with my amendment.
This amendment is simple. It ends the cell phone welfare entitlement.
I yield back my time and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Access to a telephone is beneficial for anyone trying to
get a job or attempting to communicate with their family or receiving
help in an emergency. Since 1985, the Lifeline Program has made it
easier for low-income Americans to have a phone by providing a small
monthly subsidy toward basic service. The program has seen an influx in
new users over the past several years after the eligibility expanded to
include mobile phones.
The FCC issued an order in January 2012 to attack waste, fraud, and
abuse in the program, and that order has been successful.
I recommend my colleagues oppose this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 84 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--53
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 338) was rejected.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 471
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes equally divided prior to
the vote on amendment No. 471 offered by Mr. Cruz.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, this amendment would create a deficit-
neutral reserve fund to reduce foreign assistance to Egypt and to
increase funding for an east coast missile defense shield.
Just 2 weeks ago, the Secretary of State announced he had freed an
additional $250 million in an unconditional economic support fund for
the Government of Egypt. This was in the midst of the sequester and at
the same time the American people were told there were insufficient
funds to pay for police officers, firefighters and teachers, and even
White House tours.
All of us are concerned about the situation in Egypt--a nation that,
among other things, has repeatedly turned a blind eye to the abuse of
women and to the persecution of Christians.
Last week the European Union threatened to hold its 5 million euro
pledge of economic aid to Egypt absent meaningful reforms. We should do
at least as well as the EU. This amendment would reduce, in an
unspecified amount, the foreign aid to Egypt and allow that money to be
put to vital national security ends here at home; namely, missile
defense.
I ask the amendment be adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield my time to the Senator from New
Jersey, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, that money the Senator referred to was
money that was already existing and it was at a critical time.
The United States and Egypt have a longstanding security relationship
that is vital to the stability of the Middle East and the security of
the region. Our aid to Egypt is tied directly to the Camp David Accord
which has acted to stabilize the Middle East and has helped to serve
America and Israel's security for the past 35 years. It is vital and it
can't be put at risk.
We also have significant interests in Egypt in countering terrorism,
addressing the deteriorating security in the Sinai, and maintaining
preferential access to the Suez Canal.
We cannot give the Egyptian leaders a blank check, but we also cannot
have a collapse of the Egyptian economy which Israel would face the
immediate consequences of.
This is the type of amendment that does not consider the checks and
balances necessary and the complexities of the issue, which we will
handle in the committee.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. CRUZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 25, nays 74, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 85 Leg.]
YEAS--25
Barrasso
Burr
Coburn
Collins
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Grassley
Heller
Inhofe
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
Moran
Paul
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
NAYS--74
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Cochran
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Hoeven
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
[[Page S2316]]
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 471) was rejected.
Amendment No. 702
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes equally divided prior to
the vote on amendment No. 702 offered by Mr. Cruz.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, this amendment would create a budget point
of order prohibiting any measure that provides taxpayer funds to the
United Nations while any member nation forces citizens to undergo
involuntary abortions.
I recognize Members of this body have differing views on the right to
life, but surely all of us can be agreed that for a woman to be forced
against her will to abort her child is a horrific evil. Yet the world
was shocked when photographs surfaced last year of 23-year-old Feng
Jianmei and her aborted child.
China recently acknowledged under its one-child policy it has carried
out 336 million abortions, more than the entire population of the
United States. Those are 336 million lives that never breathed a breath
of life on this Earth.
In 1997, the House passed a Forced Abortion Condemnation Act that,
unfortunately, died in the Senate. This body should condemn that
policy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield my time to the chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee, the Senator from New Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, no one--no one--in this body supports
forced abortions. No one. However, the United Nations has no authority
to control the acts of any individual nation.
Instead of punishing the country that is carrying out the bad policy,
this amendment would go after an entity that has no control over the
policy and all the while negatively impacting our national interests
because it takes away all funding to the United Nations if such a
member country is engaged in such acts. It would impact funding for
peacekeeping operations in the Golan Heights, in Darfur, in Congo;
funding for Syrian refugees, which now exceeds 1 million and is
threatening the political and economic instability of Jordan and
Lebanon; funding to the International Atomic Energy Agency that we need
to go after Iran.
These are all reasons this amendment should be voted against.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. CRUZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 61, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 86 Leg.]
YEAS--38
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Lee
Manchin
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
NAYS--61
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 702) was rejected.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay
that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 673
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior
to a vote on amendment No. 673, offered by Mr. Lee.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, my amendment would establish a point of order
for any piece of legislation brought before this body that would
undermine the sacred right protected by the second amendment to bear
arms. It is important that we safeguard this right so the government
doesn't intrude upon it. That is why I have introduced this amendment,
and I urge my colleagues to support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending
amendment is not germane. The underlying resolution therefore violates
section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I move to waive section 305(b)(2) of the
Congressional Budget Act for the consideration of the pending amendment
No. 673 pursuant to section 904(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 87 Leg.]
YEAS--50
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Donnelly
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--49
Baldwin
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cowan
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harkin
Heinrich
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 50 and the nays are
49. Three-fifths of the Senators not having voted in the affirmative,
the motion is not agreed to, the point of order is sustained, and the
amendment falls.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 521
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, there is now 2 minutes
equally divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 521, offered by Mr.
Lee.
The Senator from Utah.
[[Page S2317]]
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program was
established to compensate local taxing authorities, such as counties,
for the tax revenue lost due to the presence of Federal public land.
Unfortunately, the funding for this program has never been offered to
the degree necessary that it would, in fact, offset this revenue. In
States such as mine, where most of the land is owned by the Federal
Government, this is a big problem because our taxing authorities are
not able to get the revenue they need from this land. As a result,
programs ranging from public education to fire and safety programs--the
basic services of government--are not able to be met because of
inadequate revenue.
This amendment seeks to ensure that funding for the Payments in Lieu
of Taxes Program is at least roughly equivalent to the actual lost
property tax revenues due to the presence of Federal public land. I
urge each of my colleagues to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. We will take this on a voice vote.
Mr. LEE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would ask that the Senator accommodate
us. We are willing to give it to him.
Mr. LEE. Let's do it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 521) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 414 withdrawn
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior
to a vote on amendment No. 414, offered by Mr. Coburn.
Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 416
There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior to a vote on amendment
No. 416, offered by Mr. Coburn. The Senator from Oklahoma is
recognized.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, with a lot of consternation, we are
worried about how the sequester affects everybody--the Defense
Department and all the other agencies. But in fact the Pentagon spends
$67 billion on things that have absolutely nothing to do with defense.
All we will be doing is creating a deficit-neutral reserve fund to move
this nondefense spending--either move it or eliminate it from the
Defense Department.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is important to reduce wasteful
spending and ensure all Federal funding is spent efficiently and
effectively. The budget resolution is not the appropriate place for
funding decisions at a subprogrammatic level.
I recommend we oppose the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. COBURN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 56, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 88 Leg.]
YEAS--43
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--56
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 416) was rejected.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Thanking the Senate Pages
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, before we go to the next vote, I would
like to thank all the pages. They have been here all night working, and
I would like to thank them: Austin Hall, Patrick Irby-Bailey, Emma
Duhnke, Andrew Brennen, Stewart Maxfield, Brittany Robertson, and Katie
Robinson.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S2317, March 22, 2013, the Record reads: . . . Andrew
Brennan, and Katie Robinson.
The online Record has been corrected to read: . . . Andrew
Brennan, Stewart Maxfield, Brittany Robertson, and Katie Robinson.
========================= END NOTE =========================
(Applause, Senators rising.)
Amendment No. 709
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes equally divided prior to a
vote on amendment No. 709, offered by Mr. Coburn.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, 3\1/2\ years ago we instructed the GAO to
tell us where the government problems were, what are the government
programs, and where was there duplication. We have yet to pass one
piece of legislation that would eliminate any of the duplication in the
Federal Government--not one. What this does is combine 17 different
amendments that I had offered on this budget to create a deficit-
neutral reserve fund to cause us--to force us--to look at all these
programs by area and consolidate them.
What this amendment would do, very specifically--it doesn't say you
eliminate; it says you consolidate. You get efficiency, you get
effectiveness, and you look to make sure when we are spending tax
dollars that they are actually accomplishing something and they are
doing it in the most efficient and effective ways.
I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. The budget already includes a deficit reduction reserve
fund for the elimination, consolidation, and reform of Federal programs
to achieve savings. Our budget goes even further to instruct committees
to review the GAO report on duplication and asks committees to use this
information to reduce overlap and identify efficiencies. The budget
does not single out individual programs because we believe that sorting
through duplication should be the role of our authorizing committees.
That is why we have specifically instructed committees to review GAO's
findings on duplication in their high-risk list.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 37, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 89 Leg.]
YEAS--62
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Donnelly
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kaine
King
Kirk
[[Page S2318]]
Klobuchar
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Nelson
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Warner
Wicker
NAYS--37
Baldwin
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Coons
Cowan
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Menendez
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Stabenow
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 709) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 154
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote in
relation to amendment No. 154, offered by Mr. Portman.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, this should be an easy one. It is simply
an amendment that says that here in the Senate we should have better
information to be able to legislate better. By the way, it is
information that the House of Representatives already has. Surely we
would want to have the same information in the Senate that the House of
Representatives as they pursue tax reform.
This says the Congressional Budget Office should provide the Joint
Tax Committee macroeconomic analysis of tax reform. It only applies to
tax bills over a certain amount, $5 billion a year. I worked with the
Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office to
ensure this would not require more work because the analysis is already
done, but it is not provided to us.
Under a 2003 rule in the House, it is provided to the Ways and Means
Committee. It is required to be provided but not to us. We heard a lot
of discussion over the last several days about the need for tax
reform--Democrats and Republicans agree on that--and we agree it ought
to be progrowth. The President called for it. This would enable us to
legislate more wisely.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. I yield to the Chair of the Finance Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the amendment requires something called
dynamic scoring. The Joint Committee on Tax, which provides us with
information on how to score revenue measures, uses conventional
scoring, and has been doing this for years and years. And they do
utilize the secondary effects when they do conventional scoring.
Dynamic scoring goes many steps farther. It tries to dissipate the
macroeconomic effect down the road, which is basically what Ben
Bernanke does. It is very difficult and arbitrary and very hard to do.
It would cause great swings. It may be close to the mark, it may be off
the mark.
In addition, this amendment required dynamic scoring only with
respect to revenue measures, but not required with respect to spending
measures. When CBO does spending, they use conventional scoring. I
might also say that in the footnote, the Joint Committee on Tax already
gives its best guess of what the dynamic scoring would be, although
that is not the numbers they use when they try to estimate the revenue
effect.
I think it would be a big mistake to do that at this time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 90 Leg.]
YEAS--51
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Begich
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kaine
Kirk
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--48
Baldwin
Baucus
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harkin
Heinrich
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 154) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 710
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote in
relation to amendment No. 710 offered by Mr. Leahy.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this amendment is very clear, and it
anticipates another amendment coming up by another Senator. The United
States negotiates treaties, for example, the Arms Trade Treaty. But
under the Supreme Court, Reid v. Covert, 1956, our Constitution trumps
any agreement made in a treaty by our government.
So all my amendment does is make clear that the United States should
not agree to any arms trade treaty that would violate our second
amendment rights. It is straightforward, it respects our constitutional
rights, but it also gives our government the flexibility it needs to
negotiate treaties.
I would be happy with a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think this is a good amendment. I want
to make it very clear that this has nothing to do with my amendment No.
139, which comes up next. This is merely talking about negotiating
treaties. Mine is about opposing second amendment rights.
I have no objection to taking this by voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 710) was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay
that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Amendment No. 525
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, before going to the next amendment, I
have one unanimous consent request. Senator Sessions and I have been
able to clear Durbin-Moran amendment No. 525. I ask unanimous consent
that it be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 525) was agreed to, as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 525
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to increase
funding for the National Institutes of Health)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO INCREASE FUNDING
FOR FEDERAL INVESTMENTS IN BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports related to Federal investments
in biomedical research, by the amounts provided in such
legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
[[Page S2319]]
Amendment No. 139
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes equally divided in the usual form prior to our final vote on
amendment No. 139 offered by Mr. Inhofe.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want to make sure that everyone
understands what the United Nations trade treaty is. The trade treaty
is a treaty that cedes our authority to have trade agreements with our
allies in terms of trading arms.
I want to very briefly read this so nobody over there or over here
misunderstands what this amendment does. This is right out of the
amendment. Uphold the second amendment rights, that is one thing. And
secondly, prevent the United States from entering into the United
Nations arms trade treaties.
I retain the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield to the Chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are presently negotiating an arms trade
treaty which will help to keep illicit firearms out of the hands of war
criminals and terrorists. It is a humanitarian issue. We have people
such as Joseph Kony who is out murdering children. He is able to do it
because he is taking part in the international arms trade. We are
trying to stop those things.
My earlier amendment makes it very clear, we cannot trump our own
second-amendment rights, but we can stop these children from being
killed because of this, and that is why I oppose the Inhofe
amendment. Let our negotiators negotiate. Any treaty still has to come
back here to get a two-thirds vote anyway.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has 18 seconds
remaining.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, the idea that we would have
to go to the international body to decide whether we would trade arms
with Israel is pretty disgusting. I want to make sure everyone
understands. This is the first time--probably the last time this year
that we are going to have a chance, an opportunity to vote for our
second amendment rights. I think my colleagues should take advantage of
it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. INHOFE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 91 Leg.]
YEAS--53
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Begich
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Donnelly
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--46
Baldwin
Baucus
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cowan
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harkin
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes equally divided
prior to a vote on the concurrent resolution.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, first of all, over the last two decades the
average budget resolution considered 78 amendments. We have done 101.
The average vote-arama is 35 amendments. We have done 70--twice as
many. Doing this has been a Herculean feat, but it has been done by the
leadership of Senator Murray, with Senator Sessions. I think we all
should recognize how hard this has been for Senator Murray.
(Senators applauding.)
Mr. McCONNELL. Would the majority leader yield?
Mr. REID. Yes, of course. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Murray,
Senator Sessions, and the majority leader for conducting an open and
complete and full debate. I know everyone is exhausted, and people may
not feel it at the moment, but this is one of the Senate's finest days
in recent years, and I commend everyone who has participated in this
extraordinary debate.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we don't have to have a quorum call. We are
not going to be voting from our desks, so everybody can go back to
regular disorder.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There will now be 2 minutes for debate
equally divided prior to a vote on the concurrent resolution.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. It is late--early in the morning. I want to take this
opportunity to thank my colleague Senator Sessions for a vigorous
debate and for all of our colleagues participating in this debate. I am
very proud of my colleagues. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have so enjoyed working with the
chairman. She has done a great job. She has managed this group as we
needed to be managed.
I am disappointed in the budget. It does not do the job for our
times.
I thank the Chair and look forward to the vote.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the
concurrent resolution, as amended.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 92 Leg.]
YEAS--50
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--49
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 8), as amended, was agreed
to.
(The concurrent resolution will be printed in a future edition of the
Record.)
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the Senate has passed a budget. I want
to thank all of my colleagues. I especially want to thank our staff who
[[Page S2320]]
have literally spent weeks and weeks and days and hours on this--Evan
Schatz and Mike Spahn and John Righter and the others who are sitting
behind us tonight--as well as Senator Sessions and all of his staff.
It is a tribute to their hard work and my lost voice that we are
sitting here tonight ready to take the next step to get our country
back on a better fiscal path.
I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I also would like to thank the staff.
My group is here. And I say to Senator Murray, your team is fabulous.
We work hard on bills that come through the Senate, and there are a
lot of challenges. But few are bigger than this, with all these
amendments--hundreds of them that came through--and it was a real
challenge.
I congratulate the staff, I congratulate the Senator's team, and I
hope we can continue to have good relations as we go forward and work
together.
I would mention Marcus Peacock, my staff director, who was fabulous.
He enjoyed every minute of this. I asked him how he was doing, and he
said: I am going to be sorry tomorrow when it is over. But maybe that
is a sign of sickness. I do not know.
I want to express my appreciation to my staff: Dan Kowalski, Bill
Beach, Greg D'Angelo, Gene Emmans, George Everly, Matt Giroux, Brittany
Godwin, Tori Gorman, Graham Hixon, Andrew Herther, Chris Jackson, Cari
Kelly, Joseph McCormack, Greg McNeill, Carlton Milsap, Marcus Peacock,
Kim Proctor, John Selden, William Smith, Paul Winfree, Stephen Miller,
Andrew Logan, Garrett Murch, and Katie Moses. I think that is
everybody. Tori Gorman has been back there in the center of that zoo
and did a great job for us trying to work on these amendments.
So, again, I would like to thank Senator Murray for her leadership,
helping us get through this difficult time, and it is good to say that
as of this time, 5 a.m., there has not been a day without a budget
being passed in the Senate.
(Laughter.)
Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________